Sitting of 20 November 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Association Football
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration she has given to the impact of the Bosman judgment on the future of association football in Britain. [480]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): A final decision on the Bosman case has not yet been made by the European Court of Justice. I am monitoring the situation closely.
    Mr. Betts: Does the Minister not recognise that the possibility of transfer fees and the transfer system ending in this country as a result of the Bosman judgment poses a real threat to many smaller league and non-league clubs that, without transfer fees, could go out of existence? I understand that, for some time, the Minister has been under pressure to take action from the Football Association. Will he set out precisely the Government's position, and say whether he is prepared to take the initiative on a Europewide basis, to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected and that transfer fees— without which they would go out of existence and the whole nature of the game in this country would be changed—continue to flow to smaller league and non-league clubs?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a serious matter. However, so far we have heard only an opinion from the Advocate-General, not from the European Court of Justice—which is likely to reach its verdict next January or February. We shall see what that says. As to extending the European Union's competence to matters of sport in this country, that would not be a good idea.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: While acknowledging that only an opinion, not a judgment, has been given, I wish to add to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). Many smaller league clubs, especially Vauxhall Conference clubs, would not be viable were it not from the transfer fees that they can obtain by acting as a nursery for players. Transfer fees are immensely important for league and non-league football. If the Government would take cognisance of that fact, I am sure that those clubs would be most grateful.
    Mr. Sproat: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in the Vauxhall Conference. I saw Mr. Garth
    318
    Crooks and Mr. Gordon Taylor last week, and on 29 November my right hon. Friend and I will be seeing representatives of the Football Association, the Football League and the Premier League. I am sure that the matter will be taken carefully into account at that meeting and at others.
    Mr. Pendry: In view of the serious implications for British soccer were Bosman to be enacted, why did not the Government join the German, Italian, French, Danish and other Governments in making representations to the European Court in defence of our transfer system? To make amends, when the Minister next meets representatives of the Football Association, will he agree to join other European Union countries in pressing for football to be included as an activity of cultural importance under article 128, so that football-related matters are taken into account within that article?
    Mr. Sproat: We did not go to the European Court of Justice because we think that it would be wrong to badger the court when it has not delivered its decision. When it has done so, we shall continue to monitor the matter closely. We are opposed to extending competence—and when the football authorities look closely at the possible consequences of extending EU competence to British sport, we think that they will agree.

    National Lottery
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the effect of the national lottery. [481]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The national lottery is an outstanding success. More than £1.2 billion of new money has been raised for the five good causes, with awards to more than 3,000 projects throughout the country so far. We are investing unprecedented sums in sport and culture. It will provide a huge boost to regeneration, jobs and prosperity.
    Sir David Knox: My right hon. Friend will be aware of concern about the national lottery's impact on charities. Does she think that that concern is justified?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is early days to form a judgment. The Home Office is undertaking its long-standing commitment to research the lottery's effect on charities, but there are examples of charities that have had a very good year. They include the Marie Curie Cancer Centre, the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund and the British Red Cross—all of which report a favourable year. In a recent MORI survey, while 2 per cent. of those questioned said that they might reduce the amount of money that they gave to charity while playing the lottery, 4 per cent. said that they intended to increase the sum.
    Mr. MacShane: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the Daily Mirror on its crusade against people under the age of 18 betting on the national lottery? One third of 11 to 14-year-olds to whom I recently spoke at a school in Rotherham said that they bet on it. Is the right hon. Lady not concerned that, unless the age limit for the lottery is raised to the same as it is for other

    319
    institutions on which people bet, she will go down in history as the woman who turned a nation's pre-adolescent schoolchildren into gambling junkies?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Our lottery, like others around the world, forbids children under 16 to play. I was delighted recently when Camelot withdrew the licence of a retailer who was knowingly selling to children under 16. It is vital that retailers who enjoy the huge benefits of the lottery understand the rules.
    The suggestion that children over 16 should not be able to play the lottery when they can get married at that age seems to me to take nannying to ludicrous heights. I am delighted that a great number of children's projects throughout the country have benefited greatly from the lottery. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is all right to buy cigarettes when over 16 but not to buy a lottery ticket, his judgment needs examining.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend accept that large jackpots and rollover jackpots sell more tickets, so more money goes to good causes? Is she also aware that some local charities raising money for revenue causes are finding it difficult to compete with some of the Camelot products? Will she please take revenue spending into account when looking at future developments for the lottery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to say that large jackpots result in even more for good causes. Oflot is instructed to ensure that we maximise the return for good causes. The £1.2 billion already raised shows just how successful our national lottery has been. In some circumstances, the distributing bodies can give a revenue grant. My hon. Friend will know that, with the distributing body chairmen, I am looking at the unfolding of the lottery to see whether any modifications of the rules would be appropriate.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: As the Secretary of State confers with the Home Secretary on the impact of the national lottery on charities, will she bear it in mind that four NOP surveys commissioned by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations have shown that members of the public have a greatly exaggerated view of the proportion of lottery turnover that goes to good causes? They think that about 20p in the pound, rather than the real figure of 5.6p, goes to them. The surveys also show that, by June of this year, 14 per cent. fewer people were giving to charity than in 1993, and that there has been a 10 per cent. fall in the number of people buying charity lottery and raffle tickets. Will she ensure that, while the national lottery continues to contribute importantly to good causes, any damaging features of its impact are remedied?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I regret that the hon. Gentleman's figures are inaccurate: 28p in the pound of lottery money goes to good causes—
    Mr. Howarth: Charities.
    Mrs. Bottomley: And the vast majority of that goes to charities, through the good causes, because most of the arts and sports money goes to good causes, supporting many disabled people's projects and extending access. In addition, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the UK Charities Lottery, which says that this year it has enjoyed a fivefold increase in the amount that it raises for charity.
    320
    That is another demonstration of the lottery producing more money for good causes and having a good effect on the country at large.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend highlight the beneficial effect of the national lottery on teenagers—contrary to what the Opposition have said? For instance, a gymnastic club in my constituency which caters for many talented teenagers, Meapa, has received nearly one third of a million pounds towards the building of a gymnasium, to be installed in a school in a deprived area of my constituency. It will be of immense value to teenagers there.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. Young and old throughout the country are benefiting from our successful lottery. The Labour party can only carp and criticise; it cannot abide success. There have been over 900 awards to sporting groups throughout the country, and an excellent number of arts projects have been supported. The success of the lottery has exceeded all expectations.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Given the large disparities in the allocation of awards and the disturbingly low level of awards to the northern region of England, including Merseyside and Cumbria, is the Secretary of State satisfied with the way in which resources are being distributed? Is she not concerned, for example, that the requirements for matching funding may be militating against some of the most disadvantaged regions and preventing them from obtaining a reasonable share of the very successful lottery proceeds? Will the right hon. Lady undertake to examine those problems and report to the House?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the great success of the lottery. It is early days to measure the effect of lottery awards on different parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that I wrote recently to all hon. Members inviting them explicitly to encourage good projects in the area that they represent to apply for lottery awards. As the year progresses, we shall examine the way in which different funding bodies have achieved successful awards in different areas. We shall then build further on the success of our remarkable lottery.

    Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting
    Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to safeguard the position of S4C on digital terrestrial broadcasting. [482]
    Mr. Sproat: Like the other terrestrial television channels, S4C will be offered a guaranteed place on one of the new digital multiplexes.
    Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister recognise that there will be fierce opposition in Wales to any failure to give S4C equality of treatment with all the other providers and channels on the digital system? Will he also recognise that to give parity to S4C would enable Channel 4 to be available in Wales in its entirety, which is what many people want, and enable the development of S4C services in many important, beneficial and positive directions? Would it not be ironic if an increase from four to 14 in the number of channels available led to a diminution, rather than an enhancement, of the service in Welsh? Will

    321
    the Minister give an undertaking that S4C will be given equality of treatment with all the other services in the digital system?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues for Wales. I can assure him that it is our policy to ensure that there is an even better service in Wales from Channel 4 and from S4C. Those, and other detailed, matters will be happily debated during the passage of the forthcoming broadcasting Bill.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my hon. Friend insist that Channel 4 in Wales, whether digital, terrestrial, or any other form of broadcasting, always upholds the highest standards and is never allowed to behave like the BBC, which has begun to act like a tabloid newspaper?
    Mr. Sproat: I am sure that both Channel 4 and the BBC will take note of my hon. Friend's wise words.
    Mr. Hain: May I press the Minister more strongly on a widely shared demand throughout Wales that people should be entitled to see both S4C and Channel 4, there being a growing interest in Channel 4? As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, digitalisation allows for many more channels. There will be plenty of scope to offer both S4C and Channel 4 to the people of Wales. I ask the Minister to be much more generous in his response, so as to reassure people in Wales that they will have that advantage.
    Mr. Sproat: At this stage, it would be appropriate only to say that I hope that both Channel 4 and S4C will, as a consequence of digitalisation and for other reasons, offer an even better service. The details will have to wait until the broadcasting Bill.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to review the funding of medical charities from the national lottery. [484]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: All the independent distributing bodies will consider applications from medical and caring charities. The National Lottery Charities Board, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, has decided to give a high priority to applications from charities working in health, in disability and in care. People suffering from long-term ill health; those with disabilities; people who care for the sick and elderly; and medical charities all stand to benefit from this programme.
    Mr. Merchant: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although many excellent charities have received generous awards from the lottery, nevertheless some of the beneficiaries that have been chosen have been remarkably strange? Would the public not benefit far more from popular awards to medical charities and other mainstream charities of that nature, which would help to give greater confidence in the lottery?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to say that many popular charities should receive help. That is why I am delighted today that the National Lottery Charities Board has announced a further 548 charities to be supported, to the tune of £35 million. They include a rehabilitation service for people with mental health problems in Birmingham; there is £384,000 for Arthritis
    322
    Care; money for playgroups; and awards for Samaritans, Age Concern and self-help groups. I hope that when my hon. Friend has time to study the detail of those awards, he will find that a great number of them meet with his approval.

    Television Without Frontiers Directive
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received concerning the proposals to amend the television without frontiers directive. [485]
    Mr. Sproat: The Government consulted extensively with audiovisual and advertising interests and are taking careful note of the views expressed.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that any tightening of the directive would be damaging to the broadcasting industry and would be likely to deter investment and further restrict the choice of the viewers? Can he therefore give me an assurance that the Government will vigorously oppose it at the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Sproat: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. Even as we have this Question Time, the Culture Council is meeting in Brussels, and the Government are opposing strongly any decrease in the flexibility that the current directive allows.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Minister meets his colleagues in Europe to discuss the directive, will he raise the question of sports broadcasting, and in particular the increasing anger and dismay among a vast number of people in this country at the number of major British sporting events that are now shown only on satellite and cable television? As a result, those events are not available to the majority of people who do not have those broadcasting outlets, and they cannot watch the major sporting events that they were able to watch in the past.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises a difficult and important question. I am not sure that it would be particularly appropriate to talk to other Ministers in Europe about it, but, as he will know, the Select Committee looked at it and the Government responded to it. Basically, the problem is to find a way in which those who previously watched sporting events on BBC or ITV for nothing, as it were—apart from the licence—are able to continue to do so, while also ensuring that sport greatly benefits from the money that the broadcasters pay, which is then ploughed back into youth sport. That is a difficult balance to keep. However, we shall look at it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forgo the opportunity of the broadcasting Bill to raise the matter powerfully in the House and in Committee.

    Overseas Visitors
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the latest statistics on overseas visitors to the United Kingdom, and the income that they generate; and if she will make a statement. [486]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Britain earns more from international tourism than from financial services or North sea oil. More than 21 million overseas visitors—a record number—came to the UK in 1994. In the first eight

    323
    months of this year, 15.7 million overseas visitors came to this country—an increase of 11 per cent. on the same period last year. Their spending amounted to £7.5 billion—up 12 per cent. on the same months in 1994.
    Mr. Coombs: It seems clear from those figures that we are heading for a record year for tourism in 1995. Does she agree that the remarkable turnaround in the British weather may have something to do with it? Will she take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the British Tourism Association and the English tourist board for the way in which they have responded to the challenges set them by the Government in reorganising themselves and the excellent work that they are now doing to boost tourism?
    Does she further agree that it would be a disaster for tourism in the United Kingdom if we were to sign up to the European social chapter, which the Leader of the Opposition seems to think is an a la carte menu but which would be a set of manacles around the ankle of every small business in the tourism industry—an industry that depends on easily obtained labour to be successful?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly share my hon. Friend's view, and commend his work in promoting the tourism industry, which is one of the most crucial industries not only in Britain but in the world today. He is absolutely right to say that that of all industries would stand to lose from the mad idea of signing up to the social chapter.
    According to Sir Rocco Forte, chairman of Trust House Forte and a member of the British Tourist Authority:
    "Social security costs make labour 50 per cent. more expensive in France and Germany, and 100 per cent. more expensive in Italy. The introduction of the Social Chapter and the imposition of a national minimum wage would have a devastating effect on the flexibility and competitiveness of this industry, which is one of the largest providers of employment in the UK."
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that our companies selling package tours are probably the best in Europe? If they operated in Europe bringing tourism into this country—on the basis on which we send tourism abroad—the figures that the right hon. Lady gave a moment ago would be considerably better.
    Mrs. Bottomley: That is an example of Labour's inability to learn anything, despite all its many years in opposition. Tourism, of all industries, involves seasonal and part-time work, and the part-time work, parental leave and works council directives would inflict damage and job losses on it. As has been pointed out, Butlins would become self-catering overnight. I am delighted to welcome tourists from the rest of Europe, and the fact that so many visit our wonderful heritage and arts facilities, which have benefited so greatly from our wonderful national lottery.
    Mr. Sykes: My right hon. Friend knows full well the adverse impact that badly run Department of Social Security hostels have on constituencies such as mine, in Scarborough and Whitby. Does she therefore welcome the new housing Bill, which would deal effectively with the problem once and for all?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend knows that I strongly support the campaign that, together with a number of our colleagues, he has been running. It is vital for our British tourist resorts to go from strength to strength. I, for one, always spend my holidays in the United Kingdom; I go
    324
    abroad to work, and stay at home to have a holiday. My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the damage that DSS hostels are doing to the tourist industry.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is not Britain losing out in the tough international battle for a greater share of world tourism—as evidenced by the fact that last year our share of international receipts from tourism fell by 2 per cent.?
    The right hon. Lady may take her holidays in Britain, but she certainly seems to work in cloud cuckoo land. The fact is that other European Union countries, in which the social chapter applies—Italy, France, Germany, Austria and Greece—are not at all put off by the "damaging" provisions of the social chapter; on the contrary, they believe that those provisions help their tourist industries.
    Given that one of the keys to future success is the stronger and more effective promotion of Britain abroad—particularly in the European Union—will the right hon. Lady increase the budget of the British Tourist Authority in real terms next year for that purpose?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I think that that constitutes a spending pledge from the Labour party. As we know, Labour's answer to every question of endeavour is to increase spending—but somehow we never hear about the taxes that they are going to increase, which would clearly impose a burden on industry.
    I shall, of course, examine the Department's priorities for the year ahead, but what would undoubtedly damage our tourist industry more than anything else would be the folly of signing up to the social chapter and the imposition of a statutory minimum wage. I am determined that we should do more to promote and encourage the tourist industry, and I was delighted that, last week, for the first time, the CBI chose to hold a session on the industry at its conference. That demonstrates the seriousness with which it—like the Government—takes this vital industry.
    Mr. Brandreth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 5.5 million people now visit Britain's premier tourist city—the city of Chester? One of the reasons for that is the expansion of Manchester airport. Will my right hon. Friend and her colleagues do everything they can to ensure that airports away from London continue to expand in the way that they have been expanding so that they will attract international visitors directly to the regions of the United Kingdom that are so enormously attractive to tourists?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I had thought that tourists also visited my hon. Friend's distinguished city because of the quality of its democratic representation by my hon. Friend. He speaks about the importance of transport. As with so many other policies, the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to improve law and order and to fight crime on the streets affects tourism. Transport policies and Department of the Environment policies also affect it, and our job is to maximise co-operation between local government and central Government Departments to promote this vital industry. I shall certainly pursue my hon. Friend's point about regional airports.
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new initiatives she proposes to take to encourage a greater proportion of overseas tourists to Britain to visit English regions outside the south-east. [487]
    Mr. Sproat: The whole of Britain, including the English regions, will benefit from the Government's new

    325
    initiatives to assist the tourism industry to become more competitive, which were announced in the document, "Tourism: Competing with the Best", published by my Department earlier this year.
    Mr. Bayley: Has the Minister seen the figures in the British Tourist Authority's latest report, which show that more than half of all overseas visitors to Britain come to London and that barely 40 per cent. visit the whole of the rest of England? Does he agree that a much more radical Government policy is called for to spread over the whole country the £10,000 million a year that overseas visitors spend and the 1.5 million jobs that they create? Will the Minister consider abolishing the airport tax for northern airports and consider something that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) implied— the need to build fast rail links from airports in the north to London, and the possible development of northern airports as an alternative to terminal 5 at Heathrow? Does he realise that every plane using Heathrow after crossing the north Atlantic has flown directly over Manchester and that it would save some 5 per cent. of its fuel, with environmental advantages, if it were to land at Manchester airport and people were to travel down to the south, if they wanted to visit it, by train?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree that it is extremely important that the 55 per cent. of tourists who come to London only are encouraged to travel as widely as possible throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the new market segmentation initiative that the British Tourist Authority is implementing in the United States will contribute to that. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point about taxation to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I shall draw his point about airports to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many charities which assist the elderly have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [488]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The lottery is for everyone; the silver generation will have access to facilities made possible by lottery funds including the arts, sport and heritage and community and environmental projects which are the focus of millennium funding. So far, 77 caring charities for elderly people, such as Age Concern, have benefited from total lottery grants of over £5 million.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national lottery is stimulating many innovative ideas in the voluntary sector as well as providing a valuable source of extra funding for it? What steps can be taken to ensure that local authorities do not use it as an excuse to cut their grants to the voluntary sector?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to ask us to ensure that the excellent lottery awards are not exploited by local authorities. All the distributing bodies are having discussions about precisely that. The lottery has led to the opportunity for regeneration and community involvement, and for participation in the arts, sport and heritage and in a range of caring projects. It has quite exceeded expectations, and it is making a lasting difference to life in this country.
    Mr. Fisher: Of course the lottery is a great success, but should not the Secretary of State temper her complacency about that? Would there not be more money to distribute to the elderly and other good causes if she acted more decisively on the distribution of lottery funds? Camelot has taken £392 million. That is 9 per cent. of the total and almost twice as much as the 5 per cent. that it is pledged to take.
    The boards are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds undistributed. Apart from the millennium board and the arts board, the record of boards is appalling. The heritage board is holding back nearly £200 million and the charities board, which should concern the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), has distributed only £75 million out of the £253 million it has received— less than 30 per cent. Should not the Secretary of State be a deal less complacent and galvanise herself into action to ensure that the boards distribute their money?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman speaks, as always, with the spirit of the Labour party: in tones of the politics of envy. The operator has organised the most efficient lottery in the world. After an open competition, it gave the best return for the good causes at the lowest cost. As ever, he cannot resist attacking the profit made by the operator, even though it is maximising return for good causes.
    It is important that all distributing bodies make urgent progress in ensuring that they continue to make their awards. The caring charities board had to start from scratch. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome today's extra announcements of the 548 charities that will benefit. He will be reassured to know that, while the money is waiting to be distributed, it is earning interest, which goes precisely to those good causes.
    Mr. Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the report that I heard on Radio Leicester as I was driving south this afternoon, which said that Age Concern, Leicester—a charity that certainly assists elderly people— has today received £100,000 from the charities board? Along with Lutterworth tennis club, which received £65,000 two weeks ago, and Cosby sports club, that shows that my constituents, both aged and younger, are certainly benefiting from charity.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm that today's announcements have been supported not only by Age Concern, Leicester, but by Age Concern, Durham, and that many projects—for guides, scouts, Samaritans, MIND and Mencap—have received substantial awards today. I urge hon. Members to ensure that charities in their constituency are aware of the opportunities of the lottery and apply for awards wherever they have a popular cause that should be supported.

    Scratchcards
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she next plans to meet representatives of Camelot to discuss problems arising from scratchcards. [489]
    Mr. Sproat: I have no current plans to meet Camelot. The director general has licensed it to run the national lottery and he regulates its operations.
    Mr. Heppell: I hope that the Minister is aware that a quarter of children under 16 are purchasing scratchcards

    327
    and that the Secretary of State is on record as saying that she supports such gambling. What is the difference between gambling on scratchcards and on horses, dogs or the football pools?
    Mr. Sproat: I make two responses to the hon. Gentleman's question, which I take as a very serious one. First, the House has regarded the lottery as the softer end of gambling and not the same as betting on dogs or horses or in casinos. Secondly, I agree that it is worrying if under-age children are playing scratchcards. I saw the figures that Mr. Peter Davis of Oflot is considering to decide whether further action needs to taken. Three retailers have been reported for selling to under-age children. One has lost its agency; the other two have been warned by trading standards.

    Lottery Distributions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the latest figures for lottery distributions per head of population in respect of each category on a regional basis. [490]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A full reply will be published in the Official Report.
    All the distributing bodies are required to comply with the directions under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. We want to ensure that the spread of rewards reaches all parts of the country. We are keeping arrangements under review.
    Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister accept that it is right for people in central London to get 600 times more per head from the lottery than, say, people in the east Midlands— £2.50p a head compared with £1,500 a head? Why should Sadler's Wells, the Royal Opera house, the Royal Court theatre and the Churchill papers get well over£100 million, while brass bands in the coalfields do not get anything?
    Will she put a stop to the suggestion in the press and elsewhere that there will be a fix in the run-up to the general election—that the Government intend to ensure that Tory marginals get more than their fair share of lottery funds? It is a scandal, and she should deny it or put a stop to it.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman speaks from complete ignorance. He is wrong to think that the majority

    National Lottery: Distribution of funds by region

    Population

    Per cent. of (UK) population

    Number of awards

    Total amount awarded £

    Amount per capita £

    England Region

    London

    6,933,000

    12

    204

    199,263,132

    28.74

    South East

    7,813,949

    13

    308

    74,708,086

    9.56

    East Midlands

    4,114,069

    7

    163

    17,206,396

    4.18

    Eastern

    5,259,958

    9

    181

    43,704,513

    8.31

    Merseyside

    1,441,000

    2

    29

    9,707,029

    6.74

    North East

    2,607,991

    4

    111

    23,423,202

    8.98

    North West

    5,478,725

    9

    253

    39,076,376

    7.13

    South West

    4,816,084

    8

    226

    36,035,486

    7.48

    West Midlands

    5,311,676

    9

    139

    31,744,219

    5.98

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    5,035,194

    9

    229

    71,541,712

    14.21

    Total England

    48,811,646

    83

    1,843

    546,410,151

    11.19

    Scotland

    5,120,200

    9

    468

    76,927,343

    15.02

    Wales

    2,906,500

    5

    250

    26,847,888

    9.24

    Northern Ireland

    1,632,000

    3

    190

    12,424,653

    7.61

    United Kingdom wide

    58,470,346

    100

    269

    64,816,995

    1.11

    Total United Kingdom

    58,470,346

    100

    3,020

    727,427,030

    12.44

    328
    of lottery awards go to Conservative marginal constituencies; in fact, the vast majority go to regeneration projects in inner-city areas. I urge him to consult the list of awards, which is published every month and is available in the House.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will commend the grant of £2,397 to the Bolsover Elderly Self Help Group, although it may be a little premature for him. Alternatively, he may wish to get on his bike and try the 2,400 cycle tracks being built throughout the country.
    Mr. Skinner: Not in Bolsover.
    Mrs. Bottomley: All parts of the country are benefiting from the lottery. In the east midlands, so far there have been 163 awards amounting to £17 million. I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not have an especially low profile. I suggest that he takes the opportunity of his own personality to go around the east midlands and ensure that people apply to benefit from the lottery.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is it not natural that many national institutes are based in London? Would it not be quite wrong to include them, on a regional basis, in the amounts of money going to London? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that and also that she—or the various distributing charities—is giving fair consideration to London bodies that are not national and are not situated in central London but deserve equal consideration?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be aware that a third of the population lives in the Thames region and that many of our national institutions are situated in London. Those institutions give a good name to Britain, promote the tourist industry and are centres of excellence. The challenge is to have a tapestry of provision, including the flagship projects, spreading throughout the country. So far, 90 bowling clubs have received support, but they are not all in London; 86 theatres have received support, but they are not all in London; and more than 40 museums and galleries have received support. As the lottery unfolds, there will be plenty of opportunities to revise the distribution to ensure that all parts of the country benefit.
    Following is the information:

    Boxing
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last met the members of the British Boxing Board of Control to discuss regulation of the sport. [492]
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met the members of the British Boxing Board of Control. The regulation of boxing is a matter for the board.
    Mr. Cox: I note the Minister's reply, but is he aware of what has happened in British boxing in the past year? There has been death, serious injury, violence by spectators outside the ring and the continuing habit of many boxers, prior to contests, to say what they intend to do to their opponent once the fight begins. Is it not time that the Minister told the BBBC to begin to put its house in order, before the demands to ban boxing become even stronger?
    Mr. Sproat: I am aware of the background facts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On the question of the BBBC putting its house in order, in the past few weeks it has announced measures to strengthen safeguards—for example, new dehydration laws, an new annual scan and doctors being given easier access to the ring. In fact, British boxing is more stringently controlled than boxing anywhere else in the world.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no room for complacency but that the people who seek to attack or abolish boxing will not succeed, that the sport is popular and that it gives many boys an opportunity to progress in life that they would not otherwise have? Does he further agree that it would be a disaster and extremely dangerous for such individuals if the sport were forced underground?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that count. Countries such as Iceland have banned professional boxing but Icelandic boxers simply go elsewhere to practise the sport.

    Tourism
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received from the tourist industry in support of the greater harmonisation of policies on tourism in the European Union. [493]
    Mr. Sproat: We consulted a number of trade associations and others on the recent European Green Paper on tourism. Most wanted to see increased awareness by European institutions of the needs of the tourism industry, but the overwhelming view was that greater harmonisation was neither necessary nor desirable.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most vulnerable sectors of the English tourist industry— most notably, small guest houses and hotels—feels especially aggrieved at having to compete unfairly with the much lower VAT rates levied in other member states of the European Union and without the benefit of development grants, which continue to be enjoyed by competitors in Wales and Scotland as well as in France and elsewhere? What representations will he make in
    330
    favour of fairer competition between the tourist industries of the member states of the European Union, not least at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Sproat: A reduction in VAT for the tourist businesses to which my hon. Friend refers is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. As for European funds, however, we have allocated some £200 million of European regional development fund money to tourism projects for the next five years. I very much hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will try to take advantage of that.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reform the legal aid system. [513]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): The Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper on the future of legal aid in May. More than 180 responses have been received and are being analysed. A series of meetings is being arranged with some of the major respondents to allow them to expand on their views. The Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation process in the new year.
    Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware how popular many of the measures outlined in the Green Paper are? Would he be prepared to outline some of the main improvements in the operation of the legal aid system which will flow from the Green Paper and which will be welcomed by the people of this country?
    Mr. Taylor: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's typically constructive question. The main features of the Green Paper that commend themselves to me are the expectation of developing franchising, standard fees, a wider range of providers of legal services, targeting legal aid on those whose need is greatest and achieving more control of overall expenditure.
    Mrs. Dun woody: Will the Minister consider carefully, however, those cases in which solicitors receive legal aid payments for well over a year, whereas the claimant receives no support and is told simply at a certain point that the case cannot be continued? There is clear evidence that that happens in a number of areas, and it undermines belief in British justice if my constituents are continually given legal aid certificates but are not allowed to pursue their cases.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, for which I am not completely without sympathy. The sort of difficulty to which she refers has occurred in what are sometimes called multi-party actions. I agree that multi-party actions must be dealt with more efficiently and cost-effectively. The Green Paper suggests that such actions should be funded from a national reserve fund for very high-cost cases. I realise, however, how frustrating it must be for a litigant to be told halfway through the conduct of a case that the balance of advantage between cost and yield does not sustain the case further.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it sticks in the gullet of most taxpayers that some

    331
    apparently very wealthy individuals seem to be able to get legal aid? Why should Mr. Ernest Saunders, Lord Brocket and Mr. Roger Levitt receive legal aid when their life styles are the envy of most taxpayers?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend returns with consistency to this subject. Although I do not normally comment on individual cases, I should tell him that the granting of legal aid to Lord Brocket is a matter for the court hearing the case, and, in the case of Mr. Picarda, is a matter for the Legal Aid Board. My hon. Friend will remember that we issued a consultation document on legal aid for the apparently wealthy. We have received the results of the consultation, we are measuring the various proposals that are in hand and action must and will be taken.

    Civil Appeals
    Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to reduce delays in civil appeals. [500]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Three additional lord justices were appointed earlier in the year and other measures intended to improve efficiency have been introduced in the civil appeals division. The Lord Chancellor is considering making further additional appointments.
    Mr. Anderson: Even in the light of those welcome developments, the Minister will know of last week's warning by the Master of the Rolls in his annual review that delays are an affront to justice. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it scandalous that the process takes perhaps an average of three years in London from the time of setting down to trial, and thereafter perhaps another 18 to 19 months for more than 70 per cent. of cases to reach a hearing in the Court of Appeal?
    Mr. Taylor: For 70 per cent. of appeals, the period from setting down to hearing is 18 to 19 months. The hear-by period for cases involving children, which are given higher priority, is now five months. Having said that, I am not at all complacent about the figures. My Department naturally pays the most careful and respectful attention to the observations of the Master of the Rolls. The Lord Chancellor keeps the situation under review. It is under review; we are not content.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that to everyone concerned with the legal process justice delayed is justice denied? Will he take this opportunity to comment on the progress with Lord Woolf's reviews and recommendations to see whether some of them may assist in reducing delays in civil appeals?
    Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. Lord Woolf's second and final report, which is keenly anticipated, will, I hope, give us the full range of guidance that we have looked forward to resulting from Lord Woolf's admirable work. My hon. Friend will know that one of the recommendations is already in place: the increase in the small claim limit from £1,000 to £3,000 in non-personal injury cases.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why is the Master of the Rolls so angry?
    Mr. Taylor: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is the least petulant Member of the House. I do not think that those words lie very well on his lips at all.
    Mr. Boateng: What is the Minister's response to Lord Woolf's concern at the increasing back-door privatisation
    332
    of the Court Service through the private finance initiative? Why has he not responded to Lord Woolf's challenge to consult the judiciary on that issue? What is the benefit to the consumer and the citizen of hiving off large chunks of the Court Service—its administrative and quasi-judicial functions—to multinational companies? Is it not right to say that British justice should be in the hands of the British public and that market forces have no role to play in the fair and proper administration of justice?
    Mr. Taylor: The judiciary will be consulted. The trade unions will be consulted, and at their request the consultation period has been put back from 17 November to 21 December. Having the best possible modern kit in the courts to help with their administration is not inimical to good justice; it will help good justice.

    Family (Definition)
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what definition is given to the term family in its use by his Department. [514]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I share with my hon. Friend the fact that there is no one legal definition of "family". Even in its general sense, it is a word that is capable of many applications.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my hon. Friend concede that the term "family" is ordinarily associated with the institution of marriage, the mainstay of our society? Does he agree that to use it in other than a strict defined sense, as in the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, further undermines our most important institution, and aids and abets those on the left and elsewhere who are dedicated to its downfall? Will he undertake to ensure that his Department does not use the term inadvisedly, lightly or wantonly in future?
    Mr. Taylor: I am quite sure that my Department will not use the word lightly. I do not believe that the legislative proposals undermine marriage. If they discriminate at all, they discriminate against violence and they provide the courts with a range of remedies. Furthermore, they simplify the rules of the magistrates court, the county court and the High Court so that on this subject all the procedures are the same.
    If my hon. Friend wants me to make a comment about marriage, I shall. I quote my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who said the other day:
    "A successful marriage is surely the most satisfying of all relationships between human beings. To have such a marriage is a precious privilege".
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that the law should provide equal protection for all children, irrespective of the marital status of their parents?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, the welfare of children, irrespective of the marital status of their parents, is the absolute paramount consideration that should govern the judgment of any court of law.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, when things go wrong, people have others to turn to? They can often turn to their families. Some who get into trouble with the law can turn to the probation service. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to its work of trying to help people to get back on the straight and narrow?
    Mr. Taylor: With the greatest of pleasure, and wholeheartedly.

    Probate Service
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many probate service offices will be closed following implementation of the report on the structure of the probate service. [515]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I cannot comment at this stage, because the recommendations contained in the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers are the subject of an extensive public consultation exercise that does not close until 21 December.
    Mr. Cunningham: As the Minister cannot answer the question, will he tell me when the cuts in the legal aid system will stop? Legal aid has been cut and the probation service has been cut. There is now the threat of cuts to the probate service. When will this stop?
    Mr. Taylor: The probate service believes that the proposed closures strike the right balance between meeting the needs of customers and ensuring that the service is run in the most efficient and economical way. New probate offices will be established in place of almost all probate sub-registries.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions he has had about legislation to deal with the problem of domestic violence. [517]
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I have had a number of discussions with colleagues and others. It is not, however, my practice to disclose consultations with other members of the Government.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of a report that the Lord Chancellor recently met a group of Tory Back Benchers, who apparently tried to pressurise him into diluting or dropping legislation to stop domestic violence, may we have an absolute assurance that the legislation will give top priority to the protection of victims of domestic violence, rather than give in to the prejudices of a few unrepresentative Tory right wingers?
    Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not accept his question in exactly those terms. The truth, stripped of some of the more exciting passages of his question, is that at a late stage in its progress and close to Prorogation, a Bill that had been seen to be uncontroversial attracted controversy. It has been brought back so that it can be debated on the Floor of the House—here it is.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that at no time during our meeting with the Lord Chancellor and his Department did my colleagues or I apply pressure for any dilution of measures to help the victims of domestic violence? Will he confirm that our concerns were that the Bill's provisions would result in co-habitees being given the same rights as married people—a matter about which we have grave concerns?
    Mr. Taylor: I did not hear all of my hon. Friend's question clearly, but as a consequence of the meeting to which she referred, other considerations and advice from other quarters, four amendments have been tabled to what was the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. The first proposes a general instruction to courts that when they are considering making any occupational order in favour of a co-habitant, they must consider the fact that the co-habitant has not entered into the same commitment as a married person. I will not give a litany of all four amendments this afternoon, but I will be very surprised if that amendment does not commend itself to my hon. Friends who are concerned with these matters.

Asylum and Immigration
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg leave to make a statement about asylum and immigration. We debate home affairs tomorrow. In order that the debate should be better informed, it seems right that I should explain to the House today the proposals in the Bill which I shall be introducing shortly.
During the debate on the Address last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"While I lead it, the instincts of my party will not be to play race at any time, in any way, on any occasion or upon any provocation. That will not be our policy".—[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 39.]
I wholeheartedly support and endorse my right hon. Friend's statement. The Government have always attached the very greatest priority to preserving good race relations in this country, and it has consistently been our policy that fair but firm and effective immigration control is a necessary condition for doing so.
We must be prepared to respond quickly when new threats to that control emerge. This is something that successive Governments have done over the years. I have a number of proposals to announce today. All are consistent with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. None will reduce in any way the rights of those who presently qualify to come to this country to live.
This country has a long and honourable tradition of providing refuge to those who really are fleeing persecution. We were one of the first countries to respond to a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for additional temporary protection places for people from the former Yugoslavia, when in August I agreed to provide an additional 500 places on top of the existing scheme for 1,000.
But our asylum procedures are increasingly being abused. The scale of the problem is alarming. Asylum applications have been rising sharply. They have grown from 2,000 a month at the beginning of 1994 to 4,500 last month.
The trend here is in marked contrast to the position in the rest of western Europe. Other countries have strengthened their defences against abusive asylum claims and have experienced substantial reductions. Asylum claims fell by more than 40 per cent. in the main western European countries in 1994, but rose by 45 per cent. here.
Moreover, only 4 per cent. of applicants are initially granted asylum, and only 4 per cent. of appeals against refusal are allowed by the independent adjudicators. Seventy per cent. of claims are made, not on arrival in this country—as one would expect of any genuine refugee—but after gaining entry on another basis, and often only when leave is about to expire or removal about to take place.
The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 initially helped us to bring down decision times dramatically, from 18 months to four for a new claim. But the relentless rise in claims has outstripped the improvements in our ability to process them. By claiming asylum, those who have no basis to remain here can not only substantially prolong their stay, but gain access to
336
benefit and housing at public expense. The population of asylum applicants has now reached 75,000. The annual cost in benefit alone is more than £200 million.
Over the years, we have increased asylum resources very substantially. The number of asylum case workers has risen 700 per cent. since 1988. We took 25,000 asylum decisions in the 12 months to last June, compared with 15,000 during the preceding year.
In February, I announced that we were investing a further £37 million over three years in extra asylum case workers and adjudicators. This will make it possible to deal with at least 37,000 claims a year from 1996 onwards. If applications had remained stable, backlogs and decision times would have started coming down from next year. But 1995 is already heading for an even higher intake. We risk becoming trapped in a vicious circle, with growing delays attracting more abusive claims. It is now clear that we need action across the board to strengthen the legislation, streamline decisions and appeals, and discourage unfounded claims.
The present benefit rules are an open invitation to persons from abroad to make unfounded asylum claims. Of the 40,000 asylum applicants currently being supported on benefit, very few will be found to merit asylum or exceptional leave to remain. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has therefore been consulting on proposals to limit the availability of benefits to asylum applicants. We propose that child benefit should be restricted in the same way.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that the same arguments apply in relation to social housing. Proposals for legislation will be brought forward to restrict the housing entitlement of asylum applicants broadly in line with the benefit restrictions.
However, this action is not enough. That is why the Asylum and Immigration Bill is necessary. The asylum part will have three main elements. First, it will enable me to designate selected countries of origin as not giving rise to a serious risk of persecution. Some countries generate large numbers of asylum applications but hardly any genuine refugees. Refusal will not be automatic, but there will in effect be a rebuttable presumption against claims from designated countries and these claims will be dealt with speedily.
The list of countries to be designated will be laid before Parliament. I intend to inform the House of the likely candidates at an early stage during the passage of the Bill, but I can say now that Nigeria is not and never has been among them. Germany and Holland have recently introduced lists of precisely this kind. We are not setting a precedent. We are following their example.
Secondly, the Bill will make appeals against return to a safe third country exercisable only after removal. This will apply to a person who claims asylum after travelling from his country of origin through a third country— usually one of our neighbours, such as France or Germany—in which the application for asylum should have been made. What frequently happens now is that removal is delayed while appellants seek to dispute the safety of such countries. By the time the appeal is over, the third country often refuses to take them back, and we have to admit the applicant here. That is not acceptable.
Thirdly, the Bill will remove a number of obstacles to the effective operation of the 1993 Act. For example,

337
it will enable us to extend the existing accelerated appeal procedure to a wider range of cases, such as those from designated countries, and those in which asylum is claimed at the last minute in order to fend off removal.
I also intend to make a radical improvement in the way in which asylum claims are handled in the Home Office. This does not require legislation. A new procedure which we have been piloting since May has confirmed that it is possible to decide straightforward cases within a much shorter time scale than previously—usually within a month. Applicants are interviewed quickly, and given a deadline for submitting further representations. The normal level of consideration and appeal rights still applies. I now propose to extend the use of that procedure.
We also need to do more to speed up asylum appeals. A consultancy report last year found evidence of deliberate time wasting. We need to strengthen the powers of adjudicators—for example, by enabling them to make directions and impose deadlines for preparation of cases. The Lord Chancellor has been consulting the Immigration Appellate Authority, and will invite comments from interested organisations on proposed rule changes as soon as possible.
In addition, there are other threats to immigration control that we need to address. We need to act to deter employers from giving jobs to people from abroad who are here illegally or are subject to a provision prohibiting them from working. The fact that those people can get jobs quite easily—at the expense of those who are entitled to live and work here—is one of the main reasons why the United Kingdom is seen as such an attractive destination to asylum seekers. Other European countries have recognised those risks and responded to them. The Irish Republic is the only other member state of the European Union that does not have controls of that kind in place.
The Bill will therefore make it a criminal offence to employ a person not entitled to work in the United Kingdom; but there will also be a range of defences available to employers. Any employer who has taken one of the prescribed steps will be sure that he is not committing an offence.
One of those defences will be based on national insurance numbers, but other documents could also be used. I am confident that my proposals will not impose significant new burdens on employers. I am today issuing a consultation document to employers' organisations and others. If the responses suggest that changes are required to the detail of my proposals, I will bring forward appropriate amendments.
I know that concerns have been expressed that my proposals would lead to employers adopting discriminatory recruitment practices. In developing my proposals, I have been concerned that that should not be the case.
I believe that most employers want to ensure that their selection processes are fair and lawful. My Department will therefore provide advice and guidance on how to carry out checks on applicants in ways that will not discriminate against any group.
My objective in bringing forward these proposals is not to make life difficult for responsible employers. The target is people who work here without authority, and who take
338
jobs from others. But just as it is an offence to work here illegally, so it must be an offence to employ someone who is not entitled to work here.
The Bill will also strengthen the enforcement of immigration control in a number of detailed but important respects. In particular, I intend to take firm action against racketeers who encourage the use of deception to circumvent our controls. Those activities will be punishable with up to seven years' imprisonment.
For far too many people across the world, this country is far too attractive a destination for bogus asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants. The reason is simple: it is far easier to obtain access to jobs and benefits here than almost anywhere else. That is the problem that these measures are intended to remedy. They are fully compatible with our international obligations, they are fair, and they are very necessary.
I have clearly identified the problems. I have shown how we intend to deal with them. If there are those who deny that there are problems, I hope that they will say so. If there are those who accept that there are problems but have other ways of dealing with them, I hope they will tell us what they are. Much has been said about the desirability of taking this issue out of party politics. I agree with that view.
There is one very simple way in which that can be achieved. These measures represent a balanced response to a clear and serious problem. They deserve support on both sides of this House. I invite the Opposition to take this issue out of party politics by indicating today that they support these measures, and will assist in their passage through Parliament.
Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that we believe that fraudulent asylum seekers must quickly be weeded out, and that the whole process must be speeded up—but that it must work in a way that is fair and just to any genuine applicant? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the issue has so far proved controversial because of widely shared concern, as acknowledged by the Prime Minister last week, that the proposals may damage race relations and may not work effectively?
If the Secretary of State now accepts that the issue should be taken out of party politics, surely it should be the subject of cool examination by a Special Standing Committee of the House, with the intention of removing controversy? Is not the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to publish today two lengthy and complicated documents about just part of his proposals further evidence of the need for such examination?
Is the Secretary of State aware that he was misinformed when he said on radio this morning that the Special Standing Committee procedure was never designed for such measures? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, to support his claim, bizarrely quoted a 1993 White Paper, which turns out to be one on Scotland and the Union. The scrutiny of Bills is the responsibility not of the Government but of the House.
Does not the Secretary of State recall that, in 1986, the House accepted a recommendation of the Procedure Committee that the Special Standing Committee process should permanently be incorporated into the Standing Orders of the House? The Procedure Committee stated that a "wider range of Bills" should be examined by such

339
a process. The House defeated an attempt by the Government to control the circumstances in which that procedure could be used.
Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that careful scrutiny is one of the best guarantors of good legislation? Its absence explains the failure of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. The then Home Secretary told the House that his 1992 Bill, which became the 1993 Act, would protect against fraud, provide a quicker system to deal with manifestly unfounded claims, and achieve a way of reaching prompt and fair decisions.
Is the Secretary of State aware that his predecessor set an explicit time limit of three months from initial application to the disposal of the appeal, in the full expectation that the total number of applications would rise in future? Instead of applications and appeals being dealt with in three months, they are now taking an average of 19 months. How much have efforts by the Home Office to short-cut delays by predetermining applications from allegedly safe countries complicated procedures still further, and extended delays?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that Nigeria has not been, and will not be, on any so-called "white list". How can he explain the fact that, last year, of 1,495 applications for asylum from Nigeria, only one was accepted? How can that happen, when the whole world knows of the appalling brutality of the Nigerian regime—not least through the judicial murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogonis?
The Secretary of State also claimed on radio this morning that his Bill has "absolutely nothing" to do with race. How does he square that statement with the opposite view of many organisations that normally support the Government? How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman respond to the comments of the Confederation of British Industry, British Chambers of Commerce and Institute of Directors, which stated that it was
"very uneasy about the effect of his proposals … upon community relations"
and that they could lead to businesses
"being branded as racist by the popular press"?
What has the Home Secretary told the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who as recently as September said of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's plans for employer checks that they could result in "racist discrimination"? If those concerns are unfounded, what on earth has the Secretary of State to fear from their examination by a Special Standing Committee?
Should not a Special Standing Committee also be able to examine the Secretary of State's proposals in respect of national insurance numbers—which he has mentioned today—as the Lord Chancellor, in a letter to the Secretary of State in September, described these proposals as having "unlikely viability"?
If the Secretary of State wishes to reassure the public that the proposals have nothing to do with race, is it not time for him to do what so far the Prime Minister has refused to do—to repudiate that chilling and incriminating statement from Mr. Andrew Lansley, the former head of the Conservative research department and now a Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire, who said in September that immigration is an issue
340
"which has more potential to hurt"?
If that was not an invitation to play the race card, what is?
It is the delay in dealing with applications, appeals and removals that is the cause of asylum problems, and of the mounting benefit bill. Those delays have to be tackled; but, given the failure of the 1993 Act, the most serious questions must be raised about whether these proposals will work any more effectively or fairly. If the Secretary of State shares our aim, he will be helped, not hindered, by an examination of the proposals by a Special Standing Committee. If he does not, will he tell the House why?
On the other hand, if the Secretary of State has changed his mind and will now accept this proposal, let me give him an assurance and a guarantee here and now that the House will have our full co-operation in making the process work.
Mr. Howard: If the opening suggestions of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—that the Opposition were determined to deal with bogus asylum seekers—had any credibility at all, he would have expressed his support for these measures. The truth of the matter is that, although I listened very carefully to every word that the hon. Gentleman said, we still do not know what the attitude of the Opposition is to these measures.
The hon. Gentleman has travelled a considerable way in his attitude to these measures. At his party conference, he said:
"We shall oppose the promised Bill on Asylum and Immigration".
On 26 October, he said that Labour would have "no truck" with these proposals. He has since been forced to backtrack, publicly humiliated by the leader of his party. Last week, the hon. Gentleman said of the Bill:
"we will finally make our decisions on how we are going to vote when we see its terms".
Now they know the terms—when will we hear what they think about these proposals?
A Special Standing Committee is a procedure suitable for non-controversial, technical Bills. We have had six immigration Bills since that procedure was introduced, and it has been used for none of them. There is no more reason why that procedure should be used for this Bill than for any other controversial measure. The Bill will receive full and cool scrutiny in Standing Committee in the normal way, and the Government will, of course, listen to the proposals that are made in that Committee.
The 1993 Act has made a contribution to solving the problem, but we did not anticipate at the time that that measure was enacted that the increase in the number of applications would be on such a scale—at a time, I repeat, when the number of applications for the rest of Europe is falling.
It is true that the time limits that were set are not being kept. They are not being kept for the reason that I cited in my opening statement. It was found by the independent consultants who looked at the matter that the procedures are being abused, exploited and manipulated, so that the time limits cannot be adhered to.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of applications from Nigeria that are accepted. Those decisions are not made by Ministers. In the first instance, they are made by immigration officials, and they are then subject to appeal to adjudicators. Every applicant has to establish a well founded fear of persecution. It is on that basis that applications have not been accepted.

341
I dealt with racism in my opening statement. There is no question of racism in my proposals. I have never discussed the matter with Mr. Lansley. The proposals that I have put forward are a measured response to a serious problem. It is on that basis that I commend them to the House.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend said that he has no intention of watering down in any way the United Kingdom's compliance with its international obligations under the 1951 convention. He said also that we are following other notable liberal countries with the designated list idea. Am I right in saying that, if an individual from a country on the designated list can, against expectation, establish that he or she has a well founded fear of persecution, he or she could be admitted?
It seems that my right hon. and learned Friend has listened carefully to points of view put to him in the past and has shown in the procedure which he has described a willingness to listen in future on particular issues which he outlined.
We have heard the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The statement appeared to me to be one that should have been made on Second Reading. I shall not allow many questions, because we shall have a debate on the issue tomorrow. We shall also have a Second Reading debate on the Bill. I want direct questions to the Home Secretary, so that we might get on with our business.
Mr. Hurd: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to do his utmost to encourage the many people outside the House who feel genuinely about the refugee question to study the worsening problem which he has described and the reasonable remedies that he has proposed? They should not be misled into immediate and ill thought out opposition to what my right hon. and learned Friend says.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words of support. I can confirm that all my proposals are consistent with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. I can confirm also that, if individual applicants from countries on the designated list, all of whom will have their applications individually considered, establish a well founded fear of persecution, their applications for asylum will be granted.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of those organisations that understandably and rightly feel strongly about these issues studying carefully the details of my proposals, which I am convinced should reassure them.
Sir David Steel: Buried in the Home Secretary's lengthy statement was the phrase, yet again, that our immigration regulations are "firm and fair". Will he accept that, for many individuals, the regulations turn out, because they divide their families, to be harsh and draconian? That is the effect that they have on individuals.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that the proposals are uncontroversial, and if they are really to deal with racketeering and bogus asylum seekers—on that basis, they would be met with agreement across the Floor
342
of the House—why does he not accept the case for a Special Standing Committee? Surely that would make the proposals uncontroversial.
May I ask the Home Secretary yet again—this is the third time that the point has been made—to accept that he must repudiate Mr. Lansley's words? He is not merely a former director of research at Conservative central office. Mr. Lansley will be a candidate at the general election. Two months ago, he was reported in The Observer as saying:
"Immigration, an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 … played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt."
As the son of an immigrant, the Home Secretary should specifically repudiate what Mr. Lansley said. Only then can we accept that the Government are not playing the race card.
Lastly, as the Home Secretary asked for some alternative proposals, may I plead with him to use his position in the Cabinet to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's policy of good governance overseas is not just left to occasional statements from Lady Chalker but is applied across the board with greater diligence so that those despotic regimes, particularly on the continent of Africa, are disposed of, in concert with our allies in France and Belgium, and replaced by regimes that have a sense of democracy and accountability, and put pressure on those Governments instead of individuals?
An hon. Member: That is too long.
Madam Speaker: Order. I need no instructions from the Whips on the Front Bench.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman— [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I will have no insolence either from the Whips on the Front Bench.
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman's last question went some way beyond the scope of this statement. He knows that we share his concern on these issues. I hope that he will share a recognition of the limited powers that we have over regimes of countries in other parts of the world.
The other points that he raised were really not new. I gave, in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), a full explanation of why the Special Standing Committee procedure would be quite inappropriate for legislation of this kind. It has never been used for such legislation, and it is not necessary.
As for what was said by Mr. Lansley, again I repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman: I have never discussed this matter with Mr. Lansley. I made these proposals as a measured response to a serious problem. We want to know from the Opposition parties whether they agree that there is a problem, and that this is the way to deal with them.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my right hon. and learned Friend place in the Official Report a list of the countries in western Europe that have tried to strengthen their defences, and also indicate in the table the way in which that has been effected? Will he give a further assurance, which would clear up the matter for the House, that genuine cases will not be affected?
Mr. Howard: I shall do my best to comply with my hon. Friend's first request. So far as the second is

343
concerned, I have borne in mind throughout the preparation of these proposals the importance of doing nothing to imperil this country's honourable tradition of offering sanctuary to genuine refugees. We should be a haven, not a honey pot.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my parents came to this country from eastern Europe in the first half of this century, seeking refuge from political and religious persecution? Does he recollect that I was for a period shadow Home Secretary? If I had become Home Secretary, would he have regarded it as seemly of me if, to the detriment of others in the predicament that my parents were in, I had changed the law that enabled them to obtain refuge here, which enabled me to be born here and enabled me to be elected to the House and to hold office in the Government?
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman's question is entirely misconceived, for the simple reason that nothing that I have suggested today in any way changes the entitlement of people to come to this country. Everyone who is entitled to come here to live today will continue to be entitled to come here to live when the proposals become law. So the right hon. Gentleman's question is utterly irrelevant, and has nothing whatever to do with the proposals, which are designed solely to deal with bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants who are not entitled to come to this country to live.
Mr. Jim Lester: My right hon. and learned Friend and I agree that there is a problem. After the passage of the 1993 Act, which was intended to deal partially with the problem, many people gave evidence and made suggestions about how it could be improved. Those suggestions were not taken into account, and one of the reasons why the Act has failed, I suspect, is that people who are practitioners did not have that opportunity.
Surely there can be some mechanism whereby people can give evidence on what my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do, before the passage of the proposed legislation, in an attempt to make it work, and therefore to prove to all that what we are seeking to do is fair and effective, and fulfils our international obligations.
Mr. Howard: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall listen carefully to any representations that are made. That is one of the reasons why we are publishing a consultation document today on the provisions relating to employers. I am sure that we will receive representations from many sources, and they will all be considered carefully and taken into account.
Mr. Max Madden: May I appeal to the Home Secretary to exercise—unusually—some modesty in this context? He has admitted that the Government have introduced six immigration Bills since they came to office; indeed, I had the misfortune to serve on three of the Standing Committees that considered the legislation. He must also be admitting, in presenting yet another Bill, that those earlier Bills failed to address the issues that they were introduced to tackle.
May I therefore urge the Home Secretary to give careful consideration to the suggestion that a Special Standing Committee—or a special inquiry by the Select
344
Committee on Home Affairs—be established to weigh the issues before the Standing Committee deals with the Bill? Time cannot be an issue: it could be done within a month if the political will existed. I urge the Home Secretary to consider such action, which would remove the suspicion among ethnic minorities that the legislation is unjust and discriminatory, and the feeling among many employers that it is totally unfair and unenforceable.
Mr. Howard: I do not accept for a moment that the earlier Bills failed. We must be prepared to view the problem afresh, in the light of changed circumstances. Anyone who thinks that circumstances of this kind do not change, and that it is possible to legislate once and for all and then forget about the matter, is living in a dream world. We must be prepared to examine such matters on a continuing basis, so that, when new problems occur, we can deal with them afresh.
The proposal for a special procedure is nothing more or less than a diversionary tactic. What we expect, and what the country expects, is examination of our proposals on their merits; and we want the Opposition to tell us whether they agree with them.
Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only people who have anything to fear from the Bill are those who are not genuine asylum seekers, but are merely trying to exploit a loophole in the law for their own economic advantage? Is not the Labour party now supporting those exploiters in their attempts to rip off this country and its people?
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend: in the absence of any indication of Labour's attitude to our proposals, that is rapidly becoming the only sensible inference to be drawn.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Home Secretary aware that, for 40 years before the last war, Select Bill Committees were set up specifically to deal with matters of technical and social complexity? Two Select Committees—Mr. Turton's Committee of 1970–71 and Mr. Williams's Committee of 1977–78— recommended a procedure similar to the special Bill procedure. Such a procedure would allow alternative methods to those proposed by the Home Secretary to be exercised by those who know and understand.
Would not the desire of both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Prime Minister for the matters involved to be dealt with without party controversy be fulfilled only if such a Committee met and took evidence? Without that opportunity, what the Home Secretary wants—as do I, and as do many other right hon. and hon. Members—would not be seen to be done.
Mr. Howard: I must confess that I do not recall what was done 40 years before the last war. The fact is, however, that this afternoon the Opposition are demonstrating a readiness to talk about anything and everything except the merits of our proposals. They are serious proposals, and we want a serious response from the Labour party, rather than a series of diversionary tactics.
Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. and learned Friend's proposals are most welcome, provided that they can deliver practical results. Does he

345
accept that a Bill by itself will not deter bogus asylum seekers, any more than Canute could stop the tide? Therefore, will he apply even more resources than he has announced so far to process the backlog of thousands of asylum applications, thereby saving the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds?
Mr. Howard: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the 1993 Act, which has helped, although not as much as we had hoped and anticipated, to deal with this problem. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the legislation: of course a Bill alone cannot and will not be enough. My hon. Friend asked about resources. He will have heard me say that we are to spend £37 million more over the next three years to ensure that our capacity to deal with applications increases. I shall bear his request for even more resources firmly in mind.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I challenge the Secretary of State's remark that this has no race implications at all. I have been in this country since 1959, and no legislation—
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a time for questions. Mr. Khabra: I will go on to a question.
Madam Speaker: No, we do not go on to questions: we begin with questions.
Mr. Khabra: Does the Secretary of State agree that none of the legislation over the past 30 to 40 years has had racial implications for the racial minorities in this country?
Mr. Howard: I do not think that any of this has racial implications. I say as clearly as I can that this country will not have good race relations unless it also has firm, fair immigration controls. The two are absolutely inseparable. They march together, and we ignore that combination at our peril.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that those of us who served on the Committee that examined the 1993 Bill are particularly gratified by his efforts to plug the loophole and stop the abuse that has occurred as a result of that legislation through entrants from third countries. Could he reassure those of us who have an interest in the channel ports that the immigration service will have the resources and the powers it needs immediately to return those who seek to abuse our benefits system?
Mr. Howard: As my hon. Friend knows, I share that concern. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), we recently increased resources precisely to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend identifies.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that, as the proud grandson of four people who came to this country from Lithuania and Latvia, I am worried about how the new rules will be applied? The important consideration is not just the rules but the way that they are applied. I wonder whether my grandparents would have been accepted as having a well founded fear of persecution.
Will the Home Secretary please accept the sincerity of those of us who are anxious about the new rules, and look at them to see whether we may not be right in fearing that
346
their effect could be to allow in terrorists and others who are wealthy and do not need benefit, while excluding the people who really need asylum from their own country?
Mr. Howard: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is frankly absurd to suggest that anything in these proposals would help to let in terrorists. In the context of well founded claims, I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is sitting beside him: that there is nothing in the proposals to change the entitlement of anyone to come to live in this country.
The proposals do not affect the categories of people who are entitled to come to live here: they are designed entirely to deal with and to remedy abuse of our procedures, to deter bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. That is why they deserve support from all parts of the House.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the family origins and background of himself or anyone else have no intrinsic connection with this matter anyway? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes it has."] No—although I have the pleasure of having the Home Secretary's mother as a distinguished constituent of mine.
Does he agree, however, that understandable arguments faced thousands of refugees facing horrendous emergency before the war and, in more recent years, Ugandan Asian refugees coming from Idi Amin's tyranny? That is one situation where a large number of people must be helped under emergency provisions, and has nothing to do with the growing number of phoney individual asylum applications that come to all Members of Parliament of all parties at their repeated surgeries, as I know from my experience—and I am sure others do, too.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, provided the basis of the application seeks out, supports and succours a genuine refugee and political asylum seeker, the legislation is capable of being considered in a prolonged Standing Committee procedure, as all Bills normally are?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is right about the extent to which this measure can be properly scrutinised in Standing Committee. That will be an important part of the process that will enable to us achieve the highest possible quality in this legislation, so that it will properly do the task that we want it to do.
Mr. James Couchman: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that he has my absolute support on his measures to deter bogus asylum seekers, but, as a former employer, may I express some concern over his expectations of particularly small employers being able to discern whether they are taking on someone who is in fact an illegal immigrant? Will he give us a little more information about what he expects of employers, and will he assure me that he will communicate directly to employers, and not simply through the major employing organisations, what he is expecting of them in trying to discern illegal immigrants?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the asylum provisions in these measures. I note what he says about the employer provisions, and I hope that his concerns will be allayed when he reads the consultation document that I am publishing this afternoon.

347
It will say that, for the most part, employers will have to do very little more than they have to do now to establish one of the defences that will be provided. I will take seriously and give serious consideration to his suggestion that we communicate with employers directly, and not simply through their organisations.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: How can the Secretary of State claim that his proposal is consistent with the UN convention on refugees, which this country signed, which clearly states that group presumptions affecting a group of people from one country should be made only in emergency, and then only in relation to a positive decision, when it is necessary to accept those people? That is the complete opposite of his proposal, and article 1 of the convention says that it should be applied without discrimination in relation to race, religion and country of origin.
Mr. Howard: There will certainly be no discrimination of any type in the way in which we apply these provisions. On the convention, as I said in my statement, we will consider each application from any of the countries designated individually and, as I also said in that statement, we are not alone in introducing a designated list: Germany and Holland have recently done exactly the same.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of what has been said, is the Home Secretary now repudiating the words of the person who, until recently, was the Conservative party's research director and is now a Conservative candidate—that race was an issue, and that immigration could be raised as an issue before and during a general election?
Does not the Home Secretary recognise that, although there are undoubtedly genuine difficulties—no one doubts that for one moment—Labour Members have every reason to believe, especially in view of what was written by the former research director of Conservative central office, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is raising these matters in such a way to try to gain as much electoral advantage as possible? He is worried not about refugees, immigration or good race relations, but only about gaining as many votes as possible for the Tory party at the next election.
Mr. Howard: I entirely refute that suggestion. It is another example of the Opposition being ready to talk about anything and everything except the merits of the proposals. Let us have a sensible debate on the merits of the proposals—that is what a responsible Opposition would do.
Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that any sensible, fair-minded person could do no other than support all his proposals? Is he further aware that, contrary to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said about the ethnic minority communities, many of them have been worried about employment because illegal immigrants impinge on their employment prospects? I am sure that many members of those communities will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals.
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has made an important and pertinent point. There is no doubt
348
that many members of ethnic minority communities recognise the importance of firm, fair immigration control, want the loopholes to be block, and want proper action taken. My hon. Friend is entirely right.
Mr. Doug Henderson: The Secretary of State said that he did not believe that a genuine case for political asylum would be deterred by his proposals. How can he assure a genuine refugee from a country on the white list that he will be guaranteed fair treatment, if all cases are not considered on their merits? If all cases are considered on their merits, what is the point of having the white list? Is it not the case that this sort of issue should be considered by a Special Standing Committee, which would reduce racial tension and promote good race relations?
Mr. Howard: The Opposition persist in their diversionary tactics of trying to discuss anything and everything but the merits. There is no reason to suppose that any genuine asylum seeker from a country on the designated list would be disadvantaged or would not be able to have his application properly considered—and, indeed, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), have it accepted.
The designated list will create a presumption, and will change the appeal procedures so that we can make greater progress with, and have more speedy processing of, applications from those countries. The Labour party must face the fact that other countries are introducing tough but fair procedures to deter bogus applicants, and that we must match them and take similar action. We need firm but fair immigration control if we are to maintain our record of good race relations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats. I have a point of order.
Mr. Dalyell: I have been in this House for a great number of years. What we have witnessed this afternoon is, quite honestly, unprecedented in the procedure of the House. Whenever before, during debates on the Queen's Speech, has a Secretary of State made what he must have known would be a highly controversial statement on a subject that is not being debated that day? Has it been done for presentational reasons? If so, should the Queen's Speech and the House of Commons be used—some might say abused—in that way?
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the point raised. Of course, I did not read the Secretary of State's statement before he made it, but out of courtesy I must always allow a Secretary of State wishing to give information to the House to do so. I have to say that, when I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I did think that the statement should have been made either tomorrow, when we are debating these matters, or on Second Reading of the Bill. Therefore, I sought brisk exchanges, so that we might proceed with our proper business today and return to this matter tomorrow and on Second Reading. That is what I now propose to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I will take no more points of order on that matter.

Points of Order
4.23 pm
Mr. Piers Merchant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on what further action I can take following the non-declaration of an interest by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in a debate on Friday. At the time, she said that full information would be available in the Library, from which I assumed that it would cover the figure involved as well—but to date it does not.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to raise points of order about the declaration of interests. I will take no more points of order on that matter. The House is well aware that our rules have recently changed. I urge all hon. Members who wish to table questions, motions, and amendments to motions and Bills to read clearly the notice in the Table Office before doinf so. It remains the clear responsibility of each Member of Parliament to decide whether a declaration of interest is appropriate. I myself have taken the trouble to go to the Table Office to read that notice; I expect all hon. Members to do likewise.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to watch any episodes of "The Final Cut" on television on Sundays. It is giving rise to a great deal of offence in the House, not because the Prime Minister, Francis Urquhart, is portrayed as a killer—these things happen, as we know—but because of the way in which our procedures are misrepresented.
At the end of the programme, we learn that the parliamentary adviser to the programme makers is none other than the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire
350
(Mr. Fabricant). Do you not think that it might be opportune for you to call him into your office and tell him a few things about procedure, so that the programme gets it right?
Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
Madam Speaker: I do not usually take further points of order, but, as the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has been mentioned, perhaps, in all fairness, I ought to do just that.
Mr. Fabricant: While I should welcome the opportunity to come to your private chambers to have the procedure explained to me, Madam Speaker, may I explain that, although I may give advice, there is no obligation on the BBC to take it?
Madam Speaker: Opportunity is a fine thing; it will not come the hon. Gentleman's way.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have seen reports to the effect that the Secretary of State for National Heritage is planning to convene private meetings with Conservative Members to give them help and advice on how to obtain money from the various national lottery funds for groups in their constituencies.
Although you, Madam Speaker, cannot be responsible for meetings convened by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, I would hope that you, as the protector of the rights of all hon. Members, might be able to persuade the Secretary of State to make sure that any tips, advice or information are shared with all hon. Members and not only with Conservative Members.
Madam Speaker: I am sure that that is absolutely the right way to proceed. However, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a parliamentarian of long standing, would be knocking on the door of the Secretary of State for National Heritage to learn a few of those tips for his own region.

Orders of the Day

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

  Investment
  4.27 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I welcome this opportunity in the resumed debate on the Gracious Speech to debate trade, industry and transport. The Gracious Speech announces the Government's proposals for legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention, and I am grateful to the Labour party for its support for that proposal. The Gracious Speech also mentions our important objective of world trade liberalisation and transatlantic free trade, the need to promote flexible labour markets as a basis for increased job creation and the continuing need to encourage enterprise and competitiveness and to support small businesses. They are all highly desirable objectives—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Lang: I have uttered only one sentence, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Dalyell: I intervene at this point as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned chemical weapons legislation, in which I have taken an interest for 30 years. Will he consider allowing an annual report on the matter to be presented to Parliament? It is a crucial subject that has been raised with his Department by the expert Dr. Julian Perry Robinson and others. There is good will towards the proposed Bill; might the Secretary of State reciprocate and consider the suggestion carefully before Thursday?
  Mr. Lang: I shall certainly reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said. There will be an opportunity for the matter to be pursued at that time.
  The first priority for a successful industrial and commercial policy is to establish economic conditions within which enterprise can flourish. Wealth creation has always been at the centre of our policies. Without it, we will never be able to afford the level and quality of services that the British public rightly want and deserve.
  But it is business—not Governments—that creates wealth. The keys to wealth creation are enterprise, competitiveness and flexibility. The Gracious Speech outlined the Government's determination to improve the competitiveness of our economy and make Britain the enterprise centre of Europe, which I am sure the House welcomes.
  352
  The Opposition always seek to make much—no doubt we shall hear more of it again today—of those few figures in the economy that are sometimes less encouraging. They pay little or no attention to the good news, which has been so plentiful in recent months and, indeed, years, such as last week's news on inflation and public finances, for example. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take all the available figures into account in determining the course of economic policy.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: On competitiveness, in Britain, outwith the Clyde, the merchant shipyards have largely gone. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the European Union's shipbuilding intervention fund is to continue operating until October next year? What are he and his colleagues doing about the fiddling of the shipbuilding subsidies in Italy and Spain? Let us have fair competition in the building of ships.
  Mr. Lang: I share absolutely the hon. Gentleman's objective of fairness throughout the European Community. If he has any evidence to present, I am sure that he will bring it forward. For the rest, he will have seen in the news in the week before last that the shipbuilding arrangements will continue, but will be subject to review in the course of next year.
  Despite the occasional variations in the economic news, it remains true that the United's Kingdom economy has grown significantly faster than the G7 average for the past two years. It is expected, along with Germany's, to be ahead of the pack again next year. What is more, we are putting the conditions in place to ensure that we keep it that way.
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which the Labour party occasionally likes to quote, says in its report that our economic performance is "impressive", and refers to the fact that our
  "sweeping structural reforms are yielding dividends in a more flexible, competitive and less inflation-prone economy".
  Mr. Denis MacShane: In that case, is the right hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that, according to the OECD, we have sunk from 13th to 18th in the world league table of economic competitiveness and performance under Conservative Governments since 1979?
  Mr. Lang: I shall be developing the theme of our competitiveness and the relative improvement in our position in the course of my speech, after which the hon. Gentleman will be far better informed and able to contribute to the debate later.
  I am sure that the Labour party will be encouraged by the conclusions reached by the OECD, its comment that our performance is impressive, and its recognition of what we are achieving.
  Ms Joan Walley: On competitiveness, does the President of the Board of Trade agree that the British Steel plant at Shelton in Stoke-on-Trent is highly competitive? It has only just been described as the jewel in the crown, yet it is now under threat because of subsidies to steel plants elsewhere. What will his Government do, and will they use the veto?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady knows that the Government have not shirked the need to rationalise our steel industry

  353
  to allow it to reduce in size and thereby become extremely competitive. Indeed, British Steel is now one of the most efficient and competitive companies anywhere in the world. We expect other members of the European Community to recognise too the need to take appropriate steps. That is the position that we are pursuing in the negotiations to which the hon. Lady has referred.
  A stable macro-economic environment is vital to give business the confidence that it needs to invest in future. Permanently low inflation and sound public finances are an essential prerequisite for a successful and expanding economy—they are not optional extras. That is why we set a target for underlying inflation of 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. and aimed for the bottom half of that range. Even the Labour party could not disagree that our inflation performance over the past few years has been excellent.
  I should like to put that into some historical perspective. Since the Government developed their inflation target, underlying inflation has averaged 2.8 per cent. That compares with 7 per cent. during the 1980s and 13 per cent. in the 1970s. That is no mean achievement.
  Business is responding to the improved environment. Over the past year, manufacturing investment is up by 11 per cent. and manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is up by more than 14 per cent. The CBI reports that investment intentions this year have been at the highest level for six years.
  The Labour party is often keen on comparisons; I shall give it a few. In the past 15 years, our economy has forged ahead; Britain has beaten the European average. Our economy has grown faster, our unemployment has been lower, our productivity has grown faster, our manufacturing businesses have been more profitable and our investment in research and development is higher than the European average. The 1980s was the first decade since the war when the United Kingdom grew faster than Germany, France or Italy.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is profitability the real measure of success? Has the Secretary of State noticed what has happened in my constituency? Campbell's, an American conglomerate and multinational, purchased a company for £58.6 million. Within nine weeks, it announced the closure of that company, which made £4 million profit last year— probably more by the time we have unravelled the books.
  Is it not true that the only way in which Campbell's can now be dealt with is by the British people boycotting Campbell's soups? That is the way in which to deal with the company; the only language it understands is market forces. If British consumers are prepared to say, when they go to the supermarket, that they will not buy Campbell's soups because of what Campbell's did— closing down an extremely profitable company in Maryport—that will be the only way in which we can teach it a lesson.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman makes his constituency point and I understand the strength of his feeling. He asked whether profitability was important. Yes, it is. I wish that the Labour party would recognise the importance of profits and profitability. They were not, of course, the only criteria I gave. I also mentioned growth, unemployment, productivity and research and development; in those areas, the United Kingdom has performed better than the European average over the past
  354
  15 years. Our manufacturing productivity has grown faster than that of any other major industrialised nation since 1980 and it has risen two and a half times faster than that of West Germany.
  Against that background, small businesses have blossomed. Since 1979, more than 1 million have been created. The Opposition have often made much of the importance of manufacturing so they will, no doubt, welcome the fact that our share of world trade in manufactures has stabilised after decades of decline. Since 1979, the volume of British manufactured exports has risen by more than 85 per cent.
  The Opposition often talk about investment. Since 1979, investment in plant and machinery has risen by more than 50 per cent., business investment has risen by one third and overall investment has risen faster than it has in Germany, France or Italy. It has risen six times as quickly as it did under the previous Labour Government.
  Investment is made to secure a return. One of the keys to increased investment is profit, which is precisely the point about which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked me. The profit and profitability—the words that Labour loves to hate—of British business have improved markedly under this Government; Labour would reverse that. It would impose huge new costs on business through regulation, through its training tax, through the minimum wage and through the social chapter. That would discourage not only inward investment, but domestic investment.
  Business and manufacturing investment in the United Kingdom has been boosted by our privatisation and liberalisation policies—investment that Labour's doctrinal opposition would have prevented from happening.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have an increasing feeling of being unwell in the unreal world of this Chamber. Can the Secretary of State bring us back to the realities of life? Was he around in the 1980s when our manufacturing base was devastated? Plants in his constituency and in the constituency of every hon. Member were devastated and good firms closed down, never to reopen. Is it really true when the Secretary of State says that nothing of that sort happened? Were we all living in a dream world, or is he misleading the House?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) seems to have forgotten the shambles which the Conservative Government inherited from his party in 1979, and the massive efforts that we had to make to reverse the trend of decline. Certainly manufacturing jobs were lost and plants were closed, but in recent years—as a result of improved competitiveness—we have achieved new investment, new growth and new export markets.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about the 1980s during my remarks on privatisation. The fact is that the Labour party opposed every privatisation measure that was brought before the House, claiming that privatisation and competition would lead to falling investment and rising prices. In fact, the opposite has been true.
  Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend's analysis of the changes in the British economy is not theoretical. If he comes to my constituency, he will see that every single one of the matters he is outlining is the truth and has led to a booming economy.
  Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and Corby possibly illustrates that point better than any other constituency.

  355
  Productivity in the privatised industries has moved sharply ahead. British Telecom, for example, has raised its productivity by 140 per cent. Investment in the privatised industries has shot ahead. BT has invested £25 billion since privatisation, while Mercury has invested £2.7 billion in a new digital network.
  Liberalising the telecoms market—a measure opposed by Labour, of course—has brought in new competitors and new investment. The cable companies expect to have invested £10 billion by the end of the decade. Labour's thanks for that huge investment would be to renege on the Government's commitment to the regulatory framework in favour of a sweetheart deal with one company. No wonder Labour had its wrist slapped by the director general of Oftel. Real investment in the electricity industry has increased by more than 10 per cent. since privatisation. Compare that with the 25 per cent. cut between 1974 and 1979. Investment by British Gas and the water companies has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation.
  Customers too have seen major improvements, with falling prices and improved service quality. The average domestic electricity consumer will enjoy a reduction of about £90 in his bills next year. Domestic consumers have benefited from a fall in real prices since privatisation of more than 22 per cent. before VAT. Industrial customers have seen their real gas prices fall by 40 per cent. since privatisation. BT's prices have fallen by more than 35 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.
  When the Labour party talks about investment, clearly it is not talking about private sector investment, privatised industry investment or manufacturing investment. It is not talking about inward investment, through which thousands of companies are investing billions of pounds to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Labour is talking about that atavistic socialist belief that no investment matters unless it is public sector investment. If Labour wants to increase that, it should say by how much, and I invite the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to say so today.
  How will that increase be paid for: by cutting other spending—perhaps on health or education—or by higher taxation? The electorate are getting fed up with Labour's absurd pretence that it can increase expenditure and cut taxation at one and the same time. That engenders only incredulity and distrust, and rightly so because Labour's sums do not add up.
  Following the privatisation of state-run companies which used to account for around a tenth of our national output, we have greatly enhanced competition in our economy. Indeed, competition and choice have been at the heart of the Government's economic policies. As a result, competition is present to a greater degree than ever before in the economic life of this country. It is an essential ingredient in the promotion of the UK's competitiveness.
  Competition must be underpinned by an effective system of competition law. I have been considering this matter, and I recognise that a reform and updating of the existing arrangements is overdue. The House is aware that the Government have decided to reform competition law in two principal areas. We intend to prohibit cartels and restrictive trade agreements unless positive countervailing
  356
  benefits can be shown. We intend to strengthen the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate monopolies and anti-competitive practices.
  We do not intend to discard some of the real strengths of the UK system, such as the distinctive roles of the Office of Fair Trading as investigator and prosecutor and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as the dispassionate assessor of the public interest. Nor do we consider that the case for the introduction of a prohibition on abuse of market power has been proven.
  While we will wish to take proper account of the evolving relationship between European Community competition law and the competition law of member states and to consider how a prohibition on restrictive agreements modelled on article 85 of the EC treaty might fit into the UK common system, we must certainly avoid replicating those features of the EC regime which experience has shown to be unsatisfactory. The changes we make must suit our circumstances.
  We must prepare the way thoroughly and on the basis of consultation for fundamental reform which the Government will then implement as soon as practicable. I can the tell the House that my Department will accordingly be undertaking a comprehensive consultation exercise in the new year. This will take the views of business, consumers and competition practitioners on the technical and operational issues which will need to be settled before the Government can give effect to the reforms to which we are committed.
  It is not competition as such that costs jobs; being competitive creates them. Nor is it technological advance or trade that creates unemployment. It is the failure to foresee and the inability to adapt to change that leads to jobs being lost. That is why flexibility in our economy is so crucial, and that is why we reject the rigidities and the extra burdens that would arise from the Opposition's policies of a national minimum wage and opting into the social chapter.
  Talking to the CBI last week, the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "the real fear is that being part of the social chapter we may in future agree to the import of inefficient working practices to Britain".
  That is right, and we have been telling the right hon. Gentleman that for years. That is the very reason why the Prime Minister negotiated the opt-out from the social chapter.
  But while the Leader of the Opposition was right to highlight the dangers of the social chapter, he was wrong to assert that it was not detailed legislation, but a set of principles. If that were all it was, why is he so keen to sign it? We could just proclaim the principles ourselves. The fact is that it is much more than that. It is a binding obligation that would lead inexorably to detailed legislation.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems quite unable to grasp the fact that if the UK signs the social chapter, we would lose the opportunity to reject proposals for damaging legislation that would be imposed upon us—regardless of the views of this House—by qualified majority voting. So his claim that each piece of legislation will be "judged on its merits" is worthless. That is not an option. Once the social chapter was signed, there would be no protection for this country from laws which would raise employers' costs, undermine competitiveness and destroy jobs.

  357
  I welcome the Leader of the Opposition's tacit admission that some aspects of the social chapter would run counter to our interests, but the position of Opposition Members has been made more exposed by the words of their own leader. It makes their posture even more indefensible. They would sign the social chapter even though they now admit that it would damage the competitiveness of our economy. Opposition Members should read the leader of The Times on 15 November, which said:
  "The truth is that Britain is in an enviable and much envied position. By remaining outside the Social Chapter, Britain has become a magnet for outside direct investment. To throw away such a precious competitive advantage would be madness."
  That says it all.
  Not signing the social chapter does not mean poor working conditions or low wages. On the contrary, both have improved very substantially for most workers. We have in place a fair and balanced framework of individual employment rights. One of the supports that underpins that framework is an industrial tribunal system which enjoys widespread trust and confidence. The essential work of the tribunals has grown both in scale and complexity over the years. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that they continue to provide an effective means of resolving disputes over employment rights.
  The Green Paper published last year invited views on ways of improving the operation of tribunals and of encouraging more settlements in-house or with third party assistance. Some 200 responses were received from both sides of industry, the legal profession and a wide range of other interested parties. They were broadly supportive of most of the proposals and I can tell the House that today I have announced the Government's intention to implement those proposals when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. I believe that this will be widely welcomed.
  The changes proposed will make an important contribution to promoting the role of conciliation and voluntary arbitration as alternative means of settling disputes at work and to streamlining tribunal procedures. They will help to ensure that a system which has so amply proved its worth will continue to play its indispensable role in the framework of British industrial relations.
  Part of the more flexible labour market that we have achieved, with all the benefits it has brought in terms of increased jobs, has been the result of the dramatic improvement in industrial relations. More than 2 million jobs were created in the last economic cycle; half a million since the end of the recession. Half of those were in the last year alone. Over the last economic cycle we have created jobs at twice the rate of countries such as France and Italy.
  We have a higher proportion of our population in work than all our European competitors. We have broken out of the vicious cycle that saw each downturn in the economy causing unemployment to ratchet up another notch. For the first time since the early 1960s, unemployment peaked at a lower level in the last recession than in the one preceding it.
  Even more encouragingly, the same is true of long-term unemployment. Britain is one of the very few European Union countries to have managed to break out of this cycle. Although it remains too high, unemployment has fallen faster in this country than in most of our
  358
  competitors in the EU or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—by more than 700,000 in the past three years. Our unemployment rate is now below that of Germany, Italy, France and Spain and well below the EU average.
  Yet Labour, through the national minimum wage, wants to adopt labour market policies more akin to those of Spain and France. The rate of youth unemployment in the United Kingdom is about half that of France and about a third that of Spain. Spain and France are the only two countries to have a minimum wage along the lines proposed by the Trades Union Congress. The impact on young people in those two countries has been devastating.
  While the flexible labour market has greatly improved the United Kingdom's job creation record, it has not done so at the expense of wages, whatever the Opposition may claim. Real wages at all levels have increased and take-home pay for a single production worker in the United Kingdom is actually higher than in any EU country except Luxembourg.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: What does the Secretary of State have to say to the unemployed of Barnsley, following a survey in May this year which showed that 79 per cent. of the jobs that were advertised in Barnsley were advertised at wages lower than would have been possible had the wages councils still existed?
  Mr. Lang: The average increase in real living wages in Britain since 1979 is 40 per cent. The wages of a single production worker in Britain are higher than anywhere else in the EU, and the wages of a married man in the same capacity are higher than in Italy or France.
  Britain's advantage lies not in having low wages, because we do not have them—[Interruption.] We do not have them, as the figures that I have just given illustrate. Our advantage lies in having the lowest non-wage labour costs of all our major European competitors. That remains vital to creating more jobs in this country.
  One of the key factors in making Britain so attractive to inward investors has been precisely the improvement in our competitive position. It is integral to our growing competitiveness and attractiveness as a location for business investment. Last week I was in Bavaria, where I met the chairman of BMW and the vice-president of Siemens Semiconductors, both major international companies and major investors in Britain. In the words of Bernd Pischetsrieder, the chairman of BMW:
  "The bottom line is that what you started in Great Britain back in the early '80s other European countries still have to do today."
  Foreign firms are showing, by their major investment commitments, their approval and confidence in our policies and our work force. The UK is the No. 1 location for Japanese, United States and Korean investment in the European Union.
  The United Kingdom attracts one third of all inward investment in the European Union and more than 40 per cent. of both Japanese and American investment in the Union is based in the UK. Once again, in the first half of this year, we were the top location for German investment worldwide, attracting more than double the amount of investment made in the same period last year.
  What is more, more than half the inward investment into the UK last year comprised expansions of existing plants, thus confirming the confidence that inward

  359
  investors have in the British economy and the talents of its work force. Our inward investment record is the verdict of the rest of the world on Britain's recent economic achievements.
  The inflow of investment into the United Kingdom has also had its corresponding outflow, as British firms have increasingly recognised the need to compete in a global environment. Here, too, our economy benefits considerably. Outward investment allows British companies to develop their competitive strength both at home and abroad. It helps them to gain access to world markets for British goods and services.
  Britain ranks second only to the United States in its stock of outward investment. Our total stock of overseas investment amounted to £183 billion in 1994, earning £22 billion for this country. As a proportion of gross domestic product it is more than double that of any other major investor. We are the largest investor in the United States, and the largest European investor in China.
  We are first and foremost a trading nation. We are the fifth largest exporter in the world and we were the only one of the major industrialised nations to increase our share of world exports last year. We export more per head than Japan or the United States. Since 1979, the volume of our exports has nearly doubled. After decades of relative decline, our manufacturers are again competitive in the world marketplace.
  Underlying export volumes have risen by 24 per cent. since the beginning of this recovery—to record levels. Our exports to the European Union are growing strongly. Manufacturers exported more than a third more to the Netherlands than a year earlier and exports to Germany and Spain are up by a fifth.
  We are also doing well in the world's most dynamic markets. In the past 12 years, the south-east Asian market has tripled in size, but our exports have done even better. Moreover, our exports to south-east Asia have grown faster than those of France or Germany. In the past year, our exports to Japan, Hong Kong and Indonesia have risen by more than a fifth and already this year exports to Japan are up by a third. Last year, we had a balance of payments surplus with Asia as whole, including a surplus with the newly industrialised Asian tigers.
  We have been engaged in recent years in the reversal of years of decline and the achievement of long-term structural improvements in our economic performance. The Government have always taken a long-term view. The competitiveness White Papers that we published this year and last show that we have long-term challenges to meet, but we are at last gaining ground lost in the past. The White Papers set out a long-term programme for action for all parts of Government to help improve our underlying performance.
  The need to continue to improve our competitiveness is more pressing than ever. The pace of change is accelerating. The world marketplace is becoming increasingly competitive. New challenges but also immense opportunities in the world's rapidly growing markets are emerging all the time. Enterprise and flexibility are essential if our firms are to seize more of the prizes on offer.
  360
  That is why we are determined to reduce the burden of regulation on our firms and to continue our fight against backdoor regulation by means of the social chapter. The flexibility of our labour market is one of our greatest strengths, as our competitors acknowledge.
  We have been resolute in our determination to improve our underlying performance. We have not shirked the difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions that were necessary. I believe that the benefits are now plain to see. We are no longer the sick man of Europe but are well on the way to becoming its enterprise centre. The Government are determined to achieve that goal.
  4.58 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Secretary of State has been saying recently that the widespread feeling of economic insecurity pervading the country is just a state of mind. One thing that came out of his speech very clearly today is that the Government's state of mind is one of extraordinary complacency, especially in the light of today's poor figures on gross domestic product and total investment.
  Who would have thought from listening to the Secretary of State this afternoon that growth in GDP has been revised down to 2.1 per cent. in the past 12 months and that gross domestic fixed capital formation has shrunk by 2.2 per cent. in the past quarter and risen by only a disappointing 0.6 per cent. in the past year?
  Against that background, the context within which the Gracious Speech has been set, the tenor of the public debate that the Government have sought to foster and the content of the speech itself, with the exception of the chemical weapons Bill—the only legislation in the Department of Trade and Industry portfolio this Session and a Bill that we welcome, although we will have to scrutinise its exact details—testify to the Government's further lurch to the right. Indeed, the speech, the context and the public debate are all further evidence of the Government's view that, instead of good government, Britain is best served by absence of government.
  As a result, we contend that Britain's industrial and economic performance is far too weak. The Government consistently dispute that claim, and the Secretary of State did so again today. There is a clear gulf between us, or perhaps, clear blue water—a gulf of both analysis and prescription. We differ not only on the nature of Britain's ills but on how they may be tackled. Nor does absence of government mean in this case just benign neglect. As the Government substitute party for public interest at every turn, their neglect approaches the malign.
  Take the chair of the Conservative party, who used the press launch of the Queen's Speech to explain that its main purpose was not to further the national interest or address weakness in our economy but to smoke out the Labour party. Indeed, take the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who went to the Confederation of British Industry conference, not to tell members what they should do for Britain, let alone what Britain's Government might do to help them to advance Britain's interests, but to tell them what they should do for the Conservative party.
  Look at the changes that are being considered in the timetable for selling Railtrack or Nuclear Electric. The timetable for the latter was already thought to be tight in

  361
  terms of safety, yet it is being brought further forward to placate the mad tax cutters on the Tory Back Benches— none of them apparently present today.
  Sir Wyn Roberts rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to one of the few who are.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: Talking of tax cutting, does the right hon. Lady fully support the shadow Chancellor in his ambition to achieve a 10p rate of tax?
  Mrs. Beckett: Yes, indeed I do. As I hope the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my hon. Friend's suggestions form part of a number of remarks in which he has suggested what sort of tax cuts should be made if resources are available for them, such as a cut in the value added tax on fuel. I hope that we will see the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby with us, if we have a chance to put that to the vote.
  In all those respects, it has become clear that, for this Government, the national interest now explicitly takes second place to the interests of the governing party. As the Conservatives focus on their party alone, they become increasingly out of touch with the people.
  The other remark of the Secretary of State that was reported last week—that job insecurity is "a state of mind" and that the reality is different, when 8.5 million people have experienced unemployment since the last general election alone and millions more in every job and profession live in hourly fear, not just of losing their job but of being unable to get another—touches on one of the rawest nerves in middle England and rivals, if that were possible, the insensitivity of a Gerald Ratner or a Norman Lamont. Yet the Government continue to turn their back on proposals like our own for a Government programme to kick-start new employment and training projects, funded by a windfall tax on excess utility profits, even though Britain ranks 20th out of the 24 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for levels of job creation since 1979—something else that no one would have understood from the Secretary of State's remarks.
  Nor do other international comparisons bring us much comfort. Britain ranks 23rd in the world competitiveness tables for productivity. We were the only country, apart from Turkey, to cut seedcorn investment in research and development, although we were the people who had £128 billion in today's prices from oil. Our overall record on investment is worse than that of our competitors, and so—we believe as a direct result—is our record on growth. We rank behind all the other G7 countries in terms of our manufacturing investment as a proportion of GDP—our national wealth—and behind every country of the European Union, and we have fallen to 21st in the ranks of the OECD.
  In real terms, manufacturing investment was more than 17 per cent. lower in 1994 than when the Conservatives came to office in 1979. Just as we rank low in investment, so we rank low in growth. On growth averages since 1979, Britain is bottom of the league of the G7 countries and in Europe, and this has been the slowest period of growth for the United Kingdom since the 1930s.
  That is the whole of the Conservative Government's record—not highlights that were carefully selected to try to present a different picture. It is also their failure: the intensification of Britain's decline as a productive, competitive manufacturing nation.
  362
  Between 1979 and 1995, the value of sterling against the German mark halved. It also declined by more than 25 per cent. against the United States dollar and by 70 per cent. against the Japanese yen. In addition, as the Secretary of State mentioned, hourly labour costs in UK manufacturing are lower than in the United States of America, Germany and Japan and yet, with these two significant advantages—a lower currency and relatively low hourly labour costs—much of our manufacturing industry remains uncompetitive in not only domestic but international markets.
  A few moments ago, the Secretary of State spoke about the terrible problems that the Conservative Government inherited from their predecessors—a Labour Government. But in 1983, under a Conservative Government, we saw the first ever trade deficit in manufactured goods since the industrial revolution—a deficit that has remained ever since. Only a few weeks ago, that deficit widened further.
  Clearly devaluation, whether on its own or in combination with lower wage costs, does not in itself provide the panacea for declining competitiveness: the missing elements are investment and the sustainable increases in productivity that only investment can bring. In most years since 1979, the rate of new investment has been less than the rate at which old plant and machinery were scrapped. Today, the Secretary of State has argued, as Ministers have argued recently, that the increase in manufacturing investment last year was higher, at 11 per cent. That increase was from a very low base, however. As late as 1992, the real capital stock of manufacturing after depreciation was only 1.5 per cent. higher than in 1979.
  Nor are we investing in skills. The proportion of 16-year-olds leaving English schools without any qualifications rose this year for the second year running. Two years ago, 6.9 per cent. of children left without qualifications. Today, the figure has risen to 8.1 per cent., and 8.3 per cent. of 16-year-olds failed to gain even one grade G at GCSE.
  So in Britain today we have plant and machinery that are outdated, a work force who are low-skilled and, with little investment in plant or people, low productivity by international standards. In consequence, under this Government we have had the lowest average growth in post-war history, as well as the highest levels of unemployment and, for most people, the biggest tax rises.
  That is this Government's record, and their remedy is equally disastrous. Recently, Ministers have been forced to admit that Britain is being overtaken by the so-called "Asian tiger" economies. They claim that that is further justification for their drive to lower wages and working conditions. In fact, the Government's strategy, if such it can be called, is to build a kind of Tory Euro-Disney—a never-never land run on Mickey Mouse economics—in which the people of Britain are being taken for an expensive ride.
  But we are not being beaten only by the Asian tigers. We are also being beaten by the high-wage economies of France, Germany, Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere. The strategy of transforming our industrial and engineering centres into locations for low-cost, low-wage, low-skill assembly plants will not help us to compete in the global economy; on the contrary, it will cost us dear. This country's survival and that of our people depend, first and foremost, on our ability to make and sell goods in the domestic and global markets. A year ago, the president of Honda stated:

  363
  "The money game is fine, but industry is the only way for a country to survive, and I wonder how the British expect to make a living in the future."
  That was said on the occasion of the acquisition by BMW—which the Secretary of State quoted—of Rover. If that proves how successful we are, I wonder why Rover did not buy BMW.
  The Government's neglect of our national interest continues, even when the absence of Government action threatens their own declared policy—as, recently, with takeovers and sales in the utilities. The Government's case for privatisation was that the utilities were monopolies and, as such, were bound to act with insufficient regard for consumer interests. The utilities were not only sold at knock-down prices but split into competing units with the claim that competition would act to protect the consumer and hence help the public interest. Today, we see consolidation and the potential creation of fresh utility monopolies in the private sector, as industries are subject to a wave of mergers and takeovers which the Government are failing to check, and about which the Secretary of State had nothing to say today.
  We are seeing a dangerous concentration of power. In the north-west, more than one of the essentials of life— water and electricity—are in the hands of one private company. We are even seeing essential services fall into the hands of private companies whose base, origins and essential interests lie overseas—for example, in France and the United States. To make matters worse, it is an open secret that such foreign-owned utilities are investing here because they have far greater freedom to ride roughshod over the interests of British consumers than they would at home.
  I have written to the Secretary of State more than once, as did my predecessor, calling on him to refer not just individual bids but the entire electricity industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for independent investigation of public and consumer interest. In that respect as in others, Britain needs the industrial strategy that the Government lack—a strategy for investment in Britain's future.
  The Secretary of State had little to say today about small and medium-sized firms, although lip service was paid to them in the Queen's Speech. Such firms are often the most dynamic enterprises in any given industrial sector, and in countries such as Germany they form an important part of manufacturing industry. The owners of many small businesses, being hard-pressed for time, work 70 hours or more a week and often face tremendous barriers in getting their hands on information and serious hurdles in the way of obtaining accessible finance. A Labour Government would seek to tackle that funding gap. We have already developed plans to match investors with lenders through tailor-made accessible services at no additional cost to the public purse, using an enhanced network of business links throughout the UK—an idea that the Government, we are pleased to see, are beginning to take up.
  We are equally concerned about technology-based firms, which often find it difficult to borrow because of bank preference for collateral. We have advanced ideas for enhanced business links to address that market failure through an equity underwriting scheme that would
  364
  underwrite a certain proportion of equity invested by a venture capitalist and in return look to receive a share of profits accrued later.
  Another market failure that the Government could address is the lack of information available to so-called business angels. It is estimated that the amount of finance available from that source is £3 billion to £5 billion, yet a major problem for such investors is in obtaining information about potential investments in good industrial and commercial ideas. By working with private sector organisations already involved in matching such investors with companies, we could investigate how a national on-line database could be established and made available. The cost of all such plans could be offset by the rationalisation of existing schemes and an element of profit sharing from the equity underwriting proposal, to make better use of existing resources.
  In the long run, many profitable small businesses create their own capital. We want to provide every encouragement for the reinvestment of profits by smaller firms. As part of a review of tax obstacles to long-term investment, we are examining how the balance of the tax take on small businesses could be redistributed, to provide strong incentives for the retention of earnings for investment.
  More widely, my colleague the shadow Chancellor recently proposed that in this month's Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, for a limited, 12-month period, double the first-year tax allowance for new investment from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent.—the kind of stimulus to new investment that is widely accepted as the most effective. We want not only an increase in investment but an improvement in its quality and effectiveness. As a nation, we need to enhance innovation, celebrate it and deploy the best in design because innovation and design are necessary for our national pride, and they are crucial in maintaining our living standards in an increasingly competitive world. Britain has some of the best designers in the world, but they are not put to sufficient use with others in British business.
  I was interested to hear the Secretary of State's remarks about his intention to produce a consultation paper on competition and corporate policy, which we will study with interest. We have proposed rationalising the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading into a single competition and consumer standards office, charged with identifying and dealing with restrictive practices, such as price fixing and rigged tenders, and anti-competitive practices such as abuses of monopoly power.
  In the past, the Government seemed to rely exclusively on an administrative approach, whereas we believe that a more prohibitive approach would be more effective. We shall scrutinise the Government's proposals in their consultation paper to see whether, as the Secretary of State suggested today, the Government intend to move towards a more prohibitive approach.
  The establishment of the right economic climate for the regeneration of industry is not enough. The training and education of our work force need to be improved. We have the urgent need of an advanced industrialised society competing in hostile, global markets for highly productive, well-educated and skilled people. We need to raise education standards and to foster the lifetime development of new skills. There is no doubt that Britain

  365
  has a number of world-class manufacturing companies— everybody could name some, but there are too few of them.
  Much of the country's weakness rests with the short-term adversarial culture fostered by the Conservative party and encouraged since the 1980s. Britain needs to take the long-term view, and that requires partnerships, not division. We need to look to the future, identify fresh markets and opportunities and set out to play a major role in those markets.
  In too many industries, such as biotechnology, our lead is under threat from abroad. In other industries, such as fibre optics, our lead has probably already been lost. In others, such as environmental technology, we may still have a lead. It is essential that we seek to stay in the lead—to exploit the opportunities of a new market, as our competitors do.
  In 1991, Taiwan took a policy decision to move from a low-cost, low-wage, low-skill economy to higher value, high-tech industries. Taiwan identified 10 sectors of high-tech content in which there would be global demand into the next century, including aerospace—in which Taiwan had no production capacity. Instead of concluding that the country was excluded from such markets, Taiwan set out—the Government working in partnership with industry—to develop plans from scratch. It started planning and building for the future through a partnership between the Government and industry—something that has not happened in this country for the past 16 years.
  The responsibility rests on the Government not only to undertake competent macro-economic management but to create the political climate in which a cultural shift in favour of manufacturing can occur. Taiwan and Japan have shown that that can be done. Britain needs to begin to re-create high-quality, high-paying, high-productivity jobs based on skills and investment that generate ever more value added per hour, and to do so on the basis of co-operative relationships between employers and employees.
  Most successful world-class companies focus not only on narrow financial criteria but on people and relationships. They involve their employees in a process of consultation and decision making in company affairs. That is the kind of view that is encapsulated in the social chapter, the provisions of which—although no one would have thought so, to hear the Secretary of State today—are already met and exceeded by world-class companies such as Nissan, AT and T, Motorola, United Distillers and many others.
  Those provisions are important for achieving basic rights and standards for employees and are accepted by all our European competitors. What the Secretary of State said today about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the CBI was profoundly misleading. My right hon. Friend was seeking to address the misleading propaganda coming from the Government about what signing up to the social chapter would entail.
  As my right hon. Friend told the CBI, if there are new developments in social policy and legislation, we believe that Britain should be involved in the discussions, arguing our corner, putting Britain's case when those matters are raised with our European partners, and not leaving an empty chair. We believe that the only way forward for Britain is a hard-headed analysis of how to build that
  366
  high-wage, high-skill, high-investment and high-employment economy, and then total determination in the bid to achieve it.
  We are not alone in our analysis. In pre-Budget submission after pre-Budget submission, the representatives not just of the TUC but of the CBI, the chambers of commerce, the training and enterprise councils set up by this Government and the small business associations have called on the Government to take action to stimulate and to sustain investment. They have called, as we have done, for further tax incentives for investment in research and development. They have called, as we have done, for capital allowances to promote investment, only to be told that they are old-fashioned. They have sought, as we have sought, Government action to improve our infrastructure.
  In this year's submission, the CBI pleads for investment in education and training to be protected and has expressed the hope that any tax cuts will not be bought at the expense of Government capital programmes. These bodies are all calling on the Government to cease to absent themselves from the field, and to take up the role that only Government can play.
  Labour's project is for national reappraisal and national renewal on the basis of a new consensus, a consensus that speaks to the real condition of Britain today—the consensus that we need to encourage long-term relationships between finance and industry. We need to build economic strength from the bottom up and not just from the top down, and that is why it is important to co-ordinate industrial and economic development at a regional level.
  The new consensus states that the interdependence of public and private sectors is more important than the boundary between them, and that is why we propose real public-private partnerships to invest in infrastructure, in addition to what the Government can do rather than in substitution for it. The new consensus believes that small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine of growth in the economy, and that is why we propose new ways of stimulating the small business sector.
  We need, most of all, a new consensus of partnership. Today, it seems, Britain may be beginning to turn to Labour, under whose Governments Britain achieved greater growth than we have averaged over the past 16 years. Britain may be beginning to see that, if we are to build a successful economy, we need partnerships between Government and business, between employer and employee and between investors, banks and entrepreneurs.
  Contrary to what the Government say, there is always a choice of course to pursue. Unless we choose a fresh course, Britain's competitive weakness will continue, and so will Britain's slow decline. The Queen's Speech sets out clearly the lack of vision of this Government—a Government who have run out of ideas, who have run out of steam and who have almost run out of time.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: Although the topic for today's debate is, strictly speaking, investment and the areas that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) covered in her speech, there is fortunately no law of the Medes and the Persians that forces one to

  367
  confine oneself to those topics, and I earlier gave notice that I am hoping in my short speech to venture into the terrain of tomorrow's debate, as indeed the Home Secretary did earlier.
  I shall make one or two comments on the Family Law Bill—the Lord Chancellor's major effort and initiative to reform the divorce laws. I naturally do not expect the Minister to answer the points that I raise in my speech; and I would like to apologise to the right hon. Lady for the apparent, but unintended, discourtesy in not plunging—as her distinguished speech certainly merited—straight into the debate that she has launched on this topic.
  Like, I suspect, many colleagues, I am neither a lawyer nor familiar with the legal intricacies of divorce. As a lay legislator confronted by the Family Law Bill, I have had to plunge into the quicksands of this very tricky area. Two especially arresting facts have struck me about the Government's proposals in the Queen's Speech.
  The first of those facts is that 75 per cent. of divorces currently finalised are secured, usually in a matter of three or four months, by the petitioners cheerfully and openly opting to advance one of the three so-called faults, or fault-based facts—adultery, cruelty or desertion—to demonstrate that their marriages have broken down irretrievably. They opt for this route because expediency, in their view, deserves precedence over sensitivity. The speed of getting the divorce outweighs the potential blame or opprobrium associated with the idea of fault.
  The Lord Chancellor's proposals will close the stable door—the so-called "quickie" divorce route—to alleging fault, by introducing an irreducible one-year time lapse between petitioning for divorce and securing it. The interesting question is whether, by shutting the stable door on this "quickie" divorce option, a very important horse has irrevocably bolted. In other words, has the concept of fault in divorce now necessarily finally fled from the courts' cognisance of what has happened before when divorce proceedings are launched? I, for one, hope that fault will not be finally removed from divorce proceedings.
  A marriage contract, which has such immense human significance—to state as well as to Church—cannot really be conceived as expendable, or as simply time-expired like a window-cleaning contract. If we evacuate fault, marriage becomes as banal and bland as an ordinary, secular contract. I do not believe that it is in the interests of either party to divorce proceedings, or of anyone else involved, that fault, which distinguishes the marriage contract from a casual, secular, material contract, should be ignored.
  It is paradoxical that the Lord Chancellor advised us in his draft Bill that the actual Bill should be sanitised on fault. Fault is admittedly difficult to pin down in personal relationships. It causes much anguish and bitterness between members of the broken partnership, let alone the pain that is caused to the children who are involved. If a sanitised approach to divorce proceedings is necessary, why do 75 per cent,. as I have already suggested, of petitioners cheerfully opt for the route of fault merely to shorten proceedings by a few months? It cannot be so necessary to evacuate the concept of fault if it is chosen so freely by so many people.
  368
  Is it the truth that the Lord Chancellor has with some subtlety deliberately left himself with the opportunity of allowing fault to be reintroduced within the framework, perhaps on the basis of responding to the initiative of his critics in Committee, by means of a rather interesting and unobserved back door?
  The Lord Chancellor has said himself that the second crucial feature of his proposals has not been widely noted. It is to be found in clause 10 of the Family Law Bill. Effectively, it allows the courts to prevent the dissolution of a marriage, perhaps indefinitely, even if the magic period of one year has elapsed since the petition for divorce was presented. Although bringing forward the idea of a strictly limited period in which divorce proceedings might extend to 12 months, the Lord Chancellor has introduced, by the back door, discretionary powers for the courts to disallow such a divorce, even after the passing of one year, if the courts judge that grave financial or other hardship would be caused to the applicant and that it would be wrong in all the circumstances to allow the divorce to proceed, in spite of the passing of 12 months.
  A new and draconian dimension of restriction has thus been written into the Bill. Yet the Bill has been castigated by many of the Lord Chancellor's critics as being over-liberal in the provision of rapidity. Current law allows a discretionary court ban only when, after five years of separation, a divorce is being sought by one party alone. In the Bill, however, the Lord Chancellor, unobserved by many, has strikingly increased the power of the courts in all divorce proceedings to disallow a divorce on the ground of economic hardship and so forth in spite of the base-line provision of a time limit of 12 months.
  It is worrying, in the light of the Lord Chancellor's striking initiative in taking powers to extend the normal provision of 12 months and to widen grounds for refusal, that the important new power that I have described can be operated only on the basis of "no fault" in a marriage being established and brought into reckoning. If a court's findings on financial hardship and other considerations are considered to be well founded, it cannot make sense for the court to go ahead without some cognisance being taken of the character and nature of the marriage—that is, in other words, the underlying reality of the marriage, for that marriage, by judicial edict, is about to be extended almost indefinitely under the clause 10 provision.
  If there is an underlying area of the marriage, which is now to be extended by the power of the courts, of profound disharmony and fault, and if, for example, the wife in the partnership is judged by the court to be likely to be left penniless and homeless if the divorce goes ahead, and the divorce is thus disallowed by the Lord Chancellor's special back-door restriction on the ground of financial hardship, can the court really be intending to lock the wife into a marriage that may feature repeated adultery by the husband as well as repeated cruelty and violence? Clearly not. It would be a contradiction if that were to happen.
  A way must be found, therefore, if the Lord Chancellor's powers to refuse a divorce are accepted, to establish some finding of the fact of fault in a marriage, perhaps as part of the analysis that is inherent in the mediation procedures on future arrangements for home, children and finance, for example. That must be done on the basis of the Bill's own logic. Although the Bill

  369
  represents an attempt to sanitise the proceedings in court, it means inherently and necessarily that some attempt to analyse the presence of fault must take place if the Lord Chancellor's provision that there should be an indefinite postponement of divorce is to be acceptable. I hope that the Lord Chancellor, who will be leading debates on the Bill in another place, will take cognisance of this important dimension.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: We are told in the first sentence of the Gracious Speech that the President of France will see the Queen next year. I have no doubt that, after he has seen the Queen, he will see the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the Prime Minister, if the right hon. Gentleman is still Prime Minister next year. I would not wish to comment, and cannot do so, on the state of mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but it would seem to me that his job is pretty insecure. I suppose that the President of France will still be the president next year. He has most of his seven years in office to go. Judging by the present mood of the French people, who knows what will happen? Perhaps before long they will start putting up the barricades and throwing cobblestones. For the purposes of my speech, I shall assume that both Jacques and John will be holding their respective offices next year.
  The Prime Minister and the president will be able to talk about many things—for example, nuclear tests, Maastricht two or Maastricht one-and-a-half, depending on one's view of the treaty. They will, of course, be able to talk about Helmut. It is always Helmut. They can talk also about the public sector borrowing requirement. We are fortunate that the Minister who is to reply knows everything about the PSBR. He was a Treasury Minister for a few years.
  There is a reference to the PSBR in the first sentence on page 3 of the Gracious Speech. I do not know the French for public sector borrowing requirement. Even if I did, I would not be allowed to use it. Indeed, I would be called to order. But the French is probably more eloquent than the English.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: It could be the same.
  Mr. Davies: It could very well be the same, as the hon. Gentleman says.
  In English, at the top of page three, we read that Her Majesty's Government want to balance their budget. They want to eliminate the wretched public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, the President of France is trying to do something similar. He originally thought that he had to go down only to 3 per cent. of gross national product. He is still at around 5 per cent. or 5.5 per cent. and is having terrible problems. Then he went to see Helmut, who told him that the rules had changed and that, to ensure that the German mark does not end up as some kind of spaghetti money, it is necessary to go down further, probably to 1 per cent. of GNP with regard to the budget deficit.
  So John and Jacques, then, can talk about balanced budgets, or at least getting close to them. Looking around Europe, we see that it is not only Britain and France that are talking about balanced budgets. The Germans, and they may have some difficulty, the Italians, the Dutch, the
  370
  Belgians—even the Swedes, of all people—are seeking to reduce public expenditure to reach a balanced budget. Whatever the long-term economic effects might be, the social consequences on the poor, the unemployed, the disadvantaged—I believe that they are now called "the excluded"—of Europe will be dire.
  I would like to blame the Maastricht treaty for all of this. I certainly blame the treaty for much of it. But the whole fashion of the public sector borrowing requirement goes even beyond that treaty, because the Prime Minister opted out of the single currency and is determined, apparently, to achieve a balanced budget. In the United States, balanced budgets are all the rage, on both sides of the political divide. Even President Clinton says that he wants one; he wants one that is slightly different from that of Newt Gingrich, but they both want a balanced budget.
  As we survey the economic and financial scene, we see that balanced budgets are the latest fashion. Fashions come and go—flared trousers, sideburns, mini-skirts— and we now have balanced budgets, but obviously not as attractive. No self-respecting Chancellor of the Exchequer or Minister of Finance when they meet their masters, the governors of the central banks, in Basle or Washington, would dare appear in anything but the best balanced budget suit.
  Whether or not a balanced budget is good for an economy is immaterial: nobody will ever find out, probably, because by the time the evidence has accumulated and been assessed, fashion will have changed, and those who participated in the exercise will either be dead or in old people's homes—if any such homes are left. As the Secretary of State will know, one way to achieve a balanced budget is to put up taxes. Indeed, a few years ago, people used to talk openly—even those on the radical right—about putting up taxes to achieve a balanced budget. Today, that has all gone. Nobody would dare now say, "You should put up taxes to achieve a balanced budget." That would not do. That would upset the "comfortable majority", as John Kenneth Galbraith once described it.
  By all means let us have balanced budgets. The financial and economic establishment want them—economists write about them all the time and long articles are written—so long as they do not have to pay for them. We cannot have the financial and economic establishment paying for balanced budgets. They are a great thing. They are a splendid fashion, but somebody else must pay for them.
  Who is going to pay for them? We know who: the poor, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, the excluded. They will pay for them because, of course, the other method, as the Secretary of State will know, of achieving a balanced budget is to cut public expenditure. As social welfare is the largest element in public expenditure, if we cut public expenditure we shall cut social welfare and have to cut it more than anything else. That is what is happening. In the United States, social welfare is bearing most of the brunt. Next week in the Budget, we shall discover the position in Britain.
  As far as the Queen's guest next year, President Chirac, is concerned, I read in the papers last week that the stockbrokers, bankers and financiers of the Paris Bourse were rolling in the aisles because their President had announced that his Government had decided, at last, that

  371
  cutting social security, cutting the welfare state, was the way to achieve the 3 per cent. or, probably, Helmut's 1 per cent.
  Mr. Dafis: I remind the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he knows already—of the same pattern that is emerging in the relationship between the developed world and the third world, because when third-world economies run into trouble, the International Monetary Fund imposes structural adjustment programmes to achieve a balanced budget, and the effects on the poor in those countries are absolutely appalling.
  Mr. Davies: Indeed: that is because the IMF people who go to those countries have all been taught in the same school. They have the bug. They have the fashion, and that fashion is balanced budgets.
  The poor of Europe—the excluded—will pay for the single currency if it ever comes about. Extending it a bit wider than Europe, we could say that the poor of the western world will pay for a balanced budget. The policy of many countries—supported by many parties in many countries—is hypocritical and immoral. But the comfortable majority and its representatives have convinced themselves that it is not. Indeed, they have convinced themselves that, far from being immoral, cutting social welfare is good for the poor, that it takes the poor out of the dependency culture.
  There are many groups in our society—I do not criticise or decry this, as it is a fact of modern life and modern government—who are part of the dependency culture. I shall not go into detail. We could talk about the farmers, who may well have good reason for it. We could talk about the European fighter aircraft. Some people would say that that is part of the dependency culture. We could talk about money for the arts and for various pressure groups. They are also in the dependency culture. Apparently, it is only the poor who have to suffer cuts in social welfare, so they can be taken out of that wretched dependency culture.
  Mr. Peter Snape: My hon. Friend has left out—no doubt inadvertently—one other group which is part of the dependency culture. It was defended earlier by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from the Government Front Bench. I think of employers who pay wages that are below decent minimums. They are part of the dependency culture because the Government subsidise such employers, despite the disincentive, they say, that such subsidies cause to other people.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. There is a long list. In this case, it is the poor who are the target.
  Hardly a day goes without me reading in the broadsheets that some think tank is considering the reform of the social welfare system. Those think tanks are usually staffed by the sons and daughters of the comfortable majority. Many of them, perhaps, find it difficult to find work in the competitive market economy. Those think tanks are asked—it is a rather idiotic phrase that we all use—"to think the unthinkable". That, of course, means cutting the welfare state.
  372
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) coined a phrase, "warm words". The warm word is reform. If the poor are listening and they hear that word, I suggest that they run for cover pretty fast, if they can find any cover.
  I recall, throughout the 1980s, sitting here and listening to Ministers talk of tax reform. I must say that I did not see much reform—and, having read the batch of Finance Bills that have been enacted over the past few years and talked to accountants, I think that it is clear that those accountants do not believe that much reform was introduced. In fact, the legislation is now more complex than ever.
  "Reform" was, and still is, code for "cuts". "Social welfare reform" really means cuts in the welfare state. If the "reform" procedure eventually came up with a plan for increased expenditure, it is impossible that the comfortable classes would allow Governments to find the money.
  The other "warm word" is "tough". "Tough" is one of those transatlantic words: I believe that the phrase "tough love" was coined somewhere in the United States. The poor are our children, it seems. We know what is best for them; we love them, but we must be tough with them. The Victorian equivalent of that phraseology was "Spare the rod and spoil the child". We have squared the circle, then. We can have balanced budgets; we need not put up taxes; we can cut welfare; and the poor will thank us for it.
  The Secretary of State referred to competition, and to the various new papers aimed at reforming the monopolies and mergers system that keep being published. Some people believe, or profess to believe, that a competitive and dynamic market economy can generate enough wealth to keep the comfortable majority in the state to which they have been accustomed, while also securing social justice—or social cohesion, as the Europeans call it. I hope that those people are right, but the increasing evidence emerging from western economies—not just Britain—is that the combination of a competitive market economy with tight inflation targets and a balanced budget will not produce sufficient wealth both to ensure social cohesion and to keep the comfortable majority in reasonable comfort.
  I do not know about this, but one of the inevitable consequences of a competitive market economy, controlled by central bankers and with inflation targets, may well be a large pool of unemployment. If that is the case, and if we start taking money from the poor to alleviate the insecurities of the comfortable majority, the Queen's guests—Jacques, John and even Helmut—and their heirs and successors may well reap a terrible whirlwind.
  5.53 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Not only is he a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury; he is the right hon. Member for Llanelli. Both facts qualify him to make the kind of deeply thoughtful speech that he has just made—and he covered a good deal of ground.
  I followed what the right hon. Gentleman said about the philosophy of the balanced budget. He described it as "fashionable", but I am not sure that it is more fashionable

  373
  than the facts that two and two make four and that most Treasuries insist on that basic principle. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was, of course, possible to achieve a balanced budget by raising taxes and/or cutting expenditure, but he did not tell us what the Opposition would do if they were in government. Now he points, rightly, at Opposition Front Benchers; as far as I can make out, they will do neither.
  Speakers from the two Front Benches gave us two contrasting pictures. Certainly, the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade carried a stronger ring of truth than what we heard from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett): at least I recognised the picture drawn by my right hon. Friend of inward investment in this country.
  The right hon. Lady mentioned Taiwan. I have been to Taiwan on more than one occasion, and have visited Chung Wa in Taipei—a company that is now investing heavily in Scotland, and creating some 3,000 jobs. I should tell the right hon. Lady that one of the great attractions of Chung Wa is the university campus in the middle of its factory complex. I heard the head of the company, Dr. Lin, lecturing some 2,000 of its employees.
  I was told that there were two rush hours in Taiwan— one at about 6 pm, when people came home from work, and the other at about 10 pm, when they came home from their technical training colleges. That is not simply a matter of Government provision; it suggests a considerable will among the people of Taiwan to acquire higher skills.
  I shall return to the subject of the economy—particularly in relation to Wales—but I want to concentrate on the broadcasting Bill that is to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I understand that it covers changes in the rules governing media ownership, as discussed in the White Paper published in May this year, and the advent of digital broadcasting, which was the subject of another document that appeared in August.
  I feel that the Government are right to conclude that there is a continuing need for specific regulations on media ownership beyond those of general competition law; but, like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I look forward to a diminution of that need, because regulations tend to distort the operation of the market.
  We have an example in the cogent case put by the director of the Newspaper Society, Mr. Nisbet Smith, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on behalf of regional and local newspapers. He argues that their prohibition from owning radio and television stations in their circulation areas, while national newspapers and magazines are allowed to do so,
  "will lead to a reduction in reader and consumer choice, by making it harder for regional and local newspapers to provide a genuine alternative to the editorial agenda set by London newspapers, and will distort competition between the print media. National newspaper and magazine companies will become multiple media companies in their circulation areas and be able to dominate regional and local newspapers which will be prevented by the Government from becoming multiple media companies in their circulation areas."
  As an avowed regionalist who believes that our society is unhealthily dominated by a one-track and often blinkered metropolitan view—perhaps we shall hear an example of that later in the debate—I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that the Newspaper Society
  374
  advanced on behalf of its 240 member companies, which include the Liverpool Daily Post and the Western Mail in Wales. Far from safeguarding media diversity, the proposals in the broadcasting Bill are likely to undermine it.
  We need to develop rather than discourage regional strengths. I always admire the different parts of the United States—the mid-west, the east side and the west coast—which appear to have great independent strength. We have lost many regional strengths over the years, and I am sure that Britain is the poorer for it.
  With the advent of digital television and radio, we face the possibility of abundant choice, or possibly an over-abundance of choice, and all our broadcasters are looking hard at their prospects for survival. What we know to be good should be encouraged to flourish; that is the basic principle from which I start. Our Welsh language channel, S4C, in conjunction with Channel 4, provided a worthwhile service, and continues to do so, I am glad to say, because I had a hand in its creation in the early 1980s. The matter was raised at Question Time and I was pleased by the reply of the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat).
  I understand that the White Paper proposes that both S4C and Channel 4 should be guaranteed a joint place,
  "on condition that the broadcasters seek, either by splitting the service or rescheduling, or both, to make the full Channel 4 service available as far as possible throughout Wales without reducing the availability of the S4C service in Wales."
  That sounds reasonable and it looks fine on paper, but I am told by those who have carefully considered the practical implications that it is a tall order. The more that I examine the complexities, the more I am inclined to believe that it is a prescription for a conflict that should and could be avoided.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage to consider the feasibility of a different solution. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said in his question this afternoon, S4C merits parity of treatment with the other main services in Wales. So does Channel 4, and each eventually deserves its separate and independent digital equivalent of the single analogue that they currently share.
  In progressing to that, I urge my right hon. Friend to give top priority to the S4C service, because I suspect that some people are waiting in the wings for her to fail to do that, so that they can restage the battle that accompanied the birth of the Welsh language service in the 1980s. I am sure that she will not be foolish enough to repeat the mistake that was made at that time, when the Government abandoned a manifesto commitment, only to be forced to honour it under public duress and by the pricks of their own conscience.
  Such an arrangement will mean that S4C will eventually have to be able to supplement its current subsidised Welsh language output with programmes from other sources if it is to provide as complete a service as it successfully provides now. The White Paper has anticipated that by stating clearly in paragraph 2.46 that the BBC and Channel 4/S4C
  "will be prevented from subsidising any new commercial venture from the funding arrangements for their existing or guaranteed services."

  375
  I accept that, and I express my faith that those who are concerned with television in Wales will rise to the challenge and will be able to provide the additional programming on a commercial basis. I do not think that it is beyond the wit of man or woman to devise a suitable scheme to facilitate that.
  I said that Channel 4 merits an independent service in Wales. Some of its programmes, especially the 7 o'clock news programme, are missed by Welsh viewers, and Channel 4 has put a strong case to the effect that it no longer requires the protection that is afforded by the Broadcasting Act 1990, which now has the unintended result of an escalating annual transfer of funds to the ITV companies. If the funding formula were abolished, Channel 4 would aim to boost the proportion of British material, double its investment in British films, substantially increase its drama output and enhance its schools and education programmes.
  That would also allow Channel 4 to play a full part in the introduction of digital services. That sounds an attractive package, and I have no doubt that Channel 4 would deliver it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage can go at least some way towards meeting Channel 4's request to be relieved of its current perverse obligation to subsidise ITV.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli spoke about the opening part of the Gracious Speech. I shall refer to the end of it, which, as usual, contains the request that the Almighty's blessing may rest upon our counsels. Nowhere do we need divinely inspired counsel more than in dealing with legislative devolution, which is not specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech but is linked to the good governance and economic development of the United Kingdom. That features prominently in the speech.
  Since the Address was delivered, the Government have made it known that there will be an announcement on St. Andrew's day of some changes affecting the Scottish Grand Committee. I understand that those will have ramifications for Wales, and that has caused a stir in the Principality. I suspect that what is envisaged for Scotland is a further instalment of the White Paper, "Scotland in the Union: A Partnership for Good". That seems to be a sound approach, because it at least preserves the unity and integrity of our parliamentary system, whereas other proposals plant the seeds of conflict and disintegration.
  Although the proposals are not yet known, I have heard them disparaged already by hon. Members who do not seem to realise that they are thereby disparaging themselves after all, Scottish and Welsh Members are themselves a Parliament in miniature in the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees, however circumscribed their powers may be. There is no doubt that there are aspirations in Scotland and Wales for political recognition of their respective, collective national identities, but how to meet that aspiration and give it a satisfactory expression without damaging the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole poses problems that defy solution, as those of us who were involved in the debates in the late 1970s know only too well.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is introducing proposals to develop the Welsh Grand Committee—I hope, to allow debate on the principle of measures or parts of measures as they affect Wales. If such steps, which are minor compared with the
  376
  Opposition's proposals, are not welcome and workable, the people of Wales will know what to think of the major moves that the Opposition have in mind to divorce Wales from Westminster.
  What concerns Welsh people, like other peoples in the United Kingdom, is their standard of living. Although our economy has made significant strides forward during the years of Conservative rule, there are still worrying clouds over the landscape. There are, however, patches of light, too.
  In recent years, the unemployment differential between Wales and the rest of the UK has been narrowing. In the latter half of 1992, the Welsh unemployment rate fell below that of the rest of the UK for the first time since 1924. We have been level pegging more or less ever since, but still below the European average. What concerns me, however, is that our gross domestic product per head remains comparatively low, and that is reflected in earnings and disposable incomes. In 1994, as a whole, average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Wales were 10.5 per cent. below the Great Britain average and, overall, wages were lower than in any other region. The decline relative to the rest of Great Britain has been going on since 1984.
  Those are stark and true facts that must be set against the fall in unemployment and the 11 per cent. increase in the civilian work force in employment. We need a strong and continuing regional policy to correct that imbalance and to bring Welsh wages up to the Great Britain average.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I am coming to an end. [Hon. Members: "come on."] I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman expressed an interest in broadcasting, and I know that, before he came to the House, he was an employee of a television company. Did he see "Kane's Wales" last night on BBC Wales, which conclusively revealed that Wales is the poorest region in western Europe? Substantial arguments seem to support that claim.
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I did not see the programme, but Wales can be all things to all men in just the same way as we heard two contrasting speeches from the Front Benches, I am sure that one could make similar contrasts in Wales.
  My real complaint against the Opposition and their obsession with devolution is that they distract attention from Wales's real need to strive and battle ever harder to develop its economy and to bring increased prosperity to its people. A Welsh assembly will not create jobs, except for the boyos of the Labour party perhaps. It will not bring a single foreign or British investor to Wales—it will scare them away. It will sap such power as Wales has in Westminster and in Whitehall and dissipate scarce resources in what will prove to be a petty squabbling shop rather than a talking shop.
  Wales will be torn apart. We shall see north versus south, the valleys versus Cardiff, and unitary authorities versus the assembly. Of course, I wish that it were all going to be different and that we would be inspired by our own assembly to achieve the great advances that our people need and are capable of achieving, but our history is against it, and I fear the worst.
  6.14 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Competitiveness and economic success in future are dependent on wise investment today. We hear a lot from Conservative Members about tax cuts, particularly about how cuts in the standard rate of income tax might save them from electoral defeat in the not too distant future, but we hear very much less about the cost of investment cuts, particularly in terms of reduced investment in schools, small business assistance and transport infrastructure, to give but three examples.
  Other hon. Members will speak today about those sectors, but I intend to deal with one sector of investment that is of particular significance to Liberal Democrats: investment in housing, and the Housing Bill. I do not believe that I must make the same pleadings as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), first, because housing is inextricably linked with our economy and vital if we are to have a competitive, flexible and successful economy; secondly, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a Minister with responsibility for housing, and should be able to answer the issues that I am raising today.
  Why have the Liberal Democrats chosen today to talk about housing and the Housing Bill? Outside this place, we get far more votes than we are ever allowed true representation. That means that we may get five bites of the cherry on the Queen's Speech. Housing has been one of the issues that has been way down the political agenda, and that is why we have chosen to debate it today—not because we think that the other matters under debate today are of less importance.
  Mr. Barry Field: I share the hon. Lady's view that housing is important. Will she join me in condemning the Liberal Democratic-controlled unitary council for scrapping an agreement that goes back years to pay housing benefit direct to landlords on the Isle of Wight; cynically to ensure that housing lists grow ever longer and tenants spend their housing benefit on anything but their rent; and to create mayhem where there was good order and discipline?
  Mrs. Maddock: I wondered what it was that one of the Tory Whips had whispered in the hon. Gentleman's ear, and it has now become obvious.
  Mr. Field: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Maddock: I will not give way. I want to make progress.
  Mr. Field rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The rule is clear. If the hon. Lady does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Field: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is a genuine point of order.
  Mr. Barry Field: I was just accused of taking instructions from the deputy Chief Whip. He came to me and said that he had met someone at Buckingham palace from the Isle of Wight, that he has just had a letter from him, and that he would like to reply to it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am sure that, at some point, one of the Whips may have put that point in the hon. Gentleman's ear, whether it was this afternoon or not.
  378
  For many years, I was a city councillor in Southampton and listened to the pleading of landlords who had to pay back rent that had been given to them in housing benefit when their tenants had done a moonlight flit. It is not easy to know which is the best way to deal with that matter. Clearly, my Liberal Democrat colleagues have weighed up local circumstances in the Isle of Wight, and they have come to a conclusion.
  Investment is about putting money in now to save greater expenditure in the long run, and to enable us to produce wealth. Investing in good-quality housing, which will last longer and need fewer repairs, is a prime example. We certainly need that now. At the current rate of building, our homes, both public and private, will need to last for a few hundred years each.
  Investing in the construction of new homes and schools is one of the most effective ways of getting people back to work. This year and next year, it is estimated that 12,000 more construction workers will lose their jobs solely as a result of last year's cuts in housing association building. It is estimated that, for every pound spent on construction, at least half will be saved not only in lower benefits, but in increased tax revenues.
  Investment in housing cannot be measured only in terms of money and finance; the value of investment in homes has a tremendous effect on people's lives. To be homeless can be crippling. Not only is it very stressful: it is also very damaging to people's physical health. Homelessness means that people are often excluded—they are divided from society and shut out from opportunity, education, meaningful work, health care, financial support and, fundamentally, decent housing.
  Many such people become trapped in a downward spiral, with the escape route shut off by the many measures enacted by what I believe to be an insensitive and dogmatic Government. For a party that talks so much about the need to help families, its actions on social housing are a betrayal. Investment in supporting families is crucial. Two of the main causes of family break-up are lack of and insecurity in homes and jobs.
  Almost 20 years ago, the wider problems of homelessness were recognised in law for the first time, when, in 1977, the Liberal Member for Isle of Wight, Stephen Ross—sadly, no longer with us—introduced the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, with support from all sides of the House. That Act was passed because people inside and outside the House recognised that homelessness was a long-term problem and that, unless long-term solutions were found, it would lead to countless other problems in health, work and other aspects of people's daily lives.
  If we regress to a position where temporary accommodation and 12-month contracts are the norm for homeless families, we will be denying them the security and the stability that they need to get back on their feet. The repeal of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which is effectively what the Government appear to be proposing in their Bill, will be a monumental step backwards in the battle against homelessness. Since it was introduced, the Act has helped hundreds of thousands of homeless families to find a decent home and a stable environment and to recover after the terrible trauma of being made homeless.
  I do not deny that there is a serious problem with the length of local authority waiting lists throughout the country, which sometimes leads to people blaming the

  379
  homeless for apparent queue jumping. In fact, it is a clear and obvious consequence of the way in which the Government have starved councils and housing associations of funds.
  The proposal to change the rules on access to social housing is little more than an exercise in scapegoating to try to shift the blame for Britain's housing crisis away from the Government. By their own speeches, Ministers have fuelled a belief—some of them have even convinced themselves—that homeless people are all queue jumping. Now, they feel that they must act if they are to retain any credibility.
  Quite apart from everything else that the Government are proposing, these reforms are really something of a con trick. Putting homeless people into temporary accommodation and then on to the waiting lists will not make the waiting lists any shorter or make any difference to the speed with which most of the people currently on them will be housed. The Government's proposals will not reduce housing need or housing demand and they will not increase housing supply.
  The Government are failing everyone in housing need. They are also failing the construction industry. The reason for the huge waiting lists for local authority housing is clear—it is quite simply the severe shortage of affordable housing. Fewer houses were built in the social sector last year than in any year since the war. If the rumours about Budget cuts are true, there may be only enough money to invest in 16,000 new properties in the social sector next year. Currently, the waiting list for housing in Birmingham is 16,000.
  What I find even more distressing is that the Government are now trying to hide behind the Awua judgment—the legal decision that Brent council's obligation to house a homeless family was adequately fulfilled by placing them in temporary accommodation for 28 days. That judgment has set a precedent that was certainly not intended in the original legislation. It cannot be allowed to stand. It is the logic of the madhouse for the Government to claim that it somehow makes their proposals all the more acceptable. In fact, it makes it absolutely essential that the law in this area is clarified. Liberal Democrats will be fighting tooth and nail to keep the spirit of the current law in the new Bill.
  I want to turn from quantity of housing to quality, because both are equally important. I hope that the Home Energy Conservation Act, which I successfully piloted through Parliament last year, will come into force in April. It should lead to some improvements in home energy efficiency, provided that the resources and the investment are put in place. However, at the same time the Government are proposing the negative step of scrapping mandatory renovation grants. They are doing so at a time when 1.75 million homes are either unfit for habitation or below a tolerable standard, and living in those 1.75 million homes are 4.25 million individuals.
  I would be the first to accept that the present system of home improvement grants for private home owners is far from perfect. It is very complicated and bureaucratic, and it depends not only on where someone lives, but on whether he can find his way around the red tape involved in getting a grant. In addition, mandatory grants can be
  380
  awarded only after a property is ruled to be unfit for human habitation, so it is often a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
  It could be argued that giving more discretion to local authorities would allow them to tackle problems earlier. However, I and many others in the housing sector truly believe that the Government will use the proposed reforms as a smokescreen to hide a further reduction in funding.
  Improving the standard of our housing stock, both public and private, should be a major plank of Government policy. It is certainly a sound investment for the future and a way of creating jobs. However, it is not only home improvement grants that the Government are intent on taking away from home owners. Mortgage interest relief has been slashed, at a time when the market has been at its lowest ebb for a long time. Recent cuts in income support for mortgage holders have left home owners with no real effective safety net. The claim that private insurance schemes are practical options for most home owners has been blown out of the water by report after report.
  There is no doubt that housing and housing matters are inextricably linked to the economy. The President of the Board of Trade spoke earlier about the need for flexibility. We now have one of the most inflexible housing systems ever, across all tenures.
  There is an inherent contradiction in the Government's economic policy that has badly hit home owners—that of trying artificially to pump up the housing market while at the same time pursuing a general anti-inflation policy. One does not have to be an economist to recognise the contradiction there, and to predict the effects that we are now seeing, with more than 1,000 houses being repossessed every week and, consequently, even more pressure on local authority waiting lists. It is one area where the Government have certainly introduced competition. On top of that, an estimated 1.5 million people are trapped in negative equity.
  How have the Government responded in their proposed housing legislation? It would appear that they have abdicated all responsibility for the problems faced by home owners and tenants alike, and are proposing legislation which looks likely to consist largely of gimmicks and smokescreens and which, by all accounts, will not provide the long-term programme of investment in homes, which are the vital anchors for all our families.
  What could have been a sensible policy to encourage housing association tenants to buy their homes is dreadfully flawed, because the Government are more concerned with the dogma of introducing the right to buy than with the consequences of those sales in some areas. Thankfully, I believe that the Government have finally bowed to pressure and exempted much rural housing from the scheme. Even so, the scheme remains problematic in many areas.
  I am astonished when I see how much effort the Government and others are putting into devising ever more devious ways to allow public bodies to go to the private market to obtain capital—not because it is a bad idea, but because Ministers are so bound by their obsession with the notion that it is somehow wrong for public bodies to borrow.
  Borrowing to finance revenue spending is the road to disaster, although I have to say that Tory colleagues in my county of Dorset are always encouraging my local authority to do just that. However, borrowing for capital

  381
  expenditure for investment is lasting. These are the principles on which industry works. One would think that the Government would by now have recognised them, too.
  Why should housing associations be able to go to the private sector to seek finance to build homes, but local authorities are not allowed to do likewise? Local authorities are democratically accountable for their spending. The Government's position is even more hypocritical, given the news that grant-maintained schools will be allowed to borrow in the private market. That blows a hole in the Government's policy and their defence of what they have done in this sphere.
  We need to be prepared to use our imagination to break free of the constraints which prevent investment. I am thinking of the rule according to which all spending, including capital investment, contributes equally to our main measure of Government borrowing. That point has already been alluded to today. There is no logic in that notion. It makes councils, which desperately need new homes for homeless people, keep millions of pounds locked up unused in their bank accounts.
  The Liberal Democrats would separate capital and revenue spending and give local authorities the freedom to invest the money they have in new homes. We would also allow local authorities direct access to capital markets to finance local projects. In all my time in local government and in the House, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why local councils' financial wings have to be kept as clipped as they have been by the Government, especially for projects that are likely to reduce their costs in the long term, and create much-needed jobs in their area.
  The Labour party seems to be very hesitant and timid in this sphere. I have been waiting for the long-promised housing policy document that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) told me was coming earlier this year. Regrettably, the Labour party seems to be similarly blinkered when it comes to reform of the measurement of the public sector borrowing requirement. I understand that Labour's Treasury team has ruled out any change in Government accounting rules to release funds for investment.
  There is too much timidity in politics today. Too many politicians seem scared to challenge traditional orthodoxy.
  Ms Clare Short: Not me.
  Mrs. Maddock: There are always exceptions to every rule. Interestingly, it is quite often women who are prepared to put their heads above the parapet.
  At the moment, the Government's housing agenda appears to be led by the right wing of the Conservative party, which seems to have a set of fairly simple messages: expand home ownership, regardless of sustainability, cut welfare payments, and the notion "private sector, good; public sector, bad". The long-term costs of those measures to the economy and the loss of democratic accountability seem not to come into it.
  Liberal Democrat housing legislation this Session would take the agenda in a new direction—that of real investment for the long term. We would liberate local authorities from outdated Treasury rules by differentiating between capital investment and current expenditure. We would allow local authorities to spend the receipts from the sale of their council houses to provide new social
  382
  housing and would allow housing associations to do the same without imposing a wholly inflexible right to buy. We would also make it crystal clear that local authorities have a continuing duty to offer long-term secure tenancies to families made homeless through no fault of their own.
  We would also give local authorities new powers to bring back into use the 800,000 empty properties in England. We would look to invest in our young people by making councils responsible for providing accommodation for homeless 16 and 17-year-olds who currently slip through the welfare net and are treated neither as adults nor as vulnerable minors. This is our agenda: secure homes, flexible tenures, partnership, the extension of choice for all and, fundamentally, an adequate supply of high-quality housing, which is absolutely vital if we are to have a competitive, flexible and thriving economy.
  Investment in our people is the best guarantee for all our futures—decent education and training, health care, help for the unemployed through investment in our infrastructure and help for small businesses. However, to make the most of such investment, the firm anchor for most of our families is a safe, decent and affordable home.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. David Porter: We are more than half-way through our lengthy debate on the Queen's Speech and, so far, the theme has been well laid out—it is clearly the battleground for the next election, or at least part of it, as the speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) demonstrated. It was none the less a thoughtful speech.
  As always on such occasions, it is not only what is in the Gracious Speech that is significant; reading between the lines and considering what is not in it are equally important. I deal first with what is in it and the three priorities: making Britain the enterprise centre of Europe, stepping up the fight against crime and increasing choice still further in education. Few will disagree with those laudable aims, but I feel that we would do better to invest our subscription to Europe in this country rather than subsidise competition in other countries through our net contributions to the European leviathan. If the Budget next week were to cut European spending, it would be a popular Budget indeed.
  Clearly, we shall not be the enterprise centre of Europe if we adopt the social chapter and the minimum wage, so the Government are right to continue to oppose them. I regret, however, the narrowing of our vision from the workshop of the world to the enterprise centre of Europe, as Europe is not expanding economically while so much of the rest of the world is.
  The fight against crime is absolutely spot on. I just wonder how much of national resource is lost in crime. The Government's earlier work is having some success in the form of falling recorded crime in most areas, against the trend of rising global crime. However, people's impression is not always one of falling crime. It is that impression—that confidence—with which we have to deal in law and order as in economic well-being.
  Some years ago, I was condemned by a number of people in East Anglia for suggesting that the police should intern some criminals, at least for a time. Judging by the outcry, one would have thought that I was calling for gas

  383
  chambers for them. I am now delighted to report that Suffolk police are targeting some people's activities, especially in Lowestoft and Beccles, with encouraging results. Quite often one person can be responsible for quite a large number of crimes.
  Turning to education, the increasing of choice or parental preference in education has run alongside the drive to improve standards and must be supported. All right hon. and hon. Members, as parents or grandparents, want our children to do better than we did, and in a world where no one owes the United Kingdom a living, they have to be our best investment.
  In reality, we know that in rural areas, and in most towns too, there is no choice for parents. Children go to the local school. Economics and common sense dictate that. But within that constraint, it is surely right and proper to extend choice as widely and deeply to as many people as possible in pre-schooling, statutory schooling, tertiary education and training. Vouchers are an excellent, simple device to help broaden diversity of provision and widen choice.
  In the same way, once we stop thinking that only councils can provide housing, or that only the national health service can directly provide beds, or that local authorities alone can supply public services, we will immediately open up choice again—within a regulatory framework to ensure standards.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said in the debate on the Queen's Speech on Wednesday that people do not object to paying benefits to those in need in our community, and that we do not mind helping those who face a genuine threat before they come to this country, and he is quite right. People, citizens and taxpayers of this country will not, however, tolerate abuse of our hospitality and taxes by bogus asylum seekers, any more than they will any longer in the main tolerate abuse by those who cheat the social security system. Incidentally, in all the flurry of the weekend's post, there were only two letters from my constituents about the Queen's Speech, and both were about bogus asylum seekers.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), I have serious doubts about the consequences of the divorce reform proposals, but a free vote should help that. Otherwise, I commend what is in the Queen's Speech.
  I turn to what is not in the Loyal Address. There is no measure to deal with our membership of the common fisheries policy—a nightmare which gets worse each week. If we were serious about allowing a British industry to thrive, our exit from the common fisheries policy would be a priority.
  There are no commitments on roads—we have to wait for the Budget next week for those. The title of today's debate includes transport and investment, and it is accepted that roads, as appropriate, are an investment. The outstanding success of the port of Felixstowe in Suffolk is in good measure attributable to the fact that the A14 from the midlands and its connections to the motorway network run directly into the port.
  By the same token, the pledge in the White Paper "Roads to Prosperity" in the 1980s to dual the A12 fully from London to Great Yarmouth would be an investment
  384
  of relatively modest proportions but would produce a far bigger economic gain for Lowestoft. However, that policy seems to be a little unfashionable at the moment. In particular, the Wrentham bypass and the new crossing of Lake Lothing at Lowestoft would have environmental benefits as well as create some economic returns.
  The signals are that we may be putting back even further some of that road investment. In recent years there have been some spectacular, if random, improvements in road communication in East Anglia, but that is a redressing of the neglect of previous decades. In economic terms, isolation is not an acceptable substitute in East Anglia for a coherent transport investment strategy, as in other parts of the UK, and certainly in other parts of the European Union.
  In the Queen's Speech, there is no push to go for all schools becoming grant-maintained, which is a pity. Sadly, in Suffolk, there is not a single grant-maintained school—mainly because of a perceived satisfaction with the local education authority, under both its present Labour administration—although some discontent is creeping in—and its previous Conservative control. Also, Suffolk has developed a wide range of partnerships. There are schools in pyramids and clusters, with business and industry, and those sharing teachers and parts of the curriculum. It is a profound strength and is recognised as such by parents and teachers.
  The other probable reason for there being no GM schools is the enormous success of our three-tier system—primary, middle and high schools—with the transfer ages of nine and 13, which cut across the key stages of the national curriculum. That forces schools to work together.
  Personally, I would like all schools to become self-governing and LEAs to be demolished, but I am aware of the charge that, while we are empowering parents and local providers, we are not always building in the right democratic answerability. School governors report to parents, and some are elected by parents, so there is an element of democracy, and it needs fostering.
  The same is not true, however, in health, as is well illustrated in my area. Due to the history of the configuration of health authorities in Waveney and Great Yarmouth, together with increasing numbers of elderly people, a review is being conducted on hospital provision for the elderly in north Suffolk. The proposals and the consultation process could lead to the closure of beds, wards and, ultimately, unless there are concrete alternative agreed uses, closure of community hospitals at Lowestoft and Beccles, even though the preferred policy is for community hospitals.
  Quite rightly, the Minister for Health has told campaigners that local bed provision is a matter for the local health authority's providers and purchasers. However, the danger is that the public will lose faith in the consultation process if their views are persistently ignored by local authorities and trusts, rubber-stamped by the regions and eventually by the Secretary of State.
  Therefore, there is a perceived gap in public accountability in a public service as vital as health care. I sound that warning to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. That perceived gap cannot be neglected indefinitely, and if not now, then in some Gracious Speech soon, it will have to be considered.

  385
  In reading between the lines of the Gracious Speech despite the huffing and puffing of the Opposition, I think that it is part of a continuing programme to modernise the state for the next century. Privatisation, deregulation and competition have not been lost sight of. Record inward investment finds fertile soil in Britain today. The fact that some of the trade unions are starting to flex their muscles again, sensing that the Labour party could soon be dancing to their tunes in Downing street, shows how important it is that we keep up that drive.
  We need to remove still more red tape; we need to enforce fewer regulations from Brussels—and Whitehall. We need to use tax reductions for individuals and business to stimulate the economy. We need to encourage those barometers of our economic health—retail and construction—in a positive way. We need to use taxes to make family stability attractive again. The Queen's Speech is a step on that road, and the Budget will be the next. But the Government need to keep thinking, acting and believing more aggressively—in a political sense—if all that has been achieved is not to be thrown away.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on an excellent speech—her first from the Front Bench in her new role. It was such a refreshing change to hear someone trying to consider the broad scope of investment in our country, especially as it affects wealth-creation processes and the manufacturing sector. I look forward to the winding-up speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) the shadow Secretary of State for Transport.
  Like many hon. Members, I was attracted to politics by its potential to improve the conditions of life for the people of our country. My discontent was with the inability of our economy and our society over many years to give the less privileged people in our country a real stake in its fortunes or a real chance of a decent standard of living.
  Of course, a few of the ideas and strategies to achieve greater prosperity, which some of my generation and I embraced—when I was in manufacturing industry and, indeed, later when I was at the London School of Economics—have been worked on, modified and changed a little. While I worked in the manufacturing sector and, indeed, right throughout my career, I have always held the conviction and been committed to a belief—it remains totally unchanged—in the fundamental importance of the creation of wealth in offering the inhabitants of these islands the opportunity of the good life.
  There are many definitions of that good life, but I like the pretty handy one that it means: a nice home, a well-paid job, good holidays, and decent levels of education, health and social care. We all intuitively know what the good life is and what we want for our constituents and the people of this country. I continue to be convinced that the creation of that wealth must be primarily through the manufacturing sector of our economy.
  The Queen's Speech has the usual obligatory references to
  "encouraging enterprise and competitiveness and support for small businesses",
  386
  and "further deregulation", and it promises
  "increased competitiveness encouraged by raising educational skill levels, advancing knowledge, and promoting an efficient and flexible labour market."
  But there is little sign of positive plans to achieve those goals and, overall, the Queen's Speech gives little sign that the Government are aware of the perilous situation facing our national economy, as Britain plummets to 18th place in the world prosperity league. Apart from one tiny Bill, which has cross-party support, nothing in the Queen's Speech will do anything to help our manufacturing enterprises.
  From every side of industry, we hear calls for the Government to take radical steps to reinvigorate our industries—investing in them and building up their international competitiveness, educating and training a modern, multi-skilled work force and giving them the modern infrastructure of services that they need to thrive. That is the industrial agenda which any Government must address and which should have been addressed more effectively in the past 16 years.
  As co-chairman, with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), of the parliamentary manufacturing industry group, and as one of the instigators of the networking for industry initiative, I have been privileged, over the past two years, to hear the informed opinions of industrialists, academics, bankers, trade unionists, corporate analysts and financial journalists on our economic and industrial position. What is fascinating is the remarkable similarity of their views, not only in terms of the challenges that we face, but in terms of their prescriptions for bringing our manufacturing sector back to rude good health. They are all deeply committed to ensuring that Britain remains in the ranks of the wealthiest and most successful nations when the world and the competitive situation change faster each day and when a fundamental shift in global economic power is well under way.
  In a debate a few weeks ago—it was one of the Wednesday morning debates, which are such a refreshing part of our changed structures—we were informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), that Britain's economic decline commenced in the 1850s. I could not resist the temptation of shouting out that it was the Whigs' fault. The Minister hinted in his winding-up speech that, by implication, it could not be the Conservative party's fault.
  I do not want to dwell in the 19th century, but to look briefly at the development of our economy since 1950. It is broadly agreed that, over the past four decades, the UK trade balance in manufactures has been in long-term decline. That is an all-party responsibility and I do not make a party point. The inexorable downward trend since 1950, with periodic ups and downs, is clear.
  Equally marked was an upward trend in the non-manufacturing balance, which was briefly interrupted in the mid-1970s by higher world oil prices, but which was resumed when North sea oil came on stream, just after the Government were elected in 1979. The long-running improvement in the UK's non-manufacturing balance was caused by an improvement in the UK's balance in food and raw materials, and, when that tailed off, by the boom in oil production.

  387
  Throughout the period, there was also a persistent, though fluctuating, surplus on services. The tailing-off in the food and raw materials balance and the declining balance in oil towards the end of the 1980s were not, however, accompanied by any significant recovery in the balance in manufacturing trade. On the contrary, it too deteriorated. There was a growing emphasis on the success of services. We all remember the Conservatives' obsession with services and how they said, "Forget manufacturing industry. Look to the horizon, where all our constituents will work in the service industry."
  I intend to concentrate on the belief that service jobs will replace manufacturing jobs and that services will replace manufacturing industry as the source of our wealth. With the growing emphasis on the success of services at the expense of manufacturing, a central policy question must be answered by all parties. Labour Members, especially Front-Bench Members, are looking at the problems in the long term. It was refreshing to learn from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South that we are looking at a long-term strategy for manufacturing industry. The argument in the 1980s was whether service industries had the potential to close the widening visible trade gap. If services cannot do that, what scale of manufacturing trade recovery will be required to have a significant beneficial impact on future trends in output, growth and employment?
  One of the most illuminating attempts to look at the problem has come from the Cambridge economic policy group, which has pioneered an analysis that helps us to look in detail at three scenarios. I will take the House briefly through those scenarios because they are vital to everything in our modern economy. The first scenario examines the development of the economy if it continues along the familiar pattern of the existing trend—in other words, if we follow through the Queen's Speech with no new policies, no new investment and no change.
  In the second scenario, we would shift to an enormous expansion of the financial and miscellaneous service sector. Let us take the view of the 1980s and follow it to its logical conclusion. In the third scenario, there would be a considerable effort to boost investment in the manufacturing sector, which would consequently be a success.
  Let us consider scenario one. When the implications of existing trends in trade competitiveness and overall economic performance are explored, taking into account the unintended but beneficial effects of the 1992 devaluation and making quite optimistic assumptions about world trade, the picture is extremely gloomy if we go on from here with no real change. Economic growth would be relatively slow and unemployment would remain high. There would also be an unacceptably large deficit in the balance of payments. By 2003, the country would face serious external problems.
  The second scenario focuses on the rapid growth of financial and miscellaneous services, a category which covers virtually all internationally traded services except for travel and transportation. It includes banking, insurance, telecommunications, films and television, consultancy, royalties and other business services. It is an area of non-manufacturing trade in which Britain's
  388
  international performance is, admittedly, good and in which significant further improvement may be feasible. All that is accepted in this scenario.
  The second Cambridge scenario reveals, however, that such exports cannot compensate for serious failings in the manufacturing sector; that is at the heart of the problem. Offsetting the prospective manufacturing deficit would require an inconceivable increase in the export of financial or miscellaneous services and would assume transformation in those services that is far beyond the range of possibility. Indeed, the increase in financial activity envisaged would be roughly equivalent to absorbing all the current international financial activity of New York and Tokyo, in addition to the increase already envisaged in natural growth trends in services. Depending on services is at the centre of the argument.
  The third scenario focuses on the manufacturing sector. It assumes an increase in size and an improvement in the international competitiveness of manufacturing industry greater than that suggested by the current trend level. The assumed improvement is substantial, but it is conceivable with the right combination of industrial policy, financial incentives and a realistic exchange rate. In this scenarip, we see unemployment falling considerably from now until 2003 while the balance of payments deficit is eventually eliminated. The clear strategy is to increase gradually the growth rate of manufactured exports and to reduce that of imports. On that projection, by 2003, manufactured exports would be 14 per cent. higher and imports would be 4 per cent. lower than if we had followed the current trends.
  The improvement in trade performance would be accompanied by greater productivity in the manufacturing sector, where output would be 14 per cent. greater in 2003 than if we had followed the current trends. There would also be an increase in the output of business and other services allied to the manufacturing sector whose contribution is crucial to the performance of manufacturing.
  Hon. Members may say, "Where do we go from there?" There are three ways in which to look at the long-term future of our economy.
  The third scenario shows that our only viable course is to follow an investment programme in our manufacturing sector. We must not neglect the service sector, but if we think for one moment that services can make a difference to our declining manufacturing sector, we have another think coming. I wish to make a comparison. If the third scenario is followed, the deficit in manufacturing trade will not only be eliminated by the end of the century as the sector records a rising surplus, but, by 2003, the current account will be in balance and Britain will no longer be accumulating debt.
  The point is not that manufacturing will replace financial and miscellaneous services, but that the scale for potential improvements in manufacturing is so much greater than in financial and miscellaneous services, due mainly to the much larger scale of manufacturing trade. People often talk about manufacturing and services as though they were of equal weight, but we must look at the reality.
  In 1993, the combined value of UK imports and exports of manufactures was £206 billion, while the figure for financial and miscellaneous services was £26 billion, or a little over 10 per cent. of the manufacturing total. To close

  389
  the balance of payments gap would therefore require eight times as great a percentage improvement in services performance as in manufacturing performance. To achieve the envisaged transformation in manufacturing is difficult, but possible. To improve the performance of services as envisaged would be quite unachievable and impossible.
  Transforming manufacturing industry would be a major challenge in organisational and human terms, but would not be prohibitively expensive in terms of investment. We are saying that, while it is a hard row to hoe, it is not impossible. At present, gross domestic fixed capital formation in manufacturing is around £12 billion a year, or 2 per cent. of GDP. In our scenario, the figure would have to be increased by 3 per cent. of GDP. In cash terms, this would imply an extra £6 billion a year, which is less than one sixtieth of total consumers' expenditure and, funnily enough, is not far off what the media have speculated the Chancellor of the Exchequer will soon be handing out in tax cuts.
  In conclusion, clearly there is a pressing need to address the industrial agenda in a radical and innovative way. All the signs are that only one party in this country is tackling that imaginatively. The Conservative Government—on the other hand—appear doomed to get further and further out of touch, not just with the electorate but with manufacturing industry and its leaders. The leaders of manufacturing industry in this country wonder what world the Government are living in, and the Secretary of State today painted a picture that is not recognised by ordinary people out in the real world of manufacturing.
  I have been a little disheartened that only about half a dozen Conservative Members—not including those who are paid to be here—have been in the Chamber during the debate. Of those Members, one talked about families and divorce law, another about television and another about local government. Today's debate was, I thought, a prime opportunity to talk about investment in manufacturing, transport and the infrastructure, but that challenge has not been taken up by Conservative Members. Perhaps that can be attributed to the fact that so few Conservative Members have any knowledge of or experience in manufacturing industry. They have not worked in the industry and they do not know it, although a couple of them—more than a couple, in fact—are consultants to the industry.
  The Queen's Speech will be greeted with dismay by manufacturers, managers and workers across the country, as will—I suspect—the forthcoming Budget. The Government are incapable of thinking about the long-term future of Britain's wealth-creating capabilities, and they are entirely obsessed with the short-term goal of bribing enough voters to secure them a further term in office. Such an eventuality—unlikely as it may be—would be a dark day for the British manufacturing sector.
  7.4 pm
  Sir Michael Grylls: I shall do my best to remedy the disappointment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) at the earlier speeches from Conservative Members by referring to trade and industry in some way. I was excited when the hon. Gentleman said that he was going to talk about wealth creation. By doing so, he stood out like a sore thumb from a large number of his colleagues who do not appear to approve of wealth creation. But with all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I was disappointed that he allowed
  390
  himself to get dragged along by the arguments for and against services and manufacturing industry. In a global business sense, those are fallow arguments, as both sectors need each other.
  The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that the Government have been hooked on the service industry at the expense of manufacturing industry. Some of the great success stories of the past few years would suggest that Britain has developed as a newly industrialised country. We talk about countries in the far east as NICs, but Britain in a way is also a NIC because we have been re-industrialised after the disasters of the 1970s, when it was almost impossible to run a firm sensibly. Trade union law was totally out of control, and the then Labour Government refused to reform it. The reforms brought in by the Government in the 1980s were vital in changing that climate.
  On the positive side, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to focus strongly on supporting and encouraging manufacturing industry. I wish to refer to two matters in the Queen's Speech in that context. The first is the Government's determination to maintain control over and bear down on inflation. That contributes to the fact that manufacturing industry is increasing, because we are now seen to be a country of relatively low inflation, and that is vital.
  The second matter is the Government's intention to continue to do everything they can to support and encourage the development of small business. A huge amount has been done to turn around the anti-enterprise—particularly anti-small business enterprise—culture which existed in our economic and industrial scene for too many decades after the war. Even during the recent downturn in the economy, the number of new businesses being started each year has never fallen below 400,000.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield would no doubt say that a lot of firms have gone out of business, and that is of course true; it happens as part of a life and death cycle. But it is vital that new enterprise is growing like grass all the time. The hon. Gentleman will agree that, if that does not happen, the industrial climate will not be healthy. I can remember when talking about small business in the late 1970s was an off-beat thing. The late Lord Lever was the Minister in charge of the matter in the then Labour Government, and he was very good, but small business was an off-beat thing to worry about.
  That argument seems to have been won. Everyone realises that small businesses are important. Even the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) made a passing reference to small businesses. She did not tell us what the Liberals would do for them, other than spend a great deal more taxpayers' money on all sorts of things. No doubt that money would have to come from small businesses. The argument that small businesses are a central part of our economy has been won. I was delighted to see small businesses feature strongly in the Queen's Speech.
  I hope that the Government will continue to nurture small business and look at ways of encouraging, for example, greater provision of long-term money to finance small and medium-sized firms. I hope that the Government will encourage larger firms to pay their bills more quickly by giving a good example and by forcing them to publish in their annual accounts how quickly they pay their bills.

  391
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield spoke about manufacturing industry. It is a mistake and it is clearly wrong to go around saying that our manufacturing industry is disappearing. He will be aware, as the House is aware, of the huge success of the British pharmaceutical industry. The majority of the most successful drugs currently sold around the world are made by British firms and were British innovations. That is a huge success story.
  Although much of the car industry is foreign-owned—that is not the most important factor—it is located in Britain and is providing British jobs and creating wealth and exports for Britain. The British car industry went through the most appalling disaster period. Sales and production went down and down, but they are now going up and up. It is well known that all the major manufacturing firms are now located in Britain. That is a huge advantage not only to the big firms but to the small firms which supply them and which have been sharpened up by the arrival of new companies.
  The first Japanese firm that came to Britain in a big way was Nissan, which came to Washington in the north-east. One of the great by-products of that happy decision to invest in the north-east was the encouragement to small suppliers to the car industry to sharpen up their act. I remember talking to Nissan about that in Tokyo just before it came over. The increase in competitiveness among British component suppliers has not only made them more efficient in Britain but encouraged them to export to the continent and other countries, which they have done successfully. That would never have happened without inward investment.
  It is wrong to knock British manufacturing industry on the head. If one analyses British industry realistically, one can see that, 100 or more years ago when the industrial revolution started, we were first, so we were almost bound to decline relatively. The hon. Member for Huddersfield made an all-party point. Both Conservative Governments and Labour Governments have made terrible mistakes in dealing with manufacturing industry in the post-war period. That is history. We went down, but now we are coming up again in almost any sector that one cares to talk about—washing machines, cars, refrigerators or prescription medicines. That is why I say that we really are a newly industrialised country.
  I have mentioned the effect of inward investment on the car industry. It is almost wholly beneficial. I plead guilty as much as anyone to having the old-fashioned feeling that it is a shame that we cannot own the industry, but once we get over that and think more clearly, we recognise that the world is a global marketplace and ownership does not matter very much.
  Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Michael Grylls: In a moment.
  If there are 10,000 jobs in Washington with Nissan, that is 10,000 jobs, whether I own the company or a Japanese gentleman owns it. Those jobs are the same. Those exports are the same. Of course the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is going to say that dividends go back to Tokyo. That is true, of course they do, but we must look at the other side of the coin. Britain has the biggest investments in the United States of America. Those companies employ not British but American
  392
  people, but the dividends come back to Great Britain. The world is one place. So we must tear out of our hearts the over-nationalistic feeling that it is a shame that manufacturing is not British.
  Mr. Snape: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of being over-nationalistic if I put it to him that I would prefer decisions affecting British manufacturing industry and workers to be made in Britain, as I would prefer dividends and profits to remain in Britain rather than be repatriated abroad.
  Sir Michael Grylls: Decisions in large-scale manufacturing are not made by just one lot of nationals, whether British, Japanese or American. The boards of directors of the multinationals are made up of members of all nationalities, so we must not get hooked on the idea that companies are from one country.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield said that not many Members were involved in manufacturing industry. I have been personally involved for more than 20 years. I have seen how decisions are made. If a company is American or Japanese-owned, decisions are shared. Decisions are not made in isolation. No one makes a decision about a business, for example, in Great Britain without taking into account the British interest.
  The multinationals used to be part of the demonology of the Labour party, but perhaps that attitude has slipped out. If it has, that is a good thing. Many of the wiser multinationals will go on the local stock exchange to encourage local money and have a high local profile. I think that is a good idea. Some firms do it and some do not. It is one world now, certainly in large-scale manufacturing.
  There is a contest for inward investment. The real political point is that, if we do not have the right climate here, inward investment will stop coming. Investment went to the United States because, by and large, the United States has been historically welcoming to enterprise. Therefore, many British investors and companies invested in America because they could do so profitably and successfully. We are now attracting the lion's share of investment within the EC by Japanese and American companies because we offer a favourable and attractive climate of low corporate taxation, less regulation and low inflation. We tinker with that at our peril.
  I was intrigued by the speech of the leader of the Labour party at the Confederation of British Industry conference. He said all sorts of things, but it was what he did not say that was important. He said that the Labour party no longer believed in penal taxation. I am not sure what he meant by penal taxation. Was he saying that he did not believe in the personal taxation at 80 and 98 per cent., corporate taxation at 55 per cent. and death duties or inheritance tax at 80 per cent. presided over by the Labour Government? What level was he talking about? He was not specific. He never said what he would do for small firms, as the Gracious Speech did. He never said what he would do about the 100 per cent. allowance on inheritance tax for non-quoted companies. Will that be reintroduced under a Labour Government? If it were, it would be hugely damaging to the economy.
  I welcome the words on inflation, and urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to use his good influence in the Government to ensure that we do not let up on that work. It is frightening to have to say

  393
  this but, after all the work that has been done to bear down on inflation, by and large Britain still does not have credibility in respect of it, although the figures are good. The average is 4 per cent.; under Labour it was 15 per cent.
  The figures are good, but there is a suspicion in many of the financial markets that, sooner or later, the British Government will let up on the fight against inflation. I do not believe that this Government will do so, but I urge my right hon. Friend to maintain that policy very strongly indeed. Manufacturing and service industries and small businesses totally depend on the success of that policy. If one allows inflation to rip, one destroys companies, jobs and the manufacturing and service industries. I urge my right hon. Friend to keep up that good work.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. John Garrett: Lack of investment, particularly in education, industry and transport, is a fundamental determinant of economic performance. We do not find any reference to investment in Her Majesty's speech. There is talk of "support for small businesses" and the authorisation of
  "the construction and operation of a high speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel."
  Those two references pale into insignificance when set against the proposed reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement and the reduction in the share of national income taken by the public sector.
  It is as clear as day that long-term public investment will be sacrificed to the short-term political benefits of cuts in income tax. That will be very bad news for my constituency. The city that I represent, having come through the past two recessions with its industrial base damaged, now faces the most devastating local recession, with about 3,000 redundancies announced in the past year: the closure of Rowntree Nestle, a factory that has been in the city for about 300 years; the sale of Colman, with more than 100 redundancies already; cuts at Norwich Union amounting to about 1,200 jobs; the closure of an Eagle Star office, with the loss of 130 jobs; the loss of another 170 jobs at Anglia Television; and job losses at British Gas and Eastern Electricity. That is hundreds of job losses in a city that was prosperous for a very long time.
  The city of Norwich is reeling from those blows, and we now face the uncertainty of the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, where 900 people are employed. HMSO is highly successful, and to privatise it is pure ideology. As a major supplier to the public service, it has spent the past 200 years preventing Government Departments from being ripped off by private contractors. To replace those jobs, we need investment, both public and private, and we certainly need the initial stimulus to come from public investment in infrastructure, transport, education and training.
  The county of Norfolk has a deplorably low level of infrastructural development. Norwich is the only city of its size not to be attached to the motorway network. It desperately needs a fully dualled link to London and the dualling of the east-west A47 to link Yarmouth and Norwich to the midlands. I am not extra-enthusiastic for road building in general, but I am convinced of the need for a basic road network in East Anglia, particularly from London to Norwich and east-west across the county of
  394
  Norfolk. Those links are absolutely essential. Much of Norfolk is a low-wage area with limited job opportunities and rising unemployment. Those two projects would breathe economic life into the county.
  The dualling of the A47 and All is also necessary to allow trading links with Europe to be developed further. Yarmouth and Norwich have had long-standing relationships with the low countries and it is essential that we take advantage of those by improving our infrastructure. As a result of the trunk roads review of 1994, no new schemes are to be started in East Anglia in 1995 and 1996.
  Investment is also needed in rail connections in the region. It is clear from the use of superannuated rolling stock and the frequent signal and equipment failures that there should be investment in track and rolling stock on the London to Norwich line. Such investment has been paralysed by the impending privatisation of the railways. Rail privatisation is highly unpopular and quite staggeringly costly. All surveys show that the policy has no public support. It has cost £100 million in consultancy fees and £700 million in fees to the City of London already. Railtrack, which is worth up to £6.5 billion, is expected to be sold for £3 billion. Meanwhile, investment is stifled. The railways need investment, not privatisation, and the public want a reliable network, not a fragmented, private monopoly.
  On rolling investment in our national economic recovery, the recovery has been remarkably slow. The former Chancellor and the one before him promised that the green shoots of recovery were coming through. Business investment has grown by 4 per cent. since the trough of the recession. Historically, we have not only a far lower level of investment than our competitors but a lower rate of growth in investment. The Bank of England noted earlier this year that capacity constraints had appeared because of our low level of investment. It is difficult to comprehend that, in the past 16 years, so few of the receipts from North sea oil—our wealth—have been diverted into productive investment, either in industry or in infrastructure.
  Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Gentleman was trying to provoke me on the subject of investment. Does he not recognise that there has been enormous investment in British Telecom and the other privatisations, including all the water companies? If that has happened with those privatisations, is there any reason to suppose that it will not happen with the privatisation of British Rail? Of course the same thing will happen.
  Mr. Garrett: I do not believe that that has happened with privatisation. The force of technology alone would have obliged BT to invest at a very high level. As for the water utilities, it is a pity that some of those companies did not invest in stopping leaks instead of paying their executives inflated, fat-cat salaries and declaring profits of that size. The hon. Gentleman's point is worthless.
  We have a lower rate of investment growth than any other G7 country, as well as lower employment growth. In the league table of income per head, we have fallen from 13th to 18th, and Britain is now 21st in the league table of investment per head. In this country, investment per head per annum is £1,600, whereas it is £2,250 in France, £2,600 in Germany and £3,900 in Japan. That is the size of the investment gap that we suffer. It is no

  395
  wonder that the output of British manufacturing industry is only 1 per cent. higher than it was in 1973 during the three-day week. The latest figures show that total investment for the third quarter fell by 2.2 per cent. compared with the second quarter of 1995, and increased by only 0.6 per cent. in the past 12 months.
  Investment in education and training should be a top national priority. The only reference to that policy area is the voucher scheme for nursery education and allowing grant-maintained schools to borrow on the open market, for whatever that is worth, and students to choose between public and private sources of loan, the benefit of which is completely lost on me. The many students in my constituency are living in poverty. They have borrowed to the hilt. Allowing them to borrow from a bank will not make any difference. Their accommodation costs are approaching their total income on full grant and full loan. What more encouragement could be offered to a future generation of educated people?
  We spend far too little on education, and hon. Members on both sides of the House know of the anger in their constituencies at the recent cuts in education funding. Education and training, as other Governments know, are the crucial factors in economic growth. We have cut local authority expenditure, which in turn has crippled investment in education.
  The Gracious Speech should have outlined a statutory framework to ensure that all employers make a proper contribution to the training of their work force. We got none of that. The city that I represent used to be one of the best housed in the country, with some 25,000 council properties. The best 6,000 of those properties have been sold off. The area suffers from acute housing stress, with many families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, a record housing list and no new construction. Housing investment using the receipts from the sale of council house sales would be an investment in family quality of life. There is an investment famine in industry, education, transport and housing—and we are all the poorer for that.
  I was sorry that there was no whiff of any proposals for constitutional change in the Queen's Speech. Our country's institutions—not least this place—desperately need modernising. The House needs more power and responsibility vis-a-vis the Government and more control over the Government—any Government. The authoritarian control of Parliament by the Government must be reversed by more critical examination of legislation, as the leader of my party suggested in respect of the new asylum and immigration legislation. The House also needs to undertake more informed scrutiny and use greater powers in respect of protecting human rights. There is a need to implement the European convention on human rights in domestic law. Our country is the only one in western Europe that has not done so.
  There is a need to devolve power to local government and to reform the House of Lords. There is a crying need for a freedom of information Act. I regret that those ideas are too radical for the Government, who have run out of steam and are putting all their hopes into short-term tax cuts.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I hope that the House
  396
  will allow me a little latitude, in the same way as it was tolerant to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I apologise to Madam Speaker for not observing my right hon. Friend's courtesy in writing to her in advance of tonight's debate to say that I would be departing a little from the chosen subject.
  I ask for a little latitude as this is my maiden contribution to the debate on the Gracious Speech, and it is the first occasion on which I have spoken as Chairman of the Deregulation Committee. I want to use the occasion to express on behalf of all my constituents the gratitude of the Isle of Wight to Her Majesty the Queen for appointing my noble friend Lord Mottistone as our first home-grown governor.
  The Isle of Wight is, in every sense and facet, a unique community. It has the great good fortune among all the shire counties of having a governor who is appointed by Her Majesty. The office goes back hundreds of years and there has in its history been a number of interregnums. The last followed the untimely death and heinous murder of Lord Louis Mountbatten. His Excellency Lord Mottistone is the first governor to have been chosen from within the island's community. He is a distinguished member of the Seely family, whose record of service and public duty for the benefit of the island is remarkable.
  In an era of exceptional cynicism and constant denigration of our great British traditions and dynasties, it is remarkable that the Seely family should have such an unbroken record of public service. His Excellency would be the first to admit that he is a man of modest means. Unlike other governors appointed in 1992, but on the Prime Minister's recommendation, to Bermuda and Hong Kong, the Governor of the Isle of Wight is unpaid.
  In the days of the Nolan committee, I know that I speak for the whole island when I say that David Mottistone is a prime example of service before self. His dedication to and enthusiasm for all his duties has been exceptional. He has crossed the most difficult of all the rubicons on the Isle of Wight—he is universally trusted.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I should caution the hon. Gentleman against crossing his personal rubicon. I do not see how his remarks relate to the Queen's Speech. Tolerance in this instance relates to the subject matter chosen; it does not go so wide as to exclude the Gracious Speech altogether. The hon. Gentleman must either refer to the Queen's Speech or—
  Mr. Garrett: Resume his seat.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I would not make so bold. I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) can oblige me and will not have to resume his seat.
  Mr. Field: I was almost on the final lap of that part of my speech. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the only Member of Parliament who speaks for an entire county.
  During Lord Mottistone's time as Governor of the Isle of Wight, he has been a tower of strength and wisdom to us all, and we wish him a long and enjoyable retirement. I have always made it clear to the Government that if someone upsets Hampshire, 15 Members of Parliament will arrive on their doorstep. If someone upsets the Isle of Wight, they get me and two rather infamous labradors. Our not-so-secret weapon has always been the Governor of the Isle of Wight. The offices of many junior Ministers

  397
  have telephoned me to ask how his excellency should be addressed. On one occasion, I was even asked why we had a governor.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address the topic of the Queen's Speech.
  Mr. Field: The subjects for debate tonight are investment and transport. We have heard much about inward investment. I am particularly attracted to a figure that is often conveyed by the Governor of the Bank of England. The United Kingdom owns £250 billion-worth of the rest of the world, whereas the rest of the world owns £200 billion-worth of the United Kingdom. It is obvious that the balance is much in favour of our nation.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Departments of Transport and of Trade and Industry, and others throughout Whitehall, will ensure that the implications of the social chapter and the minimum wage for every type of business and enterprise throughout the United Kingdom are costed, so that we will have examples of precisely what they would mean for British industry and commerce, from the corner shop to the biggest industrial company. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy an article in The Times by Stanley Kalms of Dixons, who attended the Confederation of British Industry conference. Apparently, his was something of a lone voice—but, as so often with minority opinion, the lone voice is often the one that bursts the bubble.
  The minimum wage should not only be costed for every business but we should hear from our ministerial colleagues, particularly in view of the strength of feeling about deregulation expressed in the Gracious Speech, precisely what is to be done about the interfering, petty bureaucrats who think it appropriate to order a greengrocer to remove his wares from the pavement—a tradition that goes back years. That reveals to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to me precisely where the heart of the Labour party lies. Derbyshire county council did not have anything better to do with its time than to take that poor man to court: how ridiculous.
  As to the effect of a minimum wage on tourism, the Isle of Wight has a low gross domestic product. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Does it have only one?"] Only one who speaks Welsh. My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) is also the only Member of Parliament for Wales who is so well respected, as well as being one of the longest-serving Ministers for a Department of State—a record that is unique since the turn of the century. The minimum wage would be very damaging to tourism at our seaside resorts, which already have to compete with the sunshine economies of the rest of the EC. Worse, we have heard in the past few days that Labour wants to abolish A-levels. That too would be extremely damaging to this nation's competitiveness.
  Our privatisations have been extremely successful, of course. As I speak, British Telecom is experimenting with smart card technology on the Isle of Wight. As a result of my representations about the international nature of Cowes week, BT has installed multilingual telephones. The company has also done great service to the Isle of Wight by promoting teleworking; for a community linked to the mainland by a ferry service, that obviously represents the employment of the future.
  398
  Our local partnership investments are already a legend throughout the country, performing sterling work on the Isle of Wight. I should, however, add that we do not have as many multilingual telephones in this country as are encountered abroad. The same goes for multilingual cash machines. The UK is one of the principal destinations for international tourism, so I hope that the Minister will give his Treasury colleagues a boot up the backside, in an attempt to get the clearing banks to do a little more investing in hole-in-the-wall technology.
  Rail privatisation on the Isle of Wight has been a particular source of frustration. Ours was the first railway line in the country to be privatised, but now we seem to be at the back of the queue. There is all-party support for the 12-mile line that runs from the end of Ryde pier to Shanklin, on which steam could be reintroduced. Thus far, I am sorry to say, this is one opportunity for tourists that we have been frustrated in our attempts to enhance.
  We were pleased to receive assisted area status, and we hope in due course, with the assistance of the DTI, to get objective 1 status. None of us believes any longer that there is a crock of gold at the end of the Brussels rainbow, but such status would allow a community such as ours access to other funds currently denied to it.
  Another great success of privatisation has been that of the docks, under Associated British Ports and the trust ports. I refer also to the abolition of the dock labour scheme. I was sorry that the Queen's Speech did not mention abolishing light dues or opening up the shipping register to make it more competitive—or requiring trust boards to publish their accounts. They are, after all, quasi-public bodies. I have been frustrated in my attempts to extract the trust board accounts from the Yarmouth harbour commissioners, and I know that many of my constituents have had the same experience.
  The Minister will know that ferry services to the Isle of Wight are currently the subject of an inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that, when the report reaches the Minister's desk, he will consider it carefully, bearing in mind the impact of the ferries on the island's economy. He may even contemplate divesting one of the routes so as to create greater competition. On the table at the moment is a proposal for the western Solent from Associated British Ports.
  Colleagues in the Department of Transport have recently told me that light dues cannot be waived for vessels to and from the Isle of Wight. I hope that they will give careful consideration to what the master of the Cowes harbour commissioners, Captain Henry Wrigley, wrote recently. He said that the Minister for Aviation and Shipping does indeed possess the means to adjust light dues on vessels plying to and from the island.
  I sincerely believe that the Navy may yet abandon its responsibility for buoys in the eastern Solent. If that happens, vessels travelling to and from the island may face an increase in light dues. This is a tax that my constituents, alone among all constituents represented in this House, have to pay. This additional charge on the island's residents is quite iniquitous: our economy is already struggling.
  I still hope that the idea of the Lyndhurst bypass will be resurrected. I wrote to the transport authority on the Isle of Wight council asking whether the Liberal Democrats would support me during the passage of the

  399
  relevant Bill through this House. They refused, which was sad because it is the best route from the island and the one that could most usefully be enlarged.
  I wish that the health service had made an appearance in the Gracious Speech. The National Health Service Act 1977 set up the arrangements under which hospital travel costs could be paid for constituents. The Isle of Wight was specifically included; the Bill was drawn up in such a way that there was no requirement to meet travel costs if a community was within six miles of the nearest land mass. That was varied by an order of 1987, to allow travel costs for treatment for communicable sexual diseases to be paid for my constituents, 35 per cent. of whom are over retirement age. On the other hand, the travel costs of those with cancer or heart disease cannot be paid. Yet they are paid for residents of the Scilly isles—a remarkable anomaly.
  I was sorry to hear nothing in the Gracious Speech about national identity cards. There is a universal view in this country that we, like many of our EC partners, need such a card.
  I am pleased to note that the Lord Chancellor's Bill will include domestic violence measures. I am glad that they are back on the agenda for the coming Session because I, with others, was responsible for setting up a women's refuge on the Isle of Wight. It has successfully sheltered women who have suffered violence in their marriages. I detected some cynicism in Body Shop's recent campaign among colleagues—it seemed to bear no relation to the facts of what is happening.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) began the debate on the Loyal Address with a request in respect of education. I agree with him. The Isle of Wight council, under Liberal Democrat control, is wasting well over £1 million a year of taxpayers' money on things like a waste-derived fuel plant, the electricity generation side of which recently went into liquidation. Considerable sums were paid out to no advantage for the Isle of Wight.
  Be that as it may, some schools retain substantial unspent sums from their budgets, while others have little or nothing, owing to sickness and absence. I should be failing in my duty if I did not represent them tonight, and I shall shortly be seeing the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to make my point.
  I am sorry that we have not done more to try to prevent social security fraud. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I am extremely disappointed that the new unitary authority on the Isle of Wight, under Liberal Democrat control, scrapped a system that had worked for years of direct payment to landlords. They were not made to every landlord because not every landlord is a good one. Bad landlords were not part of the scheme. Tenants on the Isle of Wight are now complaining about the difficulties that they have in managing their affairs because payments are no longer made direct to their landlords.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch has talked about dogma. Surely the ending of direct payments was a dogmatic decision. It was taken cynically and deliberately to create extended waiting lists on the Isle of Wight. We had been so successful in transferring housing stock to housing associations and reducing waiting lists.
  400
  The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to my predecessor, Stephen Ross. I remember Stephen Ross telling me in the House that he regretted some aspects of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. Indeed, the leader of the local authority has said likewise. The Act broke the local connection, which was so valuable in enabling local housing committees, with which I have been involved, to know which families were good tenants. The Act destroyed much of the ethos of our council housing estates.
  We are fed up on the Isle of Wight with people moving in from all parts of the country, playing the system like a grand piano and overtaking local residents who have waited patiently on the housing waiting list, as one would expect.
  Mrs. Maddock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that housing benefit fraud is a problem with landlords who take money from "tenants" who do not exist? It is a difficult matter to deal with. I am sure that my colleagues on the Isle of Wight considered such matters before taking what they considered to be the most appropriate action to stop fraud. I know that they were and are faced with a real problem.
  I regret the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I knew Stephen Ross personally. I am sure that he never regretted the fact that he had made proposals permanently to deal with the real problems of homelessness as they bear on individual families. The Act has nothing to do with the way in which various councils interpret the rules. There is no reason for homeless people not being dealt with according to their needs under the Act. It is—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady and other hon. Members that interventions, by their nature, should be short, whatever the provocation.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Lady is wrong. Stephen Ross told me that he regretted some aspects of the Act. Housing benefit fraud has not been a major problem on the Isle of Wight. I am certain that the hon. Lady's colleagues on the Isle of Wight have done nothing more than peddle naked political dogma. The Isle of Wight has enough problems without creating additional ones. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have cynically and deliberately created more problems. That is not my view and mine alone; it is shared by some tenants and some landlords. It is also the view of some of those who operate the present scheme. The hon. Lady cannot escape with sweet and honeyed words. I recall what was said by my predecessor. Her response will not wash. If he were still alive, he would tell her off for taking such an approach.
  I am extremely disappointed because we have lost a proud housing record on the Isle of Wight. We were the first part of the United Kingdom to transfer all local authority housing stock to housing associations.
  As the hon. Member for Christchurch spoke of dogma, I remind her of the actions of Mr. Bill Le Breton when he led Medina. He peddled dogma and let the North British housing association on to the island. That caused considerable problems. Tenants of that association's properties have long campaigned to have the right to buy. I promised the management of the association that, if it did not get its act together and recognise the right to buy, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have corresponded at considerable length, it would be

  401
  necessary to introduce primary legislation. Tenants have the expectation of the right to buy and there is no reason why an organisation such as the North British housing association, which is alien to the Isle of Wight and did not conduct itself very well in the early stages, should be refusing its tenants the opportunity to buy.
  I am tempted to stray, Madam Deputy Speaker, into—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has strayed far enough; he must resist temptation.
  Mr. Field: I shall acknowledge your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and conclude by saying that the windfall tax seems to have left the tree remarkably bare. It has been suggested by the Opposition that income tax should be reduced to 10 per cent. It seems that we are fast approaching what I call the McIntosh factor. Andrew McIntosh was the leader of the Greater London council for only one day. I do not believe that the leader of the Labour party would be leader of it for any longer than that. He is the Trojan horse to end all Trojan horses. I do not believe that the electorate will buy that at the next general election.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I adhere to a long-held tradition in this place by referring to the speech by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who preceded me. Apart from the cliche-ridden nonsense of his final sentences, I congratulate him. Over 22 years I have never heard anyone ruled out of order during a debate on the Gracious Speech. It is a wide-ranging debate. Perhaps your intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, has brought home to the Conservative Whips Office the dangers of press-ganging incompetent Conservative Back-Bench Members and causing them to enter the Chamber to make fools of themselves.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight might read well. I doubt whether it will, but much depends on the journalistic ability of those who edit the local newspaper on the Isle of Wight. I know, however, that it did not do much for his reputation in the House or for our standard of debate generally.
  As I wish to direct my remarks to investment and transport, I start by declaring an interest as a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, a vice-president of the Railway Development Society and a non-executive director of West Midlands Travel, which is now part of the National Express group.
  I shall move briefly from controversy to partial tranquillity and harmony by congratulating the Secretary of State on his recent appointment. I was unable to do so a couple of weeks ago during his first debate in his new job, but that was not for want of trying. It is ironic that he is about the 12th Secretary of State for Transport under successive Conservative Administrations. I hope fervently that he will be the last Conservative Secretary of State for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is probably less of an ideologue than some of his predecessors. I know his private views on rail privatisation and I shall not embarrass him by repeating them. I understand the difficulty in which he finds himself in defending nonsensical privatisation.
  I shall make a special plea for the west coast main line and the need for investment. In common with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been pressing
  402
  for investment in the line. I thought that we were near a conclusion a couple of years ago when the then Minister of State, Department of Transport, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), promised that upgrading and modernising the line would start by mid-1995.
  Alas, that proved to be another Tory pledge on which we could not rely. It does one no harm, obviously, in the present Conservative Administration, to be caught out making pledges that cannot be fulfilled. I notice that the hon. Gentleman—as he was then—is now a right hon. Gentleman and a member of the Conservative Cabinet, so he is surrounded by people who make pledges that they cannot fulfil. It is a particular disappointment to me and to some of my hon. Friends that the breakthrough that we thought we would get on the modernisation of that line has not materialised.
  Over the past few years, a number of deputations have been to see Transport Ministers to make the same plea that I make this evening. Their pleas were about the earlier promises that public money was available to upgrade the line. It should not be a party political issue, but regrettably it is. In any other civilised democracy, the provision of proper transport links is not something that causes great political debate. Most political parties in most other parts of the world, whether they are regarded as being on the left or the right, regard good transport links as essential to the flourishing of a modern economy and treat them accordingly. Regrettably, we do not possess such political maturity in the United Kingdom.
  I do not make this plea on behalf of the railway unions, the Railway Development Society, or even railway enthusiasts, whether or not they be wearing anoraks. I make it on the ground of the general economic good of the country. The lack of investment in the railway industry generally, particularly in the run up to the farcical privatisation, and in the west coast main line in particular is enormously damaging to the economic prospects of this country.
  I understand that, recently, yet another delegation, from an organisation called West Coast Rail 250, met the Minister of State, Department of Transport following publication of its own report on the need for west coast main line upgrading. I understand that the outcome of that meeting was only that the line would be refurbished to existing standards over the next nine years. Regrettably, there is neither programme nor funding to upgrade it for high-speed operation. My understanding is that the refurbishment programme includes essential maintenance and renewals plus the development of a signalling system that would pave the way, eventually, we hope, for higher speeds. It does not provide for new trains or for track improvements to allow them to run at higher speed.
  I have, over the years, been guilty of boring the House with stories of my own railway experience— [Interruption.] I had not realised that I had bored the Whip on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] I am sorry, he is not the Whip. I had not realised that I had bored the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know who he is, but I have bored hon. Members on both sides of the House with stories about my own railway career. I have no wish to repeat any of them. But having said that, I contradict myself—
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Just one.
  Mr. Snape: Just one story, then, and I promise not to make it too boring.

  403
  There is a signal box just outside my home town of Stockport, called Edgeley junction No. 2, which was built by the London and North Western railway in the early 1890s. It is still there. I was not there when it was built, I hasten to add, but I was there at an early stage in my career. Trains are signalled quite safely as they pass it, using a lever frame that dates from the time when the box was originally built. The point that I am somewhat laboriously seeking to make is that at least one of the signalling instruments in daily use in that signal box is older than signalling instruments that I have seen in the railway museum at York.
  There cannot be, I hope, a more poignant plea for greater railway investment than that. I hope to soften the heart of the Secretary of State when I say that such a situation surely is unacceptable as we move towards the 21st century. The sooner we have investment in that particular line, the better.
  I ask the Secretary of State to make a few journeys between London and Birmingham on the part of the west coast main line that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) on the Front Bench make quite regularly. It would be instructive for him to ride on rolling stock and behind locomotives, all of which are more than 20 years old and many of which are rostered to do more than 1,000 miles every working day. Is it any wonder that, occasionally, things go wrong and gaps appear in the service?
  Because of the fragmentation of what was formerly a unified service, there is little spare capacity when things go wrong and trains are cancelled, causing inconvenience to passengers—or "customers" as they are known these days. They are not out of service very often, but some of the faults with the air conditioning, internal doors and windows, are all too familiar to regular travellers. Indeed, conductors on the trains repeatedly point out such faults to those of us whom they recognise in the hope that we can do something about it, because their daily reports do not seem to make any difference.
  They are not alone in investing in Members of Parliament mythical powers, which, of course, we do not possess. Although some of us have done our best to persuade the powers that be within the railway industry to repair regular faults, because of the lack of spare capacity and, inevitably, the lack of money, they are not repaired.
  Not only would passengers benefit from the upgrading for which I am pleading this evening. Significant reductions in journey times and increased capacity would surely allow modern high-volume freight trains over the whole length of the line, while track realignment, tunnel improvements and beefed-up power supplies would allow both passenger trains and freight trains to run at higher speeds. In addition, bridge and tunnel clearances should be increased to allow piggy-back freight and other improvements to increase freight capacity.
  The piggy-back consortium recently published a report on the need to upgrade the line and to carry out some of the bridge and platform alterations, which are costed at around £700 million. Coincidentally, that is one of the many estimates that I have seen for the total cost of privatisation so far. Again, although I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to agree with me this evening, I suggest that that sort of money would be better spent on the improvements that I have outlined tonight.
  404
  One of the problems is that there is no one in the driving seat to take that essential work forward. As I understand it—if I am wrong, the Secretary of State will correct me— Railtrack is expected to make an application to the EC in the near future for assistance with the funding of the west coast main line infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State give the House some assurances this evening that any such application will receive the support of the Department of Transport and of the Government generally?
  As I understand it, and despite previous promises, no public money is available as a capital lump sum. Instead, the Department is to shovel public money through revenue subsidies to privatised train operators, even though privatisation of the west coast main line will not go ahead because of the very lack of investment and of modernisation to which I have referred.
  Again, my understanding—I apologise to the House for being vague—is that, because of the hiatus in the run-up to privatisation, it is for Railtrack to provide options so far as different upgrading levels are concerned, which the franchising director would then discuss with potential franchise holders. If, as predicted, the train operator needs extra subsidy to run an upgraded service, I understand that the franchising director will make a case to the Department.
  Again, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is not the short cut to a better railway that we were promised when privatisation was announced—and, in my view, it constitutes an abdication of responsibility for the Department to indulge in what I can only describe as an expensive evasion of its duties and those of its Ministers.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I wonder whether, in the new spirit of openness following the Nolan report, the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us how much he received from the privatisation of West Midlands Travel plc? Indeed, could it possibly be argued that he is advocating its case here?
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy rose—
  Mr. Snape: I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's question in a moment; in the meantime, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. McAvoy: We have just witnessed the pathetic sight of a Tory Whip going round the Chamber with a copy of the Register of Members' Interests trying to stir up sleaze. Opposition Members know that that belongs firmly on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Snape: First, let me deal with the question of whether any benefit can accrue to the company of which I am a non-executive director from the modernisation of the west coast main line. I honestly believe that there is no such benefit: we run the stage carriage service in Birmingham, and I can see no connection. However, for obvious reasons, I declared an interest.
  Conservative Members attack Opposition Members for having no business connections. They say that we know nothing about business; indeed, they say that we are unemployable. I was originally elected to the board of West Midlands Travel by both management and trade unions, and was re-elected by what I can only describe as eastern-European-type majorities—between 93 per cent. and 95 per cent. of the work force. As for the remuneration that I receive, if the hon. Member for

  405
  Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) is sensible enough to read the annual report—as requested by Cadbury—he will find exactly what he wants to know.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The debate should not be delayed by arguments of this nature. If complaints are made against any hon. Member, we now have a Parliamentary Commissioner to whom to refer them.
  Mr. Snape: Conservative Members do not seek to make complaints; they seek to draw inferences. The matter referred to by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire was the subject of legal action between myself and The Daily Star, which led to an apology by the newspaper—and to insignificant damages, I am afraid; nevertheless, a small contribution was received with thanks.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood on her current portfolio. She has spent the past few years dealing with what have been called—I say this in no derogatory way—women's issues. I feel that better public transport—particularly in regard to buses—is definitely a women's issue. For too many years, the provision and design of buses appear to have been dictated by male accountants rather than the needs of customers. It is about time that bus designers took account of the fact that many daytime users are women, and that many of those women have shopping and buggies containing young children. The sooner that bus designers and operators cater for that market, the better the service will be.
  Sir Peter Fry: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has had to say about comfort on buses. Does he agree that all parties in the House must support the Government to prevent the European Community from insisting on a seating plan that reduces the number of seats and increases the number of standing passengers?
  Mr. Snape: Indeed. The great difference between bus journeys here and those on the continent is that, in many continental cities, journeys are comparatively short and standing is much more acceptable that it would be in the United Kingdom. I support the hon. Gentleman's plea: we should be left to design buses suitable for the British market. I hope that The Secretary of State will also support that idea.
  I do not wish to hog the debate, but I should like to say a little about the aftermath of bus deregulation. I want to persuade the Secretary of State, for as long as he holds his present post—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood will soon take that post from him—of the need to improve bus services throughout the United Kingdom.
  It is all very well for local authorities to create bus lanes and impose restrictions on parking, but all too often—as we know to our cost—such restrictions are not observed by motorists. Few experiences are more annoying than sitting in a motor car in a traffic queue and watching people deliberately flout the regulations by driving up bus lanes. The police will say, understandably, that they have not the resources to police the bus lanes, but I am afraid that until there is proper enforcement we shall not persuade motorists to leave their cars at home—and it must be a question of persuasion. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that people cannot be compelled not to drive to and from work. Until we can
  406
  provide bus, rail and light-rail services that are nearly as quick and comfortable as private cars, exhortation will remain just that.
  Let me take the Secretary of State further along the same road—if that is not too dreadful a pun. We also need to introduce quality thresholds for buses. One of the problems of deregulation is that, when reputable operators seek to run a comprehensive service, that service is frequently undermined by operators who purchase second-hand vehicles and run them on the busiest routes for a few hours in the morning and a few hours in the evening. I am not sure whether that is what the Government intended in the 1986 legislation, but it is certainly not a sensible way of trying to attract people out of their cars. We do not want town and city centres throughout the country—particularly during rush hours— to be cluttered with ancient buses, many of which look as though they ought to be in Lord Montagu's museum.
  We need proper standards of vehicle specification, and proper standards of investment in new vehicles. We need proper driver training, and proper publicity and service standards. The comprehensive service that many reputable operators run throughout the country is being undermined by certain people who are attracted by the cheap end of the business. We also need to examine—as I know the Government are—the environmental impact of buses, and new technologies.
  Many reputable companies—I will not talk specifically about mine, in case the Government Whip rushes in with yet another copy of the Register of Members' Interests— are anxious to look at new technologies. Let me remind the Secretary of State that a compressed natural gas public service vehicle costs around £140,000, as against about £110,000 for a conventional bus. If the passenger transport authorities, the local authorities and the Department of Transport were prepared to participate in a programme backing the introduction of such vehicles, we could do a good deal to reduce the pollution about which people in many towns and cities are rightly concerned. Operators will not buy and introduce such vehicles if at the busiest time on a route their profitability is undermined by the activities of those of whom I spoke earlier.
  I apologise to hon. Members for detaining them for so long. Regardless of what hon. Members read in the Register of Members' Interests I have participated in debates on these issues since I was elected to the House more than 20 years ago. For obvious reasons, I hope that the Minister will not be in post for much longer, but while he is there, I welcome the fact that perhaps he is a little more open-minded than some of his colleagues. I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood takes over, she will have a fresh look at bus and rail services because behind their improvement lies the improvement of the general economy of this country.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that the winding-up speeches are to start at 9.20. That leaves 60 minutes for the remainder of the Back-Bench speeches. Six hon. Members hope to catch my eye during that hour and most of them have been here for most of the debate. I hope that that will be considered by those hon. Members who speak.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. William Powell: We always listen with interest and respect to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) when he speaks on transport issues. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I do not propose to follow his remarks. However, I listened carefully to his speech, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who understands these issues better than I do, will have some observations—if he is called.
  The general background to the debate is investment, and I shall speak about that issue as I see it in my constituency. During the 12 or 13 years that I have been in the House, there has been massive public investment in virtually all areas of my constituency. There has been investment in industry under the Industry Act 1975. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has left the Chamber, said that he was pleased that his constituency was now an assisted area.
  If there is better news than that of becoming an assisted area, it is that an area is no longer assisted. That has happened in my constituency, and since the announcement, the decline in unemployment has been accelerating. Investment in the private sector has continued robustly to expand, and more and more industry is moving in without any public subsidy provided through assisted area status. That is on top of the expansion of existing companies, which is also happening at a robust rate.
  There has been massive investment in roads, and that has brought about an enormous improvement, most of all to the A14, but also to many of the less important roads. There has been no investment in railways but that is because I have no railway stations in my constituency. My constituents use either the excellent rail system in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, that in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, or the one in the constituency of the chairman of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney)
  There has been massive investment in and reclamation of derelict land. There has been massive investment in local authority schools and grant-maintained schools, of which we have some of the best in the country. There has been investment in the city technology college and Lodge park technology school and in education and training in the Tresham institute. I was pleased to be present a few days ago at the opening of another significant expansion of its facilities, which were paid for by the public sector.
  I can testify from my own experience that the picture of no public investment is completely untruthful. One could take the matter even further, but I should like to deal with two items of legislation in the Gracious Speech, one of which has been commented upon and the other has not. They are the proposals for legislation about MI5 and for reform of our divorce laws.
  I shall deal first with our divorce laws. I rather regret the fact that we need any divorce laws at all, but, man being a fallen person, the reality is that the law needs to
  408
  be reformed. When I studied law quite a long time ago, the existing divorce law was going through the House. Part of my university course entailed reading and studying what was being said in the House at that time about the proposals that led to the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970, the Wilson Act, which has formed the basis of our divorce law ever since.
  One of the interesting facets of the 1970 Act was that, to all intents and purposes, it was sponsored by the Church of England. It followed a report called "Putting Asunder", that had been commissioned by Archbishop Michael Ramsey. It formed the basis of the legislation which Mr. William Wilson, who at that time was the Member for Coventry, South, had proposed. Therefore, I read with amusement and some interest Church criticisms of the operation of legislation which it had the primary responsibility for promoting in the first place.
  There was substantial discussion before the 1970 Act was passed. I vividly remember the doughty work carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) in opposing that reform. She made a number of predictions, all of which have been fulfilled, about what would happen, because there is a deep truth about the way in which one can draw any divorce laws.
  It is that, broadly speaking, however the law is written, one third of people will find it a perfect fit, one third will find it rough justice with which they can live although around the edges there are problems, and one third find it completely unacceptable. All that happens when the law is changed is that people are shifted from one category to another.
  Finding justice in such uncertain human relationships is an elusive art. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) underlined, although our noble and learned Friend is being valiant in presenting his new proposals, and although they will meet some of the criticisms about how the existing law operates, the reality is that all that will happen as a result is that a few people will be shifted from one to another of the categories of satisfaction with the law.
  Human relationships are not so carefully defined that they are capable of fitting neatly into patterns of this sort. I hope that the new law will be an improvement, but I fear that many people will be disappointed as a consequence of its operation.
  Ms Short: This is the second time that this issue has been raised. The thinking behind the new proposals is to prevent couples who are, sadly, divorcing fighting over children, and getting more and more conflict and pain within families in the divorce process. I wish that those who criticise would recognise the importance of that point.
  Mr. Powell: I have sufficient professional experience of these matters to know perfectly well that what the hon. Lady says is true. Equally, I know that, although that is the underlying impulse of the proposals, we live in an imperfect world, and the legislation will not always work out in the way we want. I suspect that, as a result of the changes, a significant number of people will say that they preferred the law that we are about to repeal. There is no way in which we can ever draw divorce laws that will enable everybody to be satisfied with the rules.

  409
  I shall now deal with the important legislation relating to the future activities of MI5. Organised crime stalks our country in a way that is deeply damaging to our commerce and to the fabric of our society. I wish to concentrate on two areas of organised crime, and I hope that, in its renewed co-operation with the various police authorities, MI5 will pay particular attention.
  When I first raised the question of theft of heavy goods vehicles around the country, there were no statistics, and few policemen were prepared to concede that it was a serious sector of organised crime. As a result of what I and others have said over the years—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is present, because he has also played a big part in raising this issue—the police now take such matters much more seriously.
  The Home Office has just published some research into heavy goods vehicles theft. It provides the most comprehensive range of information about that matter for the police and the public authorities. It reveals the seriousness of what has been taking place, which has immense consequences for our commerce, but it gives few clues to why such crimes are carried out.
  In a sense, we know why such crimes are carried out: it is big business, and the people behind it are making large sums of money. They are operating on a ruthless scale, perhaps stealing a vehicle in London, having it customised and cut up in Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham or Leeds, and exporting the parts around the world, with large sums of money involved. That is happening on a big scale. I therefore hope that the recently published Home Office research will be used as a basis for a concerted campaign to break the gangs who are behind one of the most ruthless sorts of organised crime.
  We know that death stalks our land as a result of drugs. Some people take the view that our drug laws are simply unworkable, and that the best thing to do would be to liberalise them. Of course, we are all entitled to our private views—I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) has her private views about this, to which she is entitled—but I take a radically different line about our drugs laws.
  I wish their enforcement to be made much more rigorous. I do not particularly want young police constables to spend their time persecuting people taking minor quantities of marijuana. I do want gangs who supply drugs to be pursued across the world with the utmost determination. Intelligence and co-operation across police boundaries and national frontiers will be needed to ensure that that happens.
  I pay tribute to Customs and Excise and to the police for the increased number of seizures that they have made in recent years—that has been admirable—but we all know that many more drugs are getting through, and that that simply must be stopped.
  One of the matters that parents raise most frequently with me in my constituency involves their complaints that drugs are available in or close to schools. Hardly a school in this country is able to say that it is always drug-free. That affects even junior and infants schools. Of course, pupils at such schools are not particularly going out and buying drugs, and they are not being pushed towards them, but the vicinity is being used by drug pushers, and there is no question but that many school children, in both the public and private sectors, are using drugs.
  410
  I want a strong campaign in our schools to counteract that most sinister danger to young children. I understand the reluctance that many head teachers may have to identify their school as in any way having a problem, because clearly, a school with a reputation for being a drugs haven is likely to find its reputation suffering as a consequence. Therefore, some of the responsibility for sweeping clean our schools and their vicinities from drugs must be assumed by much greater co-operation between local education authorities and police forces.
  The chief constable and chief education officer usually have offices next door to each other in county hall or in the town hall. There is no reason why, at county level for Northamptonshire or at borough level for Birmingham, there should not be an agreement between the local education authority and the police force whereby police forces will be encouraged by the local education authorities to undertake searches of schools and their vicinities.
  In that way, the initiative does not come from a head teacher, a disgruntled parent or someone who does not wish to place that responsibility on their shoulders, but would be regarded as a regular and necessary part of the co-operation that is needed between police and local education authorities—not merely to provide lessons on the evils of drugs, although that must be done, but to ensure that drugs are sought out and found and that the people who are responsible for the drugs are brought before the criminal courts.
  I would take the process one step further. Over the years in which I have been in the House, on a number of occasions, we have given increased and enlarged powers to the courts and the police in dealing with drugs. Not everyone in this country is always completely enamoured with the American legal system, but certain aspects of it should not be disparaged as much as they are. We already have a system in which some informal plea bargaining can take place before a defendant appears for trial in courts. Not infrequently, judges are known to say what range of sentence they might have in mind in the event of certain things happening at the trial.
  The American system has a different aspect to it. American judges have been known to sentence big drugs pushers who send out £1 million of drugs to 600 years' imprisonment—an excellent sentence, because it then enables the law enforcement authorities in the United States of America to debrief a convicted and sentenced defendant about his or her activity.
  If, after the sentence, the defendant gives substantial assistance to the prosecution authorities in a way that can be checked and assessed over a period, it is open to both the prosecution authorities and to the defendant to go back before the judge and to say, "Will you please now review the sentence as a consequence of the help that I have given and that has been proved?"
  We need to build in to our system a greater incentive to secure the co-operation of convicted drugs barons in the elimination of a scourge that has grown only more serious with the passage of time.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I should like to speak on the enormous importance of investment in renewable energy for sustainable economic

  411
  and social development on global and European levels in the United Kingdom context, but with particular reference to Wales. I have an interest to declare. I am secretary of Eurosolar UK, which is involved in lobbying on behalf of global energy, but I receive no pecuniary interest from that.
  Through its endorsement of Agenda 21 in the Rio declaration, the Government have committed themselves to the principle that environmental sustainability should be a key consideration in all decisions, in all sectors of policy and, especially, in economic and industrial development, so I make no apology for starting with a key theme in environmental policy: global warming and climate change, which is essentially linked to consumption and energy generation.
  The issue will hit the headlines again before the end of the year with the publication of a new report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which will confirm that climate change is occurring as a result of global warming and that the effects will be serious, including a likely sea level rise of between 1 ft and 1 yd in the 21st century, and a possible loss of one third of the world's forest cover. The possibility exists that, through feedback mechanisms, the whole thing could accelerate out of control.
  The report will also confirm that this alarming phenomenon is a consequence of the emission of greenhouse gases that result from human activity. It will point out that, as we already know, 50 per cent. of greenhouse gases come from CO2 emissions, and that 75 per cent. of those result from the burning of fossil fuels in the generation of energy.
  The report will also point out that the stabilisation of emissions at 1990 levels—that is both the United Kingdom and the Rio conference target—will be nowhere near sufficient to prevent the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from increasing. Further, even if concentrations can be stabilised, global average temperature will continue to rise for centuries. All that points clearly to the need to reduce emissions sufficiently first to stabilise, and then to reduce, concentrations in order simply to minimise the extent of climate change and its ill effects.
  In turn, that shows that the demands of the Association of Small Island States at the Berlin conference in April this year that there should be a target for reductions in CO2 emissions of 25 per cent. by the year 2005 is far from immoderate. However, it would present a very significant challenge. The pressure for increased use of energy seems to be unstoppable, in particular to allow a rise in the standard of living and the quality of life in what is called the third world.
  Some 70 per cent. of the world's population—2 billion people—currently have no access to electricity. The developed world uses 10 times as much energy per person as the developing world. It is no wonder that, with an expanding population, global demand for electricity is predicted to increase by 265 per cent. by 2025.
  Much can be achieved through reduced energy intensity, and that should be a policy priority. However, reduction through energy intensity will almost certainly not be fast enough to cancel out the effects of economic growth. According to the World Energy Council, even
  412
  with what is called an ecologically driven scenario—the most optimistic scenario possible—that will give a global growth rate of 3.3 per cent. per annum with energy intensity reductions of 2.4 per cent. per annum, which in turn would lead to a total energy demand of 11.3 billion tonnes of oil equivalent by the year 2020, compared with 8.8 billion tonnes of oil equivalent in 1990. As a result, the carbon emissions would amount to 6.3 billion tonnes, compared with 5.9 billion tonnes in 1990. That is so remote from what is needed to minimise climate change that, quite honestly, it is bizarre.
  The conclusion must be that, if we are to enable development to occur, especially in the least developed countries, there must be no less than a transformation in our methods of generating energy. That should be a core element in global development policy. There are two options. One is the nuclear option, which is not only dangerous but, in the political and socio-economic context of much of the underdeveloped world, totally unrealistic.
  The other option is the variety of resources that we refer to as renewables—sometimes called sustainable energy, sometimes called solar. Of course, all renewables, apart from the tide, come from solar sources. The unlocking of the potential of the solar source through the development of technology, and then the transfer of that technology to the third world—and therefore a dispersal of its availability—must be the key to sustainable development and the protection of the natural environment.
  Renewables are a huge resource. Every year, the earth's surface receives about 10 times as much energy from sunlight as is contained in all the known resources of coal, oil, natural gas and Uranium combined. It equals 15,000 times the world's annual consumption by the human race.
  Both the potential and the need have been recognised. The Rio conference led to what has become known as the solar summit process. The United Nations reckons that 60 per cent. of world electricity could be generated by renewables by the year 2050. The European Union has a range of strategies both for global development and for increasing its own capacity in renewables.
  The "Power for the World" project, a photovoltaics action plan, estimates that providing solar electricity to 1 billion people in the third world would cost about $60 billion, or $3 billion a year for 20 years. That is under 0.3 per cent. of current military expenditure—a far better investment in global security than weapons of war. It is clear that this must loom much larger in global development policies, both in bilateral and multilateral aid programmes and in the lending regimes of the World bank.
  The European Union adopted the Madrid declaration in March 1994, stating that renewables should
  "substitute the equivalent of 15 per cent. of conventional primary energy demand in the EU"
  by 2010. The Altener programme has been set a goal of an increase in renewables contribution to total energy demand from under 4 per cent. in 1991 to 8 per cent. in 2005, and a trebling in production of electricity from renewables, excluding large-scale hydro.
  The EU's unequivocal commitment is in stark contrast to the virulent opposition of Transport Commissioner Neil Kinnock to wind energy. Wind is a major component in renewables, capable of providing up to 20 per cent. of world energy by 2050, and the technology is currently one

  413
  of the most advanced. There is no way in which the Madrid declaration or the Altener targets can become reality without developing wind, nor could the Department of Trade and Industry target of 1,500 MW declared net capacity in the UK by the year 2000 be achieved without wind.
  However, Mr. Kinnock is patron to Country Guardian, the anti-wind farm group whose evidence was so thoroughly rejected and rubbished by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and whose latest bulletin declaims:
  "Our top priority must be to prevent the developers of 51 English and Welsh and 12 Scottish projects from obtaining planning approval."
  I do not want to over-emphasise wind, because it is only one of a diversity of sources. However, it is important to recognise the very low environmental impact—in the deepest sense of "environmental"—of developing wind power. A supply of 2,000 MW of electricity from wind would occupy 100,000 acres of land, 99 per cent. of which would still be available for other uses. That is a very light ecological footprint.
  On the other hand, 2,000 MW of electricity from biomass, in the form of coppicing willow or poplar, harvested mechanically on a three-year cycle, would take up 2.5 million acres in their entirety. I want to make it clear that I favour the second as well as the first, but the comparison is instructive.
  Neil Kinnock's position as Transport Commissioner is untenable because he is a member of a Commission that approves of the targets. It is possible that he agrees with Sir Bernard Ingham, the vice-president of Country Guardian, that nuclear is the way ahead and can fill the gap. If that is the case, Mr. Kinnock should come clean and make his position clear. I trust that it is not the position of his party, to which, no doubt, we shall shortly be looking to implement a serious policy for promoting renewables within the context that I have tried to outline. I wonder whether that policy could be made clear before the end of the debate.
  I want briefly to refer to UK policy. The chosen instrument of UK policy in encouraging renewables is the non-fossil fuel obligation and the use of the fossil fuel levy. The Government's target is 1,500 MW declared net capacity by the year 2000. If we are to take the issue seriously—it seems inevitable that we must—that target is far too modest. It would constitute only a tiny proportion of the total energy, or total electricity, production. We should periodically be setting targets for percentages of electricity supply. A figure of 10 per cent. by the year 2000 would not be too high.
  Secondly, there is no provision in United Kingdom policy or in the NFFO for photovoltaics, a key technology although the price is currently high. There is no demonstration programme in the United Kingdom, almost alone among European countries, yet it is taken seriously elsewhere. There is an American $150 million project for a 100 MW solar plant in the Nevada desert, which is enough to supply a city of 100,000 people with electricity. That is through grid connection. Photovoltaics has the advantage that it can be on grid or off grid; it can be very small and it can be substantial. It is the only truly urban source of electricity. We need a scheme in the United Kingdom to encourage photovoltaics.
  The question now is whether there will be further NFFO rounds after the ones announced recently for 1997 and 1998. I believe that the NFFO should be retained as
  414
  long as necessary, but also that there should be a requirement on regional electricity companies to purchase a minimum percentage of electricity from renewables, with perhaps the option of clean electricity purchase schemes for customers.
  I deal finally, and most importantly, with Wales. The Welsh renewable resource is sufficiently large to be significant in relation to achieving the Madrid and Altener targets. It is also crucial for the economic and environment future of Wales.
  I invite members of the Government to read an article by Professor Phil Williams, the professor of physics at the university of Wales, Aberystwyth and Plaid Cymru's spokesperson on energy and the environment. The article is entitled "UK Energy Policy and the Welsh Environment." He points out that Wales would be the ideal location for a pilot scheme to prove what can be achieved by a combination of energy efficiency and renewable sources. He states:
  "If God designed one spot on Earth that was perfect for that pilot scheme, it was Wales. Built on a foundation of coal, with a coastline exposed to the waves of the Atlantic and punctuated by estuaries that funnel the tides to record heights, and with windswept moorlands from which a fan of rivers flow to the sea, Wales is an ideal laboratory for comparing most forms of energy generation. And in this comparison, we can also include the longest experience of large-scale fission power."
  That article comes from Plaid Cymru's sustainable development strategy for Wales, which is a unique document in the current scene.
  Professor Williams argues that energy efficiency in Wales could reduce electricity demand by 25 per cent. by the year 2010. That represents a reduction of 3.75 TWh on the 15 TWh that we presently consume. Four TWh could come from renewables by the year 2010. Ten per cent. of electricity supply could come from wind with a total of 2000 500-kW turbines. He believes that it would be feasible by the end of the next century for electricity in Wales to come entirely from renewable sources.
  Many good things are already happening in Wales. Dulais Engineering in my constituency has European Union funding for the Aries project to study how renewables can be made to contribute to economic development in rural areas. There has been success in another direction in obtaining funding from the Altener project to encourage manufacturing and sourcing in Wales. Ford is incorporating photovoltaics in a major new industrial unit at Bridgend.
  The manufacturing, servicing, construction and electronics sectors in Wales are already active, but much more is possible. In Denmark, 12,000 people are employed in manufacturing in the wind industry alone, and there is every reason to believe that Wales can emulate that example and become a major centre of an industry that will be crucial in the 21st century, just as it was a major centre for energy generation by coal in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For that, however, we need a strategy.
  I am confident that a self-governing Wales would have a strategy in place now. It would certainly be a priority for a Welsh Parliament in 1999, which is when it will first sit. However, I am talking about the need for action now. There is every reason why the Welsh Office, development agencies and local authorities should now be constructing such a plan as part of a sustainable development strategy for Wales.

  415
  Much of the work is already being done. MANWEB and SWALEC will soon have a survey of the entire Welsh renewable resource, but a strategy would enable the people of Wales to understand the nature of the whole enterprise and see how the several elements fit together, recognising, of course, that
  "energy demand will in future be met by an ever-broader range of energy sources and technologies"
  and recognising too how advantageous, economically as well as environmentally, it will be to have a proximate source of clean energy.
  The electricity regulator announced last week that there should be a 5 per cent. differential in the price of electricity according to the distance that it is transmitted from source. We also need to recognise how significant for a country of small scattered communities is the fact that renewables are, by their very nature, a dispersed and decentralised resource.
  As well as setting the scene, a strategy is essential to activate the various players—the development agencies in relation to inward investment, the various industrial sectors, planning authorities, universities, colleges of further education, training agencies and others—to match an educated and motivated work force to technological innovation.
  If renewable energy is a crucial element in a sustainable economy of the 21st century—I say it is and everything indicates that that is so—the preparation and implementation of an all-Wales strategy now must be a matter of the highest priority. I appeal to the relevant agencies, people and organisations to undertake this task now with vigour and vision.
  8.56 pm
  Sir Peter Fry: I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) will not mind if I do not pick up on his comments; I should rather return to some of those made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) with whom I have considerable sympathy. We are reaching the ridiculous situation in which we are trying to prevent hon. Members, of all parties, from speaking on a subject on which they have a valuable contribution to make. I say that with no party political intent.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and I are old sparring partners in transport debates. If he has a fault, it is that, unlike some of his train drivers, he sometimes does not know when to stop. None the less, he always makes an interesting contribution. I would like, however, to refer to the main way in which people travel in this country: road. The hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned buses. I believe very strongly that much more can be done to encourage people to use public transport—but not without realising where the real problem lies.
  The Royal Automobile Club—I am member of its public policy committee—recently sponsored a report on car dependency which was undertaken by a very learned body from Oxford university. It discovered—surprise, surprise—that 20 per cent. of journeys were considered essential by car users, 60 per cent. were considered almost essential and only 20 per cent. were analysed as being able to be undertaken using some other form of transport.
  416
  The interesting point was that that 20 per cent. of the journeys that could be replaced by another form of transport were almost entirely of less than a mile.
  That is the danger of using statistics. Those of us who live in rural areas and small towns never use our cars for journeys of less than a mile. The great majority of those short journeys are undertaken in the urban and metropolitan areas. That is where there is difficulty. That is where there is excessive use of the motor vehicle. Outside those areas, people possibly have problems getting on to motorways, but there is nothing like the level of congestion in our city centres.
  My immediate comment to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench is this: let us consider the priorities of transport expenditure. Much more can be done to encourage the motorist to use a bus, provided the bus is more comfortable, it can run on time and the maximum information is given about when the bus will arrive.
  I take the point about investment in more technology. It should be possible to have notices that flash how many minutes there are until the next bus arrives at the bus stop. There should be better ways in which to protect someone waiting in the elements to catch a bus. Only by encouraging a greater use of technology will we entice people out of their cars in the urban context.
  Outside the urban context, I still firmly believe that there is a place for road improvement and road widening. One of the reasons I say that is that, very soon, new speed limits will be applied to heavy goods vehicles on our motorways. Those speed limits will be comparatively low. Many of our roads—all-purpose roads—have two lanes. The prospect of a lorry travelling at 50 mph being overtaken by a lorry going at a maximum of 57 mph is potentially very dangerous, especially as many motorists assume that they can drive at 80 mph without being caught.
  I therefore believe that we should not say that there is no need to spend much more money on roads, whether on widening or on improving them. Many towns and villages still desperately need their bypasses. I make a special plea, first, for the A6 bypass of Rushden and Higham Ferrers, which is a Highways Agency responsibility. I see that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads has heard of that proposed road. Secondly, I make a plea for more money for some of the counties that are unable to build bypasses because of the level of the transport supplementary grant that they receive for new road building.
  My message is that we have to accept that, in the foreseeable future, outside the metropolitan areas and outside our large towns, most people will move by using their own car or somebody else's car. It is therefore pointless to say that we should spend no more money on our road network, that we should not improve our road network and that we should not widen our motorways. If we do not spend more money on such projects, we will find that the problem being experienced in the urban context will start to affect more and more areas.
  I would like investment to tackle the problem of urban congestion immediately by encouraging people to use public transport more and, at the same time, to prevent deterioration throughout the country through a sensible road improvement programme.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) about the efforts being made to divert debates from the true subject matter. I also pay tribute to his expertise in describing a sane approach to transport, especially in relation to the use of the car, to which I will return.
  Despite your valiant efforts in trying to call all hon. Members who have wanted to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that everyone will be able to catch your eye in time. That is certainly through no fault of your own. You have done your best to try to fit in all hon. Members who have wanted to speak.
  This year's Queen's Speech is unique, as has been said already, since the chairman of the Conservative party has made it quite plain that it does not have any regard to the governing of the country or what is good for the country. Never mind all those points, it is about what is good for the Conservative party. It sets a new, low trend, which I know that many hon. and right hon. Conservative Members do not like but about which they are bound by party loyalty not to say anything.
  It is also quite disgraceful that the Home Secretary is attempting to play the racist card with legislation. As for the expansion of nursery education for four-year-olds, the voucher system is not wanted anywhere in this country that I know of, and it is certainly not wanted in Scotland.
  Today's debate has been about investment, trade and industry and transport. Lack of investment has been mentioned, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Many sources have been quoted as testimony to that point. I add to the list the CBI, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South.
  The CBI especially mentions that there is a 20 to 40 per cent. shortfall in average levels of productivity and stock turnover compared with those of our principal competitor countries. There is historically sluggish investment, with capacity constraints threatening. There is a low level of skills compared with the levels of our main competitors and a persistent trade deficit in manufactured goods. This is not the view of the Trades Union Congress or the Labour party; it is the CBI describing how it sees British industry.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my hon. Friend aware that the CBI's latest report, for September 1995, shows that the manufacturing trade order book in the UK is back to below the level it was in September 1992, before we were thrown out of the European monetary system? Basically, the Government have wasted a 16 per cent. devaluation over the past three years.
  Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. It is ironic that everyone in British industry and British politics, except the Conservative Government, recognises that point.
  The travel and tourism industry is not usually regarded as an industry, but it is an extremely important one. A new report on the economic impact of travel and tourism in the United Kingdom was recently delivered in London by the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage. The report showed that the UK travel and tourism industry's contribution to the economy was much larger and created more jobs than previously estimated.
  418
  In 1995, travel and tourism are expected to generate directly and indirectly £100 billion in gross output, employment for 3.2 million people and an £86.6 billion contribution to the gross domestic product—12.3 per cent. of the total. All that has been achieved without any incentive from or encouragement by the Government. The industry is poised to produce more than 300,000 new jobs and almost to double its output to £183 billion. That is the effort being put in by the industry, yet there has been no encouragement by the Government for it to expand.
  It is significant that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, did not mention the valuable contribution by the Scotch whisky industry to the industrial, economic and commercial life of this country. After last year's Budget defeat, the Government, in panic, ran through a 4 per cent. increase in duty on spirits to make up for their misjudgment about VAT on fuel. That cavalier attitude towards the Scotch whisky industry is typical of how the Government regard the industry and its contribution to the United Kingdom. The Government's move did not work, because the receipts from sales of whisky to the Exchequer in 1995 dropped 26 per cent. compared with the level in 1994. The Government's reaction was cavalier and panicky; even worse, it did not work.
  The recurrent theme of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was investment. Britain must raise the proportion of its wealth which is devoted to investment in our industries. If we are to maintain and improve our competitiveness, it is essential that we improve spending on research and development.
  Other hon. Members have referred to the so-called cost to Britain of the social chapter and have mentioned the Asian economies. However, there is widespread recognition that the success of the Asian tigers is based on high investment rather than low wages. Firms in those countries have shown that, if one invests in people and trains people, one will get a return, as well as providing job security for the people employed in those industries.
  Small businesses have been mentioned many times by the Government, but they receive little help from them. There is nothing in the Gracious Speech to encourage them. We hear lots of rhetoric, but we do not see anything. In contrast, Labour has a firm commitment to consider removing the financial incentives for late payment by introducing a statutory right to interest on late payment by companies above a minimum threshold. That is a proper and businesslike way in which to support small businesses.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough and other hon. Members have mentioned the need for roads. I take a pragmatic approach to road building. If it is necessary, I support it, but if it is not necessary, I suggest looking for alternatives. In a week's time, there will be a massive cut in the roads programme, and that will do nothing to address the environmental concerns aroused by too much use of motor cars. Like the hon. Member for Wellingborough, I have a copy of the RAC's excellent report. The RAC has put some thought into trying to reduce the use of cars, unlike the Government, who seem to stagger on with no approach to the problem.
  I wish to make a special plea for my constituency, as the M74 motorway is planned to run through it. A 12-mile missing link in that motorway will result in traffic pouring into Cambuslang and Rutherglen in my constituency, and

  419
  even more pollution will be caused by cars ticking over in traffic jams. There are sensible ways to approach the problems caused by the use of cars, but a dogmatic cost-cutting approach to the roads programme designed to produce tax cuts is short-sightedness carried to the extreme.
  I wish to spend some time on the subject of the railways, because it certainly deserves that. During the past decade—particularly in the run-up to privatisation— sharp cuts have been made in rail investment, and those can be correlated directly to increases in the number of failures and breakdowns on the network. We can compare British Rail's safety performance statistics to the figures for railway investment released by the Government in a parliamentary answer to the previous shadow Secretary of State for Transport.
  The figures show that there has been a 17.8 per cent. drop in investment in the rail network in the 10 years since 1984–85 from £786 million to £663 million. There have been big percentage rises in the number of failures in rolling stock, tracks, tunnels and bridges, and there has been a 47 per cent. increase in the number of fires on trains from 168 to 247. The correlation is obvious and is well made.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I wish to spend some time on the subject of the west coast main line. A previous estimate of the cost of modernising that line—since increased, I would imagine—was £800 million, with some £450 million going to infrastructure and £350 million going to trains. Everybody accepts that there is a need for the west coast main line, which is a key link serving the west coast of England, Strathclyde and Glasgow, but we have had prevarication, avoidance and a dogmatic refusal by the Government to invest in the railway.
  The Secretary of State for Transport issued a press release on the future of the west coast main line, in which he stated:
  "This modernisation process will bring clear benefits to passengers and operators alike. This year, the Government has been able to secure EU funding of almost £7 million for WCML."
  Can the Secretary of State assure us that that money will be used on the west coast main line or for funding towards research projects for the line? I cannot find any press release or statement on how that money will be spent.
  I hear rumours like everyone else, and there is a story that the bulk of that £7 million will not be spent on any new research projects relating to signalling or train control but will pay for last year's feasibility study. If that is true, where is the investment for the future? Bearing in mind the content of the Secretary of State's press release, I respectfully suggest that he owes the House an explanation of where that £7 million will go.
  The clear view of most people within the rail industry—with the exception of Railtrack—is that the upgrading project has lost its impetus. When the franchising director announced in August a suspension of the franchising timetable for the west coast main line, he stated that a "lack of project definition" was one of the main reasons for his decision. There is a perceived and genuine reluctance on the part of Railtrack and the Department of Transport to commit themselves to a
  420
  minimum upgrade commensurate with the west coast main line's status as a priority project within the trans-European railway network.
  When the upgrading of the west coast main line was announced in the 1993 Budget speech—that is how long ago it was announced—it was envisaged that upgrading work would begin in 1995. In November 1994, the Department of Transport published its official document, in which reference was made to the planned upgrading. 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. Work would start as soon as possible after that."
  Yet we have had prevarication, avoidance and straightforward refusal from the Government to live up even to their own promises on how the work would go. I stress again that the Secretary of State owes us an explanation as to where that £7 million will be spent and what has happened to the west coast main line.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has featured in an article in The Guardian today. The headline is "Railtrack accused of £1 billion sting". The article states:
  "The Stock Exchange was last night called in to investigate a claim by Labour that Railtrack has put aside over £1 billion of taxpayers' money to boost its profits artificially after privatisation."
  It goes on to quote my hon. Friend. It then says:
  "following an independent analysis of Railtrack's accounts published in September it was possible to identify benefits of £1.14 billion to the new owners if privatisation went ahead."
  Calculations are given to show how the figure was arrived at; but surely the main question is, if the money has been set aside in Railtrack's account, has the Secretary of State ever been informed? If he has not been officially informed by Railtrack, does he have any knowledge of that set-aside? I wish to cover all eventualities. I wish to make sure that the Secretary of State informs us tonight whether he is aware of the situation and whether he has been informed from any source. What does he intend to do about it?
  The article states that Railtrack said later in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North that
  "it could not go to the market without meeting all the Stock Exchange's rules and it had done this in full measure. It described the £1 billion-plus set aside as 'known future obligations' which had to be met, and said it was good accounting practice."
  So it is no surprise to Railtrack that it has been accused of setting aside £1 billion.
  What is the obligation here? Is it an obligation to the public, who still own Railtrack? Is it an obligation to the Government? Is it an obligation to the privatised company to make sure that in a general election year the privatised Railtrack will be made to seem profitable and will not blow up in the Government's face, as everyone else thinks it will? I particularly ask the Secretary of State to respond to that point. Does he know anything of the £1 billion set-aside?
  9.18 pm
  Ms Clare Short: We have had an interesting debate. The interest on the Government Benches in questions of investment in our economy and transport appears to be limited. There has been thin attendance and many of the speeches from Conservative

  421
  Members have failed to address that subject matter. That is a little surprising. Perhaps it tells us something about the values of the Conservative party.
  The description of Britain and the British economy that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave us at the beginning of the debate was completely unrecognisable to me. I do not know what country Conservative Members live in, but it is certainly not the country that I live in.
  As I go round Britain, talking to people of all classes and backgrounds, I find a deep sense of worry, fear and unease about the continuing decline of Britain. The worry about what is to become of future generations is genuine and widespread. Indeed, as I prepared the notes for this debate I had on my desk a letter from Mr. Nunn, who lives in Stanmore, Middlesex. He wrote it on 12 November, saying that that is the day on which we commemorate the dead of his generation who did not survive the war. He uses very strong language and those on the Government Bench should face up to how angry people in Britain are feeling about what they are doing to our country. He says:
  "We faced the enemy in the 1940s knowing where he was and what we had to do to defeat him. Today the enemy is within and speaks in our own tongue. To prove the magnitude of this betrayal look around you at the decay of this British Isles where once proud men are now reduced to scavenging to bring food to the family table while their morale and living standards sink to ever lower levels."
  Strong stuff, but that is the mood of the country, and the Secretary of State simply misjudges how worried people are about the problems of the British economy.
  There is no doubt that the major reason for Britain's continuing decline and poor economic performance is the very low level of investment in our economy. The figures are frightening. We start from a base that is lower than that of comparable competitor countries. For example, investment per head is £1,600 in Britain, whereas in France it is £2,250, in Germany it is £2,600 and in Japan it is £3,900, but the trend is for it to get ever worse.
  Even Italy invests 19 per cent. more than the United Kingdom as a share of national income. Germany invests 60 per cent. more, Hong Kong 92 per cent. and Singapore 128 per cent. So we are worse off, our investment is lower and the trend is for it to get worse. The British economy is in decline, and the people of Britain are deeply worried about it.
  Clearly, to respond to the fears of the British people and the needs of the economy, we must work together to mobilise more investment, particularly long-term investment in our economy and infrastructure. Otherwise, Britain's continuing decline is inevitable.
  The tragedy for the country is that we have a Government who are driven by an ideological obsession with a deregulated and privatised free-for-all, which means that they cannot mobilise what the nation needs. We also have a Government who are convinced that the only way to compete internationally is through low wages, which go with low skills and low investment. That depressingly clear Government ideology prevents us from taking the action that we need to take to improve the performance of our economy.
  If we compare our transport system with that of other countries, we see a clear example of Britain's comparative failure. The consensus is growing throughout the country,
  422
  among everyone involved with the provision of transport, that the Government's policies are disastrous for the economy.
  In a recent Automobile Association press release on 27 September, Mr. John Dawson, group public affairs director, said:
  "Much of the dissatisfaction with the state of our transport policy and system in this country stems from our inability to plan and finance capital programmes. Our investment is at the bottom of the European league. This is bringing ever increasing competitive disadvantage as the CBI have strongly argued."
  So there we have it. Everyone, including organisations such as the AA, agrees that there has been a serious failure to mobilise investment from public-private partnerships. Essentially, that is what we need—the Government working with the private sector to mobilise investment throughout our system, but particularly in our transport systems.
  A modern economy needs an efficient and sustainable transport system, in the interests of economic efficiency and the quality of life. We have growing congestion and pollution. The CBI has estimated that congestion is costing the economy £15 billion a year. It is taking a growing toll of the environment, and people are deeply concerned. Asthma levels among children and elderly, frail people and the decline in the centres of our cities and towns because of the problems of transport pollution and congestion, are causing deep worry about the quality of life in the future.
  There is a growing understanding and consensus that existing transport policy is on an unsustainable trajectory. The Government estimate a doubling of car ownership in 30 years. We cannot go on carving up the countryside, building more and more roads, and commuting by car in ever greater numbers. The congestion and pollution would become unbearable. Most towns and cities would be gridlocked.
  Neighbouring countries show the way forward. Other European Union member states have higher car ownership than the UK but their cars are used to travel many fewer miles and tend not to be used for commuting. That is the way forward. Of course we all value the freedom that the car gives us in leisure pursuits and when making family visits, but we cannot assume that we can continue to drive our cars in commuting to town centres. If we do that in ever-increasing numbers, traffic will grind to a halt.
  The public transport system must be developed to provide attractive alternatives to the car in commuting to town for work and leisure. There is clear evidence that where there is investment in high-quality public transport, use of it increases and people leave their cars at home.
  The tragedy for Britain is that the Government have spent their time dismantling the tools necessary to build a modern transport system. Bus deregulation has had some very negative effects. Since deregulation outside London in 1986, the number of bus passenger journeys in Wales, Scotland and the rest of England has fallen by more than one quarter. That means a drop of more than 1 million bus passenger journeys every year.
  In Tyne and Wear, bus passenger use fell by 23 per cent. between 1986 and 1994, while over the same period, bus-operated mileage rose by 23 per cent. In some major cities, there have been bus wars, with all the congestion and danger to which they give rise. In addition, nearly half the larger buses in service today are more than 12

  423
  years old, which is double the number before deregulation. Worse service, more congestion, older buses and more pollution are exactly what we do not need.
  The privatisation plans for British Rail led to a disastrous drop in investment. Our rail system needs above all a big increase in investment. Anyone who has taken the wonderful Eurostar through the channel tunnel knows that, to our shame, Eurostar can travel massively fast on the French side but travels much more slowly on the British side, which demonstrates bad under-investment in our rail system.
  The Government's plans for rail privatisation offer exactly the opposite of what is needed. The preparations for privatisation have led to the Government's subsidy doubling but terrible under-investment in all parts of the system. If the Government ever complete that privatisation—which we think is unlikely—the structure of 90-plus operating units will make investment almost impossible. Serious people who have worked on the railways all their lives believe that, because so many different agents will have to co-operate, it will lead to a further drop in investment and require a bigger public subsidy—the opposite of all that is needed to modernise, strengthen and improve the rail system.
  The road programme picture is just as bleak. More intensive use needs to be made of the existing road system as investment is made in public transport options and other alternatives. Although the Government claim to be committed to a road building programme, they have disastrously cut maintenance levels. A briefing from the British Road Federation dated 12 June points out:
  "The maintenance quality of Britain's roads has declined over the past decade in 8 out of 10 regions in England and Wales … Nearly 5,000 miles of major road is in need of urgent structural repair and a further 3,000 miles will wear out in the next four years. Nationally there has been a 10% decline in the maintenance quality of the road network since 1984 with considerable deterioration in five out of the seven classes of road."
  So even in the part of the transport system to which the Government claim to be the most committed there is disorganisation and mess. Now it has been heavily trailed that there are to be massive cuts in the Budget for the road building programme. We shall soon see; if there are, they will endanger the future of some of this country's few remaining construction companies. The construction industry is in very bad shape, partly because of the poor state of the housing market. Consequently, it is fearful of the consequences of this sudden chopping and changing of Government policy.
  Labour, by contrast, is committed to a review of the roads programme, to try to redirect money from road to rail in a systematic, managed way, as part of a national transport strategy. In that way, everyone can work in co-operation with the strategy to deliver the sort of results that the country needs.
  The picture of our transport system is a sad one. It is declining, it is polluting and it takes people ever longer to make their journeys. That is both wasteful and degrading to the environment. Labour is committed to the development of a national transport strategy so that we, as a nation, can agree on the changes necessary to improve the system for the future. We shall want to work in partnership with the private sector, greatly to increase investment in the buses and trains so that people switch
  424
  from the car to public transport. We shall work to get more freight on to the railways. We are conscious that the opening of the channel tunnel gives us an opportunity to make great gains in moving freight from road to rail, to the benefit of all.
  The result of Labour's approach will be more investment and better integration between various modes of transport, so that people can switch easily from trains to buses, or back again. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who made one of the few serious speeches on the Government Benches today, firmly and clearly stated that it is perfectly within the bounds of modern technology to provide information about the interchanges between the railways and the buses, and about the timetables for both. That must certainly be done to encourage the people of our towns and cities to make the change.
  Mr. Barry Field: I should just like to point out that Southern Vectis on the Isle of Wight has launched, in conjunction with, and with a grant from, the Department of Transport, a bus, train and coach timetable service. It is a national dialling service which people can phone from any part of the country to learn how to plan their routes.
  Ms Short: That sounds enormously attractive. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us about it during his speech—perhaps because he was so busy telling us about subjects not covered by the Queen's Speech. We should like such a system for the whole country, giving people access to public transport options wherever they live. They need to be able to travel by rail or bus on reliable services with reliable information.
  Given the necessity to make these changes, and the growing consensus that they need to be effected, it is fairly amazing that the Government are taking no action to create a national transport strategy. The truth, I fear, is that they have fallen into the hands of right-wing zealots who believe fanatically in deregulation and privatisation even when they damage the national interest. It is a sign of how strong those forces in the Tory party are that someone like the Secretary of State for Transport can be captured by their ideas. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of my respect for him; it is my conviction that he does not believe in the policies that he has to defend to the House and the nation—that is my compliment to him.
  The Government's strategy is against the national interest and goes against the views of all who are concerned for the future of our transport system. What this country needs is a general election that will bring in a new Government dedicated to mobilising greater investment throughout our economy and our infrastructure, so as to bring about a halt to their continuing decline. Instead, we have had this mouse of a Queen's Speech, designed for cheap political advantage. The Government have nothing to say to the people throughout this country who are desperately worried that Britain is in continuing decline and that nothing is being done to stop it.
  9.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Much of the debate has been about competition. Rising to speak at nearly 9.40 pm, as "Panorama" is about to be beamed into the nation's homes is real competition.

  425
  It has been a reflective debate. There has been a contrast between the rather bleak picture of the nation's economy painted by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and that painted by my hon. Friends. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Lady have ignored the impact of inward investment over the past few years. We have attracted mobile international capital not into Disneyland and service industries but into industries with good productivity and growth prospects, such as the pharmaceutical industry, information technology, motor car manufacture and telecommunications.
  The United Kingdom is competing in a competitive world for capital from overseas. Companies from other countries want to locate here because the conditions are right: low inflation, low interest rates, good industrial relations and low corporation taxes. That is good news for those we all care about—the people who are looking for work.
  The prescription of the right hon. Member for Derby, South did not meet the analysis. It amounted to enhanced business links—building on something that we have successfully pioneered—and a national on-line database. That was her solution. She called for a national appraisal and national renewal based on a new consensus. That is typical of the bland generalities that we get from new Labour. It sounds good, but when we analyse what is said and ask what it means, we find that it means nothing.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) injected a philosophical note into what has been an industrial debate by talking about divorce law and family law reforms. It was like suddenly coming across "Thought for the Day" in a rather turbulent "Today" programme, but it was a welcome contribution. I shall forward my right hon. Friend's comments to the Lord Chancellor.
  I hope that I do not embarrass the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) if I say that he made an honest, provocative and thoughtful speech. I cannot think who he was talking about when he criticised politicians who made generous use of the word "tough". Could it have been the Leader of the Opposition? The right hon. Member for Llanelli spoke with great derision about those who set up think tanks, which are then asked to think the unthinkable about social welfare reform. What, I ask myself, was the purpose of the Social Justice Commission, which the Leader of the Opposition set up?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) spoke rightly about the importance of regional strength and its impact on technology. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage what my right hon. Friend said about technology and the proposed Bill on media ownership.
  My right hon. Friend the Member of Conwy also spoke of Welsh devolution. If there is one subject on which an English Secretary of State for Transport knows he should not talk, it is Welsh devolution. That is a road with no-entry signs all along it.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) knows that, with the reform of the homeless persons legislation, the safety net will remain. We believe genuinely that reform will lead to fairer allocation. It seems that the Liberal Democrats believe that housing is a priority. We know that they regard education as a
  426
  priority. They have been honest enough to say that they would consider increasing income tax by lp in the pound to fund education. If housing is a priority, how will they fund it? Will we have another lp on income tax for housing? Would the hon. Lady fund it in another way? How many priorities can the Liberal Democrats have? If they have more than one priority, we are entitled to ask how they will fund them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) rightly reminded us of the success of Felixstowe under the regime introduced by the Government. He made an impassioned plea for road investment. He will understand that he may have to wait until next week for the position to become clearer.
  At one point in his speech, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) uttered the words, "if manufacturing industry continued to fail". If he had listened to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, he would have heard that investment in manufacturing has increased by 11 per cent. this year, is forecast to go on increasing and that output is at an all-time high. That does not sound like failure to me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) rightly reminded us of the importance of small businesses, and I pay tribute to his work in promoting an unfashionable subject and making it one that is now almost politically correct. He rightly pointed out that success in attracting multinational investment is of interest to small businesses, because the investment filters through and helps small businesses in the areas where they are established.
  The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) spoke about the railways, and I hope to return to that in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) rightly pointed out that large-scale voluntary transfer is in effect the injection of private finance into housing, which has been pioneered by Conservative local authorities. Indeed, the Isle of Wight was one of the first to pursue that approach. He always campaigns on behalf of his constituents, and did so today. On direct payments to landlords, I remember from my time as Housing Minister that local authorities have discretion to make direct payments to landlords where that is the right thing to do, and I hope that that discretion will be exercised sensibly by his local authority.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) invited me to travel on the west coast main line. I do so regularly. He will be pleased to hear that I travelled in the cab of a train from Birmingham to Coventry only last week. I visited a signal box where the technology was more modern than the one that he mentioned. I was allowed to make a station announcement at the signal box, and I understand that it was widely commended for its clarity, but the absence of a Birmingham accent may have confused some of the passengers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) rightly reminded the House what can be done for a declining industry such as steel. With good partnership between local government and central Government, and with help from an enterprise zone, his area was turned around, and as a bonus it has returned a Conservative Member of Parliament, whereas previously one might not have expected that.

  427
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) rightly spoke about environmental pollution, in which transport has a key role to play. We have set challenging targets on exhaust emissions and have introduced a number of measures to reduce vehicle pollution; more such measures are on the way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) referred to the Royal Automobile Club report. I was at the report's launch and commend the way in which the RAC and the Automobile Association are making broad-based realistic proposals that do not simply focus on the need of motorists but recognise that motorists need access to good public transport and that there is a role for alternative forms in the transport strategy of the future.
  I now return to the theme of transport, about which a number of hon. Members have spoken. It is not true that investment in transport has been neglected by the Government. More than 700 miles of railway have been electrified. Electric trains now run on more than 30 per cent. of the network. Some 224 stations have been opened or reopened. More than a quarter of the rolling stock has been replaced in the past 10 years. Almost 90 per cent. of the former regional railways stock is less than 10 years old. More than £3 billion has been invested in continuing track renewal.
  In recent years, we have funded projects such as the east coast main line modernisation, where £550 million has been spent on resignalling and electrification and on new rolling stock. In 1978, the fastest journey time between London and Newcastle on that line was three hours and four minutes. Between London and Edinburgh, the fastest timetable journey was four hours and 52 minutes. Today, those journeys would take two hours and 40 minutes and four hours and five minutes—savings of 24 and 47 minutes respectively.
  I can give no better illustration—
  Mr. Brian Wilson: What about the west coast?
  Sir George Young: I am coming to that.
  I can give no better illustration of the healthy pattern of investment in our railways than to mention three projects that I have launched in the past 10 days. On the morning of 4 November, I opened a new high-speed rail freight facility for Buxton Lime Industries. The Government had contributed £2.6 million to the project, which will potentially relieve the village of Buxton of up to 125 lorry trips each day. On the afternoon of the same day, I had the pleasure of inaugurating stage 2 of the Robin Hood line—a £20 million scheme that included the restoration of rail passenger services through the town of Mansfield. On 13 November, in the presence of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, I cut the first turf in the construction of the £145 million Midland metro light rail scheme, which promises to bring major benefits to travellers in the west midlands and to play a key role in the regeneration of the black country.
  The long list of essential investments undertaken at public expense since 1979 records only a part of the Government's success in the transport sector. Massive private investment has also been possible in transport industries, especially in those that have been privatised in
  428
  the past 16 years. Hon. Members with long memories may recall that British Airways used to be a nationalised industry, dependent for its investment plans on the availability of Government funds. [Interruption.] The successes achieved by British Airways in recent years show vividly how businesses can flourish in the private sector, meeting their passengers' needs and investing to attract new custom. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to be an increasing tendency for both Front and Back Benchers to make seated interventions.
  Sir George Young: We can also point to similar patterns in other industries that have been freed from the straitjacket of public-sector controls. The National Freight Corporation, National Express, most of the bus industry— now including London Buses—the BAA, Associated British Ports and the trust ports Clyde, Forth, Medway, Tilbury and Tees and Hartlepool are now all private-sector operations, free to invest as their customers demand and without constant reference to Whitehall.
  We are making good progress both with the competition to select the private sector promoter of the high-speed channel tunnel rail link and with the hybrid Bill. The European Community has designated the project one of the 14 top-priority trans-European network projects, and I welcome the Commission's decision to give it £13.6 million worth of support in 1995.
  The scope for attracting private-sector investment to transport projects is not limited to industries that are already in the private sector. We have sought new ways of developing partnerships between public and private sector, and have already made great progress. Some £100 million of private-sector money was invested in the railways last year; on the road network, the Queen Elizabeth II bridge between Dartford and Thurrock was built entirely by the private sector at a cost of £150 million.
  The success that we have achieved through greater involvement of the private sector in transport encourages and inspires us to further progress in that direction. In 1996–97, the radical transformation of the railway resulting from the Government's privatisation plans means that responsibility for the bulk of investment will lie within the private sector: Railtrack, the rolling stock leasing companies and projects such as the channel tunnel rail link will all be in private hands. Railway businesses will be freed from direct public-sector expenditure controls and will be able to focus on providing services that are more in line with customers' needs.
  Our arrangements for franchising passenger services are consistent with our aim of delivering a high-investment railway for the future. Franchisees will have a clear interest in new investment that will bring them the opportunity to improve services, attract more passengers on to the railway and increase revenue. They will be able to work with the rolling stock leasing companies and Railtrack to develop proposals for new investment. Early signs are already promising. I am particularly encouraged that the bids that the franchising director has received for the first three franchises include some constructive and imaginative proposals for investment and service improvements.
  Mr. Wilson: The Secretary of State knows as well as we do that he is whistling in the dark. Virtually the only bids that he has had for the first three franchises are from

  429
  management buy-outs in which people have been compelled to compete for their own jobs. Would the Secretary of State care to comment on the views of James Sherwood, president of Sea Containers, who has consistently said that a seven-year franchise period would not allow for investment, and that—as the Government insist on that period—he wants nothing to do with a deteriorating railway? It is difficult to portray James Sherwood as a mad-eyed Trot.
  Sir George Young: It is the hon. Gentleman who is whistling in the wind. Sea Containers was not successful because there were better bids. That is good news for the passenger and the taxpayer but it is bad news for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir George Young: No, because I should like to make some progress.
  Last week I announced the sale of the former British Rail passenger train fleet, the rolling stock leasing companies—ROSCOs. That was Britain's largest ever privatisation by direct sale. The new owners are demonstrating a strong commitment to the development of a competitive market for passenger rolling stock. In addition to taking over the existing train fleet and the networker express fleet that is currently on order, the new owners bring access to additional funds to finance new trains and refurbish existing rolling stock. Their position in the industry, each company having a nationwide customer base and a spread of newer and older trains, should stand them in good stead to invest in renewal and to seek new growth opportunities. I am delighted, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is also delighted, that ROSCOs have already begun discussions with potential franchisees on the need for future co-operation.
  We set up Railtrack to own most of the track, signalling and associated infrastructure, including the stations and to operate 14 of the major stations. Railtrack will be floated on the stock market next spring. The company will no longer be competing with, for example, hospitals and schools for limited public sector funds. It will receive regular income through access charges and will be able to tap new sources of private funding to carry out its investment plans. Railtrack has been established with a level of funding and a regulatory regime sufficient to allow it to fund its investment programme, which includes necessary maintenance and renewal of the infrastructure.
  I shall now deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy). I was surprised to read in this morning's press suggestions that Railtrack may be holding back £1 billion that might otherwise be used for investment in the current year. That article was based on a profound misunderstanding of the difference between real cash flow and the accounting treatment of Railtrack's investment budget.
  Railtrack is spending more than £1 billion this year on infrastructure renewal and maintenance. As a result of surveying its assets, Railtrack has drawn up long-term plans for developing that infrastructure over five years for stations and over 10 years for tracks and signalling. That longer-term approach to investment planning is a key advantage of privatisation and represents the liberation of industry from the straitjacket of public expenditure controls. Yet again, the truth about rail privatisation is
  430
  being obscured by unfounded reports that attracted comment in the morning before disappearing into oblivion by lunchtime.
  We have restructured the industry in such a way that the financial regime that is in place will allow Railtrack to fund the necessary maintenance and renewal of the network. The regime of the rolling stock leasing companies has clear incentives for them or others to invest in new rolling stock. I am confident that, as a result of these new financial and regulatory regimes, investment will increase, as with all other privatisations. Overall funding in future years will, I am sure, enable the industry to meet its objectives of developing and improving the network and improving services to users.
  In addition to the benefits of privatisation, we can expect further benefits to the railways from the private finance initiative. One beneficiary will be the west coast main line, the strategic arterial railway route connecting London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. The last comprehensive re-equipping of the line was in the 1960s and 1970s, and that investment is coming to the end of its economic life. At the end of 1993, we announced that private finance would be used to modernise the line. A feasibility study analysing performance standards and investment options for the line was completed at the end of last year. It recommended an investment programme of modernisation works involving complete resignalling and comprehensive renewal of the track and the electric power supply and other infrastructure work.
  In March, we approved the development of a new state-of-the-art signalling system for the line. Development work for that signalling system will take place while Railtrack is in the public sector and will form part of the private finance initiative. The project has generated considerable interest, and Railtrack received a good response to its tender invitation. It expects to award the contract early next year.
  It is hard to overestimate the economic importance of the channel tunnel rail link and the west coast main line—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have warned Front-Benchers before. I am getting tired of seated interventions. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) or any hon. Member wishes to intervene, they must do so in the time-honoured fashion.
  Sir George Young: The figure will be announced when the contract is awarded. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North cannot expect the Government to give away their negotiating hand by revealing, while discussions are still taking place, how much they are prepared to pay.
  It is hard to overestimate the economic importance of the channel tunnel rail link and the west coast main line. Along with the channel tunnel, those two lines will form an industrial artery running through the heart of Britain to the continent—a wonderful boost for British industry. In recognition of the line's importance, almost £7 million has been allocated to the improvement programme as part of the European Union trans-European networks programme.
  Privatisation will deliver a railway for the 21st century. Increased flexibility and investment will encourage people and freight to move from the roads to rail.

  431
  On roads, we are making progress.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: I must answer many of the points that have been made by hon. Members who have been in the Chamber for slightly longer than the hon. Gentleman.
  We are also making progress with the design, build, finance, operate initiative for the highways. Earlier this evening, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the preferred bidder for the first of those projects, the A69 between Carlisle and Newcastle. That status has been given to a company called Roadlink, with which we expect to sign contracts shortly. Because of the first tranche's success, we have already followed that up with competitions for four more. Bids for those have just been received. In all, eight projects will provide capital investment of more than £500 million.
  There has been criticism of the private finance initiative from sectors of the industry that say that it causes delay. I sympathise with that, because deals can take time, but the PFI provides funding for projects that would not otherwise take place, and substantial delay is not a charge that can be laid against the DBFO initiative. We have made progress with the competitions in a short period.
  What the industry really wants is what it calls "deal flow" so that it can spread risk. We are seriously contemplating another tranche. One attractive possibility would be to extend the DBFO technique to a chain of improvements, allowing companies wider scope to operate efficiently.
  It is worth reminding the House that the last two Labour Governments closed 655 stations and lines, whereas we have opened 244. On 26 October, I wrote to the hon. Member for Ladywood, asking her to set out clearly Labour's policies for the railways. I have not received the courtesy of a reply. I hope that she will reply to that letter, answering all the questions that I put to her in it.
  Ms Short: I am pleased to know of the right hon. Gentleman's letter. In the past few weeks, I have been terribly busy, as I am sure he will understand. Of course, I will reply to his letter, but I am sure that he will understand that I have had a lot of other intensive reading to do.
  Sir George Young: I understand that and I look forward to receiving that reply. The hon. Lady says that
  432
  she has been very busy in the past few days, but, in that time, most of the press releases seem to have come from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North rather than from her.
  Old Labour is alive and well. We had an astonishing threat from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North not to renew franchises, even if that means a worse deal for passengers and for taxpayers. What an absurd, unpopular and dogmatic policy to insist on returning control to the railways, even if that costs more for the taxpayer and produces less for the passenger.
  It is a bit rich of the Labour party to criticise the Government for lack of rail investment when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said:
  "There can be no guarantee from any Government that such a subsidy will continue indefinitely at that level."
  How much would the Opposition spend on the railways? When are we going to hear a figure on that to back up some of their commitments? It is misleading of the Opposition to claim that they would invest more than the Government on the railways without giving any idea of their figures.
  We all know that the hon. Member for Ladywood is an honest socialist politician. It is precisely because of her honesty that she has already resigned twice from her Front-Bench team. How long will it be before, as an honest socialist, she will have to resign again because the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer will not let her make the commitments that everyone in this Chamber knows she would like to make?
  It is also ridiculous of the Opposition to criticise us for a lack of investment when they want to deny others the opportunity to invest in the railways. No sooner do we have the private finance backing for ROSCOs, Red Star and the other old parts of British Rail that we have sold, than the Opposition leap on their left-wing bandwagon of renationalisation. That shows how little they want private investment in our railways.
  If investment in the railways is not to come from the private sector, where would it be found under the Opposition if they were in government? It would have to come from the public purse. Are the Opposition really saying that, when investment is called for in the railways, they will stump up the cash rather than giving it to hospitals, to schools or to pensioners—because that is what keeping the railways in public ownership would mean. It will be a continuing struggle, and their policy on the railways will get them nowhere—
  It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

PETITION

  Child Prostitution and Pornography
  10 pm
  Dame Peggy Fenner: I beg leave to present the following petition.
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the National Council of Women of Great Britain at its Centenary Conference assembled in the City of Nottingham, from 10–12 October 1995, in conjunction with Action for Children Campaign,
  Sheweth
  That we, the undersigned, re-affirm the Resolution entitled "Action for Children in Prostitution" proposed by The Revd Graham St. John-Willey (Director, Action for Children Campaign) and seconded by Mrs. Joan Belcher (Chairman of the International Council of Women [Great Britain] Committee) and passed (nem con) at the 1993 Annual General Meeting, which was based on the text of the Early Day Motion "Children in Prostitution and Pornography" tabled in your Honourable House on 11 November 1992 and re-tabled in each session since [receiving the support of a majority of Honourable Members, more than has ever been obtained by an EDM on a Child Welfare issue], that:
  The National Council of Women in conference assembled:
  1. expresses its deep concern at continuing reports that citizens of developed nations travelling abroad may be encouraging the use of children in prostitution and pornography;
  2. affirms its commitment to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which seeks to protect children from sexual exploitation; and
  3. calls upon Her Majesty's Government to seek to play an active role in bringing about concerted international action to tackle this problem, and, in particular to examine ways of ensuring that individuals involved in such exploitation are brought to justice within the United Kingdom.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do introduce legislation to ensure that citizens of the United Kingdom who commit serious sexual offences against children abroad can be prosecuted in this country.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  I introduce this petition this evening on the sixth anniversary of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Can there be a more noble purpose on such a day?
  To lie upon the Table.

  Employment (Chester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
  10.3 pm
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I am grateful to have this important opportunity to raise an issue that is of fundamental concern to every one of my constituents, to their standard of living, to their quality of life, to the way that they live now and to the way that they and their children will live in the future—employment in the city of Chester.
  Only a few days ago, at the very outset of the debate on the Queen's Speech, I was privileged to be given the significant opportunity of extolling the virtues of my unique constituency. I touched on its 2,000 years of history. In tonight's debate, I want to consider Chester as it is today, and perhaps as it may be in the future. I want to look at its achievements, consider its potential and face up to some of the very real challenges that confront us.
  Essentially, ours is a success story. In recent years, unemployment in the city has been falling and inward investment rising. It is perhaps worth examining the level of inward investment and its quality to see the lessons that we can learn for future potential increases in employment in our area.
  One notable example of inward investment, which included the personal involvement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the wholehearted commitment of the Government's inward investment team in the north-west, has been the arrival in Chester of the Maryland Bank of North America. It is instructive to consider why MBNA and others have chosen to come to Chester.
  Executives of the Maryland international bank examined sites across Europe and throughout the United Kingdom and the British isles before deciding to build the new headquarters for its financial services and credit card operation at the Chester business park. The bank's move to the 150-acre landscaped park is one of the largest American investments in the United Kingdom for a number of years.
  Why did it come to Chester? Tom McGinley, MBNA's chief executive, said:
  "We chose Chester because of the readily available workforce; a young and enthusiastic group of people of exactly the type we like to bring on board."
  The quality of the work force, therefore, is one of the reasons that firms come to Chester.
  The arrival of MBNA adds to quite a long list of companies based in our city. We also host the headquarters of Marks and Spencer Financial Services, Shell Chemicals (UK) and BICC Cables. Financial services are a particular strength. The NWS bank—North West Securities—has been in the city since the 1950s. Pearl Assurance is also based there.
  Our success is not only in the sphere of financial services. We have also been successful in enticing manufacturing businesses to our part of the world. Cacao Barry (UK) Ltd., a member of the Barry Group, opened a new factory three years ago on the 84-acre Chester West industrial and commercial site, after looking at 16 different locations in the north of England, which is where

  435
  most of its market lies for the bulk of its production of high-quality chocolate for use in biscuits, cakes and confectionery.
  The company says that the Chester plant, which was built in the record time of only five months on eight acres and which now employs nearly 100 people, is the most technically advanced chocolate factory currently in production. Marc Donaldson, its commercial manager, says that Chester best fitted the company's location criteria, partly because the city is within 45 minutes of the international airport at Manchester. It is within easy reach of good communications. He also cited the culture and quality of life in our community.
  Two more American firms worth mentioning have come to us recently. Original Bradford—soapmakers—and NEBS Business Stationery are also located on the Chester West site. More recently, a firm called Strix has settled in Chester. It is a remarkable company, which I mentioned last week. It has invested £10 million and created a large number of jobs—upwards of 100 to date. One item that it makes is switches for electric kettles—for 70 per cent. of all kettles in the world, in fact.
  Ed Layne, the managing director of Original Bradford, said:
  "We considered sites throughout Europe. Manchester airport was a very strong factor in our decision. In fact, it clinched the decision in favour of the North West."
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The House will know that my constituency includes part of the city of Chester, as does the constituency of the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), the Government Chief Whip.
  The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) has mentioned the importance of Manchester airport twice. Does he agree that, as mentioned in the previous debate, rail links to Manchester airport and improved links on the west coast main line are desperately needed as part of the transport infrastructure? Does he agree with companies such as Shell and Kemira, which are both based in part in the city of Chester, which say that they could greatly improve their businesses and the environment through greater access to the railways?
  Mr. Brandreth: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt at all that having a quality transport infrastructure is essential to the continuing success of our part of the world. Indeed, I shall refer that in a moment.
  The traditional twin pillars of retailing and tourism in Chester have been boosted by the emergence of a much-needed third pillar—commerce. Of course, retail and tourism remain vital to us. In the city centre in recent years, significant retailing investment has been made by Marks and Spencer plc—with more to come, I am pleased to say, on its Foregate street premises—by Little woods, C. and A., BhS, Argos, Grosvenor Estate Holdings, Liberty Properties Ltd., Refuge Assurance plc, Scottish Widows, as well as new arrivals such as HMV and the Virgin megastore.
  We have seen a growth in tourism. Six million people visit Chester. We have had many motorised visitors in the past few days because the Network Q Royal Automobile Club rally has been racing through Chester at a most bodacious speed.
  436
  How have we achieved our successes to date? Key elements are clearly the quality of the people, the place and the communications infrastructure, and the determination of the local community to see Chester thrive. The word "partnership" is used all too glibly by politicians these days, but in Chester we have a very real and active partnership. It has been developed over a number of years and is a partnership for the future founded on an understanding of Chester's special needs and a commitment to protect its interests while moving forward into the next century.
  The partnership that has come together to work on the Chester action programme includes the chamber of trade, the chamber of commerce, the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council, the business club, the civic trust, the cathedral, housing associations, the economic development forum, the voluntary sector organisations, the environmental forum, the Chester hoteliers association, the Chester and Ellesmere Port enterprise agency, the Rural Development Commission, and, of course, the county council and the city council.
  I underline the admiration that I and others have for all the people who are giving time and energy to that work— notably, from the city council, the chief executive Paul Durham and the head of economic development unit Barbara Mothershaw.
  As well as the people I have mentioned, those involved with the partnership include a wide range of people involved in businesses of all kinds large and small. Under my chairmanship, we have been getting together at a series of meetings that we have called the Chester jobs summit. At those meetings, we have been looking at ways in which we can make our city even more successful and ensure more and better employment—sustained and real—for those in our community.
  As a result of the Chester jobs summits, we have had a series of meetings with Ministers to tackle specific issues, ranging from the future of the Army pay and personnel centre at Queen's Park to the vital need to make rapid progress on improving the essential rail links between Crewe and Chester and beyond. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) raised that issue, and especially glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport addressed it head on in the previous debate on the Queen's Speech.
  Earlier this year, as a result of the jobs summit initiative, we met the Minister of State, Department of Employment, as she then was—my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—and my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy, as he still is. The firms remain small, but his stature grows as the weeks go by. He subsequently visited our business link in Chester.
  The issues we raised concerned employment opportunities in Chester in general, and employment training in particular. We want an extension in the training available for adults returning to work. We want an increase in employment training for disabled people, and we want more concerted action to deal with the particular problems of those who have been unemployed for a long time.
  The Chester action partnership wants to establish an enterprise fund to help new and small businesses to develop, and to retain vital technological skills in our area.

  437
  I am delighted to say that, as a result of the meetings I have mentioned, a two-person team has been seconded to us by the Government office for the north-west.
  Mr. Miller: The importance of technology in the area cannot be understated, and I hope that the Minister will respond on that point. Last week, I had the privilege of chairing a conference organised by CEWTEC, the local training agency which was referred to by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). It encompasses companies from the Wirral and Chester which specialise in the development of information technology in their industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need greater emphasis on this part of Chester's potential from all players in the community, and, indeed, from the Government?
  Mr. Brandreth: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the developments I look to see is greater diversity in the economic life of the community. In that regard, I salute British Nuclear Fuels plc, which is looking at ways in which to produce the seedbed for allied small businesses. It is looking at different ways in which to extend its product development centre, IES, and other projects. I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Another achievement of the Chester action programme and the jobs summit initiative is that we played a part in securing the single regeneration budget challenge fund for regeneration in west Chester. Already it has been a real success. There have been 14 new business starts, the creation of a community business and the creation of 10 jobs. Assistance has been given to 19 voluntary organisations and 300 or more students, and young people are benefiting from projects to enhance personal development.
  At the most recent meeting of the jobs summit, the chief executive of the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council, Alan Moody, brought us his report on the economic prospects, as he saw them, for Chester and as a survey had revealed them to be. In general, the Chester area economy is the most vibrant of the three in the CEWTEC area. That reflects the concentration within it of the rapidly expanding financial services sector to which I referred and of tourism, which is benefiting from a growing trend towards short-break holidays and from the essential quality of a visit to Chester.
  The manufacturing base in Chester has suffered, despite the high-tech focus. That reflects the dependence on the aerospace industry, which has suffered from the ending of the cold war and from the intense competition for civil aircraft orders.
  Business confidence is generally high in Chester. Some 63 per cent. of the firms surveyed by CEWTEC expected turnover to be higher next year than this, against 7 per cent. who expected it to be lower. Some 48 per cent. of the businesses surveyed expected to increase investment next year, which is good news, whereas only 5 per cent. thought that they would reduce their investment levels.
  The major single constraint on the development of businesses in Chester is the shortage of suitable finance. Interestingly, that was cited by 32 per cent. of the 202 businesses surveyed, and we must address that issue.
  Many firms in the survey with financial constraints appeared not to have business plans. Such plans must be seen as an obvious prerequisite, not only to identifying
  438
  the amount of finance required but to raising that finance. This could well be an area in which business link and CEWTEC can play a role, and I know that they want to see that possibility developed further.
  There is no doubt that, in common with many cities— but perhaps contrary to the popular image of the city— Chester has pockets of high long-term unemployment, particularly male unemployment. This is a matter of concern to CEWTEC, the Minister and me. There is no doubt that we need to attract more development and create jobs for men in particular, as well as for managers and mature professionals. We need to encourage young men to come on to the job market with greater skills.
  It is worth pointing out that CEWTEC told me that, in terms of foundation skills, the achievement of young people in Chester is better than the national average. CEWTEC deserves to be saluted for what it has achieved in recent years. From being one of the lowest-performing areas in 1990, our area has grown into one of the most successful, with end-of-year results showing significant increases in skill levels achieved through training. A total of 1,352 young people, an 8 per cent. increase, and 1,770 adults, an increase of one third, achieved NVQs, so I hope that we are moving in the right direction.
  Comparative performance figures issued recently for the 81 TECs across the country showed substantial improvements, particularly in achieving value for money. The figures showed that CEWTEC is among the best. There has been a 36 per cent. improvement in the number of school leavers obtaining NVQs through local training schemes, and CEWTEC helped 28 per cent. more adults to learn new skills and earn qualifications through its training for work programme.
  CEWTEC is working with a wide range of people. To cite one would be invidious, but I do so nonetheless. One company in the area—Barratts of Chester—has recruited five trainees after being unable to take any in the previous two years. Those trainees are being provided with work through the Construction Industry Training Board, which is helping Chester construction companies to ensure that there is an adequate supply of properly trained people. There are currently 14 Chester trainees on their first-year programmes at the Mowlem training centre in Birkenhead and the West Cheshire college. Last year, there were only two trainees, so we are moving in the right direction.
  We face challenges, and we have exciting opportunities. But Chester does not operate in isolation, and our achievements must be in the context of the national economy. There is no doubt that part of our achievement is in the context of our being in a world of sustained growth with low inflation. That is a real achievement, and allows businesses to plan to expand. One of the reasons for short-term attitudes to financing is uncertainty about the future.
  If one lives in a world of high inflation and fluctuating interest rates, how can one plan for the future? One of the greatest achievements of the Government under this Prime Minister and this Chancellor has been to transform the situation, and that is one reason why I have such hope for the future.
  I do my very best to avoid party politics at the jobs summit, but I am not so constrained here. One of the concerns put to me by people in my community— particularly those in the retail and tourism industries—is the threat that they foresee from the social chapter and the

  439
  minimum wage. They see those measures as a threat because they have not been given any hard and detailed information from Opposition politicians about what they might involve, so all they can see is the worst of them.
  Sir Rocco Forte understands the hotel industry, and he has excellent hotels serving my part of the world. He points out:
  "The essence of a healthy tourism industry is flexibility in the use of its labour force so that it can serve the customer effectively and charge prices which are competitive in the international market. In this respect the UK has great advantages over its Continental neighbours. Social security costs make labour 50 per cent. more expensive in France and Germany and 100 per cent. more expensive in Italy. The introduction of the Social Chapter and the imposition of a national minimum wage would have a devastating effect on the flexibility and competitiveness of this industry, which is one of the largest providers of employment in the UK."
  I am seriously alarmed at the prospect of something that would have, in the words of someone who knows and has been brought up in the hotel industry, "a devastating effect" on employment in my community. That is the prospect of the down side.
  The up side is simply that Chester is a unique asset to the north-west and the United Kingdom. We have a proud record in inward investment. We have the best people in the country in the best city in the country. Our prospects for the future are exciting indeed.
  10.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): It is a rare treat for the House to be reminded twice in one week of all the great features that Chester has to offer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on the juxtaposition of the two speeches, but also the way in which, in the first speech that we all enjoyed last week, he looked back at the great history of Chester.
  I must admit that I was slightly relieved that he did not embark on that again tonight, not least because I might have been forced to wax lyrical about the city of Ely in my constituency, which has a history just as illustrious. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has seriously dealt with the many issues tonight. I am sorry that, on last week's occasion, the House was packed because it was the Queen's Speech, but tonight it is less full because of the Princess's speech.
  The starting point for Government policy, and the point to which my hon. Friend referred, is the Government's belief that jobs are created only by profitable businesses which produce goods, products or services at a price and quality that a consumer wants. The Government's role is to regulate at the minimum level necessary commensurate with reasonable business and employment standards.
  It is for that reason that unemployment in Britain is now less than in Germany, France, Spain or many other countries in the European Community. It is why, as my hon. Friend rightly reminded us, the Government have stood resolutely against the social chapter.
  It is important to remind the House, my hon. Friend and his constituents of the absurdity of the notion asserted by the Leader of the Opposition last week, that he would sign up to the social chapter but would not necessarily go
  440
  along with everything that was within it. The simple fact is that the social chapter involves majority voting. Once Britain signed up to it, we could be outvoted and forced to go along with burdens and regulations on employers. The Government's role is to create the right environment and framework for businesses to prosper. My hon. Friend has reminded us of the excellent state of the economy. I will not go through that again.
  One matter to which my hon. Friend did not refer is our industrial relations record. It has been transformed. I am sure that we all forget, until we sit down and spend a little time reminiscing, how seriously bad it was in the late 1970s. Since then, Britain has been transformed into a paragon of industrial relations for the rest of the world. On top of that, we have slashed red tape and placed great emphasis on the growth of small businesses. We have developed a network of support organisations, to which I shall refer.
  My hon. Friend referred to INWARD. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that INWARD, together with strong support from the local agencies was instrumental in persuading MBNA, the financial services company to which he referred, to locate in Chester. That is a tremendous success for Chester. It is the company's first operation outside the United States of America. It is a massive investment, with a substantial number of jobs. Most importantly perhaps, it is a tremendous success because the investment was won against strong international competition. It was helped, but not conclusively, by a Government offer of £7 million of regional selective assistance. Perhaps most importantly, in the words of the company, it
  "selected Chester for the right people and education infrastructure, high quality business environment, and first class transport and communication links."
  My hon. Friend referred to the unemployment situation. Sadly, it is higher than the national average, but it is changing fast. Indeed, since the peak in December 1992, unemployment in the United Kingdom has fallen by nearly 17 per cent., but Chester can beat that. Over the same period, unemployment there has fallen by more than 23 per cent., and it fell substantially again last week. The jobs summit that my hon. Friend convened—I salute him for his initiative in doing so—is going a long way towards tackling the needs of businesses and how to create those new jobs in the Chester area.
  The single regeneration budget, to which he also referred, is playing a central part. A bid of more than £2 million for the Chester action programme will be used to create new jobs, more qualifications, new businesses, to enhance the achievement of more than 5,600 pupils and to build 100 new dwellings. It is an excellent example of the public, private and voluntary sectors working together.
  My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Wirral training and enterprise council—CEWTEC. My hon. Friend will know that, as Minister responsible for training and enterprise councils, I take a great pride in their achievements and in the way in which they have all improved their performance. I recognise and pay tribute to the improvements that CEWTEC has made, of which my hon. Friend reminded the House. This year, in the Chester area CEWTEC is providing 50 business start-up places, 1,400 adult training places, and 75 modern apprenticeships.

  441
  The survey to which my hon. Friend referred showed that 50 per cent. of companies in the Chester area had no training plan for their work force, and only 40 per cent. had provided any training in the past 12 months. That is why the Investors in People standard is the most important of all the initiatives and programmes run by CEWTEC.
  Mr. Miller: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Paice: No, I am afraid that I have not got time. I would happily do so otherwise.
  The fact is that six businesses in the area are recognised as investors in people, and another 30 are committed to achieving the standard. As my hon. Friend said, the business link organisation is also helping to develop new businesses and jobs.
  My hon. Friend referred to the threat of the national minimum wage. The one question that its advocates have never answered is on differentials. If we upgrade the skills of the work force of Chester and everywhere else in this
  442
  country, those skills must be recognised by adequate differentials in their pay. If one raises the lowest pay, one has to raise differentials. The inflationary consequences are staggering, and the Opposition have not dealt with that problem in their advocacy of the minimum wage.
  My hon. Friend was entirely right to draw the attention of the House to the threat that the social chapter poses to jobs in Chester and the United Kingdom. He has done a great service to his constituents by bringing to the House full recognition of what has been achieved and of the great success in developing the economy of Chester and the surrounding area. I congratulate him on the way in which he did so, and on the way in which he represented his constituents here—
  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-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Movement
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the grants his Department(a) has made and (b) proposes to make to the European movement in 1995. [78]

  Mr. David Davis
  No grants have been made to the European movement in 1995, nor are any planned.

  EU Council Meeting
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the voting record of each member state on items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's Foreign Affairs Council held on 30 October; and if he will make it his practice to include details of all votes, including where there have been no votes, in the future. [442]

  Mr. David Davis
  No votes were taken at the Foreign Affairs Council of 30 October. A record of votes taken at Foreign Affairs Councils is generally given in the Council secretariat press release which is deposited in the Library of the House as soon as it is available.

  GCHQ (Signals Station)
  Mr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of GCHQ composite tracking station at Culmhead. [459]

  Mr. Rifkind
  On 14 November the director of GCHQ announced that the composite signals organisation station at Culmhead will close in 1999.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent on re-equipping GCHQ composite tracking station at Culmhead in each of the last five years. [460]

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not Government policy publicly to reveal details of expenditure on intelligence beyond that shown in the single intelligence vote. Expenditure by the intelligence services is kept under review by the Committee of Parliamentarians established under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances his Department allows access to confidential information held about asylum seekers to(a) the Child Support Agency and (b) other Government Departments or agencies. [619]
  14
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Details of an asylum claim are treated as confidential. The fact that a person is an asylum seeker is, however, disclosed where necessary in order to protect public funds, in particular where entitlement to a benefit or service is conditional on asylum seeker status. Disclosure is regularly made to the Benefits Agency and local authority housing departments for this purpose. Information about an asylum claim is not disclosed to departments or agencies not involved in consideration of the claim, such as the Child Support Agency, otherwise than in exceptional circumstances, for example where the police require it for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

  Nigerians
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of Nigerian nationals who, over the last five years to date, have been granted(a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to remain by the United Kingdom authorities. [107]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In the first 10 months of 1995, two Nigerians were granted asylum and three were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave to remain. Annual information prior to 1995 is published in tables 3.1 and 3.2 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth, when he intends to notify the Secretary of State for Social Security that Nigeria is a country undergoing significant upheaval for the purposes of enabling Nigerian nationals, whose application for political asylum in the United Kingdom is pending appeal, to a special adjudicator, to claim benefit; and if he will make a statement. [217]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The situation in Nigeria is being closely monitored, but my right hon. and learned Friend does not at present consider that it would justify his issuing such a notification. Under the proposals on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has been consulting, benefit entitlement arising from a notification in respect of a country would lapse at the point where an asylum claim was refused and would not continue during any appeal.

  Gambling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to lift the ban covering the use of radio and television by the betting industry for the purpose of advertising its service. [502]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Restrictions on the advertising of betting and other forms of commercial gambling in the broadcast and non-broadcast media are under review. There will be full public consultation before any decisions are made.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the impact of the national lottery on the betting industry; and if he will make a statement. [508]
  15
  Mr. Kirkhope
  We are monitoring off-course betting turnover in order to assess the impact of the national lottery on the horserace betting levy, and plan to report our findings to Parliament in the spring of 1996.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to set up bodies to investigate miscarriages of justice. [407]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Work is already underway to establish the criminal cases review commission created by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. It is expected to start work in the course of next year.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply to the hon. Member for Don Valley copies of all the annual reports of the prison board of visitors in respect of Doncaster prison. [63]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The board of visitors appointed to Doncaster prison started its term of office in June 1994 when the prison was first opened. As annual reports are submitted after the end of the year to which the report refers, the board has therefore submitted only one annual report, for 1994. Its annual report for 1995 will not be due until spring 1996.

  Boards of visitors annual reports are not published documents. They are made to the Secretary of State who permits the board, if it wishes, to publish its report. In this case, the board has chosen not to publish. Instead it issued a press notice, a copy of which will be sent to the hon. Member.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the first annual report from the chairman of the board of visitors of Doncaster prison; and on what date this will be published by his Department. [403]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The board of visitors appointed to Doncaster prison started its term of office in June 1994 when the prison was first opened. As annual reports are submitted after the end of the year to which the report refers, the board has therefore submitted only on annual report, for 1994. This was received on 12 June 1995.

  Boards of visitors annual reports are not published documents. They are made to he Secretary of State who permits the board, if it wishes, to publish its report. In this case, the board has chosen not to publish. Instead it issued a press notice, a copy of which will be sent to the hon. Member.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to the letters of the director general to the hon. Member for Don Valley dated 24 and 26 October, on what basis Mr. Richard Tilt is authorised to sign himself as Director General of the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [53]

  Miss Widdecombe
  On the basis that, my right hon. and learned Friend, as he told the House on 16 October, has asked Mr. Tilt to take over temporarily as director general until a substantive appointment is made.
  16
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the 137 full submissions referred to in the letter of resignation of Mr. Derek Lewis, the former Director General of the Prison Service, which the Prison Service was required to submit to his Department between October 1994 and January 1995, together with the name of the addressees; and if he will make a statement. [56]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 26 October,Official Report column 759.

DEFENCE

  Munitions (Dumping at Sea)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department will list the weapons material dumped in Hurd Deep in the English channel; [613]

  (2) if his Department will give details of the sea dumping disposal programme conducted by his Department in the dumping site 400 miles south-west of Lands End; [614]

  (3) what records relating to chemical weapons and munitions dumping operations in Hurd Deep until 1973 and off the continental shelf until January 1993 exist in his Department. [615]

  Mr. Soames
  No chemical warfare munitions were disposed of at these sites. Details of sea disposals of CW munitions were provided in my previous answer of 20 October 1995,Official Report, col 387. In the immediate post war period approximately 25,000 tons of British and 50,000 tons of captured German conventional munitions were dumped at Hurd Deep but no record of subsequent dumping operations at this site until its use was discontinued in 1973 appear to have survived. Surviving records which have been identified to date show that between 1973 and 1985 up to 2,000 tons of conventional munitions were disposed of annually at the deep water dump site situated approximately 400 miles south west of Lands End, off the continental shelf. From 1985 until October 1992 when the sea dumping of munitions was terminated the annual disposals were as follows, 904 tons; 1,882 tons; 1,565 tons; 3,244 tons; 1,544 tons; 1,775 tons; 1,093 tons and 8,764 tons.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his assessment of the legality of the 1976 emergency dump in Beaufort's dyke in relation to the Oslo convention for the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircraft; [612]

  (2) if he will list the weapons material dumped during the 1976 emergency dump in Beaufort's dyke in the North sea. [611]

  Mr. Soames
  The emergency MOD disposal in 1976 involved two cases of heavily corroded 40mm shells. The emergency dumping of certain waste materials subject to the provisions of the Oslo convention is permissible if the waste in question cannot be disposed of on land without "unacceptable danger or damage". Given their recorded condition, the disposal of these munition items on land would have constituted such an "unacceptable danger".
  17
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to monitor the chemical weapons and munitions dumping sites in the sea surrounding the British Isles. [610]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no plans to monitor disused munition dump sites.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the date of the last sea-dumping by his Department of surplus ordnance off the British Isles. [446]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department ceased all sea-dumping of conventional ammunition and explosive stocks in October 1992 in line with the OSPAR convention which came into force on 1 January 1993.

  Ships for Sale
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list all the(a) surface ships and (b) submarines currently on the market for sale by his Department. [462]

  Mr. Arbuthnot

  (a) Surface ships on the market for sale

  Leander Class Frigates

  HMS Sirius

  HMS Scylla

  HMS Hermione

  HMS Jupiter

  Bird Class Patrol Craft

  HMS Redpole

  HMS Cygnet

  HMS Kingfisher

  Ocean Going Tug

  RMAS Roysterer

  Dog Class Tugs

  RMAS Foxhound

  RMAS Labrador

  Fender Barge

  RMAS Pauline Elizabeth

  Girl Class Tug

  RMAS Daphne

  Triton Class Tug

  RMAS Nancy

  Fleet Tender

  RMAS Lydford

  Water Carrier

  RMAS Waterspout

  Various lighters and other small unnamed vessels

  (b) Submarines on the market for sale

  Upholder Class Submarines

  HMS Upholder

  HMS Unseen

  HMS Unicorn

  HMS Ursula

  18

  West Freugh Range
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the explosions, together with their dates, which have occurred at his Department's West Freugh military range in the last two years; [214]

  (2) what activities are carried out at his Department's West Freugh military range; [216]

  (3) if an investigation has been carried out into the explosion at his Department's West Freugh military range on 19 October; and if he will make a statement. [215]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive, DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 20 November 1995:
  Your three questions regarding activities at the West Freugh range and the recent accidental explosion on 19 October have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency (DERA) which includes the West Freugh site as part of the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation (DTEO) division of the Agency. I am responding to all three questions in this letter.
  You asked for details of the activities carried out at the West Freugh site for a list of explosions that had occurred there in the last two years. The DTEO Weapons Range at West Freugh offers the capability to undertake weapon trials on a fully instrumented range with comprehensive customer support facilities. Trials can include both development and in-service activities in the fields of bombing, short range surface-to-air and air-to-surface missile firings, laser gun firings, weapon system designator, and explosive trials. There has been only one unplanned explosion at West Freugh in the last two years, that of 19 October 1995, in which two DERA personnel were injured.
  Your third question asked about an inquiry into the incident of 19 October. The Managing Director of DTEO has set up a formal Committee of Inquiry specifically to investigate the incident. This is currently gathering the detailed evidence to establish what happened and is making recommendations accordingly. We are also in touch with the Health and Safety Executive.

  Attack Helicopter
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the(a) current total estimated cost and in service date and (b) original total estimated cost and in service date of the Army's attack helicopter. [458]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The current total estimated cost of the attack helicopter programme is £2.5 billion and, at the same price base, is about £120 million more than the estimated total programme cost when the competitive tendering and assessment phase was approved in 1991. The preferred in service date at that time was December 1997 but the later date of December 1998 was included in the invitation to tender. Following the conclusion of the competition, the in service date is currently estimated as 2000. This remains subject to confirmation in the continuing contract negotiations.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the progress made on the development of the Army's attack helicopter. [445]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I receive regular updates on the progress of major programmes such as the attack helicopter. Following the selection of the WAH64 aircraft to meet the Army's requirement for an attack helicopter, contractual negotiations are continuing with Westland
  19
  Helicopters Ltd. Development of the McDonnell Douglas AH64D Longbow Apache for the US Army, on which the United Kingdom's aircraft will be based, has been completed and the production phase has been approved.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage saving of total running costs his Department expects to save in the next two financial years. [457]

  Mr. Soames
  The MOD's operating costs plans are set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", table 13, page 137

  F22 Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with representatives from Lockheed Martin concerning the purchase of F22 aircraft. [1464]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the purchase of American F22 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [466]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are not considering the purchase of American F22 aircraft.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reports received from(a) his Departmental staff or (b) his independent advisers concerning the purchase leasing of F22 aircraft from America. [465]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend has received no such reports.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of complaints received from the borders region about tactical low flying sorties over the area over the past five years. [443]

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of complaints and inquiries about military low flying received by my Department over the past five years from low flying areas 16 and 20T, which cover the borders area, are as follows:

  1991: 291

  1992: 486

  1993: 583

  1994: 599

  11995: 774

  1Up to 31 October 1995.

  European Court of Justice
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his Department's policy to obey European Court judgments. [456]

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom courts would give effect to the judgments of the European Court of Justice or the court of first instance as necessary and my Department would, of course, obey them.
  20

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Disputes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for taking forward the proposals contained in the Green Paper "Resolving Employment Rights Disputes: Options for Reform" [1275]

  Mr. Lang
  A large number of responses to the Green Paper was received and the Government have given careful consideration to all views submitted. Most of the Green Paper proposals were widely supported and accordingly the Government have decided to implement them.

  The Government continue to believe that employment disputes should, where possible, be resolved in-house through employers' own procedures. However, they recognise the reservations expressed by many responding to the Green Paper that the proposal to require employees to attempt to resolve disputes with their employers before being able to make an application to an industrial tribunal might lead to increased delays and complexity in tribunal procedures, rather than alleviating them. The Government have decided not to take forward this proposal.

  The Government also recognise the concerns voiced about the proposals to require chairmen to sit alone, without lay members, in certain cases and have decided not to introduce any such statutory requirement. However, the Government are minded to extend the existing discretion for chairmen to sit alone where they consider this appropriate for certain technical cases, such as the determination of entitlement to redundancy payments.

  The Government believe that the remaining proposals will, when implemented, make a significant contribution to easing the burdens facing the industrial tribunals. Some of the proposals will be modified in the light of responses to the Green Paper, and where necessary further informal consultation will be carried out with interested parties. Detailed proposals will he brought forward when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has undertaken a separate review and is considering the implications of the responses for that jurisdiction.

  Patents (Genetic Research)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the establishment of limits to the patentability of life; what plans he has to exclude human, animal and plant tissue from patentability; and if he will make a statement. [621]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Patents are granted only for inventions which meet the statutory requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. A patent would not be granted for any invention, the publication or exploitation of which would generally be expected to encourage offensive, immoral or anti-social behaviour. Apart from the exclusion of plant and animal varieties from patentability, inventions involving human, animal or plant material have to satisfy the same criteria as other inventions. The Government agree with the view of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in its recent report on human genetics that
  21
  there is a role for patenting in the application of the results of genetic research. We have no plans to change the law in this respect.

  Ministerial Travel, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many times in the last year he has used the London underground while on official business; [361]

  (2) how many times in the last year he has used London Transport buses while on official business. [576]

  Mr. Lang
  None.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [26]

  Mr. Freeman
  No Acts of Parliament or consolidated Acts that affect local government have been introduced by my Department since January 1994.

TREASURY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 25 September ref. 0595/43 concerning a constituent. [219]

  Mr. Jack
  I am considering the hon. Member's letter and hope to reply soon.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts (Congestion)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he proposes to alleviate congestion in the courts. [519]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Court sittings in the Crown and county courts are being maintained at a level above that required to deal with incoming work. For example the Crown Court plans to sit 90,000 days this year, the highest on record. As a result, the number of outstanding cases is the lowest in over five years.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the grant of legal aid to the seemingly wealthy. [520]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There were 50 responses to the consultation exercise held earlier this year on the grants of legal aid to the apparently wealthy. Since that time there have been 14 inquiries on this issue from Members of Parliament or the public.
  22
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to improve the legal aid system. [521]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor published a Green Paper on the future of legal aid in May. Over 180 responses have been received. These are being analysed. A series of meetings are being arranged with some of the major respondents to allow them to expand on their views. The Lord Chancellor intends to make an announcement on the outcome of the consultation process in the new year.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement as to the level of the legal aid budget in each of the last three years. [522]

  Mr. Taylor
  Net expenditure on legal aid in each of the last three years was as follows, £1.1 billion, £1.2 billion and £1.3 billion. This represents an increase in expenditure of 19 per cent. over the three-year period.

  During the same period the number of people helped rose from 3.3 million to 3.5 million, an increase of 6 per cent.

  Civil Justice Review
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what improvements are planned following the civil justice review. [523]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has welcomed the improvements recommended in Lord Woolf's review of civil justice and implementation of some has already begun. He recently announced his decision to increase the small claims arbitration limit from £1,000 to £3,000.

  Trials (Press Coverage)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he has given to press coverage of trials. [512]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The administration of justice should, so far as possible, be public. Subject to certain statutory safeguards, including the law relating to contempt of court, the coverage of trials is a matter for the press itself.

  House Conveyances
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many house conveyances were registered by the Land Registry offices in each of the past five years. [518]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statistics relating to house conveyances are not separately maintained by the Land Registry. During the five years in question, transfers of all property, including house conveyances, registered by the Land Registry have remained consistent within the range of 1.4 to 1.6 million. Currently, approximately 88 per cent. of transfers relate to residential property.
  23

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Pledging Conference
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pledges the Government re-affirmed on spending for least developed countries at the UN's intergovernmental meeting; and if he will make a statement. [220]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UN pledging conference for operational activities for development took place in New York on 1 and 2 November. In common with many other donor countries, the United Kingdom made no pledges.

  Aid Statistics
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of GNP the United Kingdom has spent in aid to the least developed countries in the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will list the countries. [223]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:PROPORTION OF UNITED KINGDOM GNP SPENT IN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LLDCs)

  Percentage of UK GNP to LLDCs1

  1991: 0.10

  1992:0.10

  1993: 0.08

  The countries defined as least developed in the period covered were:

  Afghanistan

  Bangladesh

  Benin

  Bhutan

  Botswana

  Burkina Faso

  Burma

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cape Verde Islands

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Comoros

  Djibouti

  Equatorial Guinea

  Ethiopia

  Gambia

  Guinea

  Guinea-Bissau

  Haiti

  Kiribati

  Laos

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Maldive Republic

  Mali

  Mauritania

  Mozambique

  Nepal

  24

  Niger

  Rwanda

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Somalia

  Sudan

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Tuvalu

  Uganda

  Vanuatu

  Western Samoa

  Yemen

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Note

  1Comprises bilateral expenditure and imputed multilateral flows, i.e. making allowances for contributions through multilateral organisations, calculated using the geographical distribution disbursements for the year of reference.

  Source

  OECD-DAC chairmans report.

  Primary Education
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase his Department's expenditure on primary education programmes. [221]

  Mr. Hanley
  Individual country aid strategies are agreed with the countries concerned, in accordance with their needs and priorities for United Kingdom assistance. The ODA's policy for support to education, formulated in 1994, lays emphasis on the provision of basic education, which includes primary education.

  In the last year, major new projects to support primary education have been agreed with: Malawi, £7.3 million; Pakistan, £7.9 million; and India, £46 million.

  Plans are currently being developed for further project support at the primary level in a number of countries. It is not possible to give exact levels of expenditure on primary education prior to their finalisation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he is giving to the recent findings of the Select Committee on Defence in regard to Gulf war syndrome; what action he is taking and if he will make a statement.[110]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be considering the points made by the House of Commons Defence Committee very carefully and will reply formally in due course.
  25

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of representations he has received on the French nuclear tests have supported the views of the Prime Minister and President Chirac. [349]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations expressing a range of views.

  Stonehenge
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister who is responsible for co-ordinating Government policy concerning the future of the Stonehenge site. [376]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a full statement of the conclusions reached at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference regarding the situation of the Ogoni people and the death sentence on Mr. Saro-Wiwa. [985]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 16 November,Official Report, columns 6–7.

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [47]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes my Office is part of the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service). I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Buses and (b) London Underground while on official business [375]

  The Prime Minister
  I am not usually able to undertake such journeys.

  Duke of Windsor
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what public records are held in respect of communications held between his predecessor and Mr. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, about the marriage of the late Duke of Windsor; and if he will make a statement. [288]

  The Prime Minister
  Communications that concern the marriage of the late Duke of Windsor took place between the then Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, and Mr. Mackenzie King in late 1936. Like all papers relating to the abdication, these are currently closed until 2037 by agreement between the then Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor in 1976. However, as with the generality of papers held for more than 30 years, these papers will be reviewed and, while it is expected that many will 26
  continue to to be sensitive for some time to come, it is not ruled out that it may be possible to release them earlier than 2037.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what consideration led to the decision not to release to the Public Record Office certain papers relating to the conduct of the Duke of Windsor during the second world war, as indicated in his answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 478; [342]

  (2) if copies of all communications this century between heads of state of other countries and the United Kingdom monarch are (a) lodged in the Public Record Office or (b) lodged exclusively in the royal archives; and whether all such documents are available for public inspection regardless of where they are lodged. [904]

  The Prime Minister
  Documents held by Government Departments are released to the Public Record Office after 30 years in accordance with the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, unless they meet criteria which allow them, with the Lord Chancellor's approval, to be withheld for longer. These criteria, which apply equally to records relating to the royal family, were recently revised and are set out in the White Paper on open government, Command Paper 2290 published in July 1993. Records withheld for longer than 30 years under the earlier criteria are being re-reviewed in the light of the revised criteria.

  Copies of communications belonging to the sovereign are lodged in the royal archives and access is a matter for the Keeper of the Royal Archives.

  Royal Family
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister to what extent his duty to act as the principal adviser to the Queen extends also to the Prince and Princess of Wales. [434]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers may on occasions provide advice to other members of the royal family.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications or discussions he has had in the past year with Prime Ministers of those countries where Her Majesty the Queen is also head of state about matters relating to the monarchy. [431]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation further amending the Regency Act 1937; [433]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to amend the Royal Marriages Act 1772; [432]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to permit (a) the monarch and (b) heirs to the throne, to contract a morganatic marriage. [287]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

SCOTLAND

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend the provision of closed circuit television to communities in Scotland on a
  27
  similar basis as the scheme presently operated in England; and if local authorities will be limited to asking for closed circuit television in respect of city or town centre locations. [341]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend announced last month that funding will be made available, starting in 1996–97, to extend the use of closed circuit television in Scottish communities. Details of the scheme will be announced later this year.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a starting date for work on(a) the A96 Kintore bypass and (b) the Keith, Blackburn and Tipperty bypasses. [340]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend will make clear his plans for the trunk road programme as soon as possible after the conclusions of this year's public expenditure survey.

HEALTH

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the report of the National Audit Office into the NHS supplies authority to be published. [203]

  Mr. Sackville
  Publication of this report is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Berkshire family health services authority with respect to the provision of NHS and private cervical smear tests by the Boundary House GP practice in Bracknell, Berkshire; what is his Department's policy on GPs advocating private cervical smear tests which can be provided more frequently than NHS cervical smear tests; and if he will make a statement. [93]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Guidelines issued by the Department of Health say that women aged between 20 and 64 years should be invited for cervical screening at least every five years. Berkshire health commission is complying fully with these guidelines by ensuring the Boundary House GP practice provides cervical screening on a five-yearly basis. Where women request more frequent screening, GPs will provide information on where this is available.

  Dental Services
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make a statement on the progress of his talks with representatives of the dental profession to discuss the proposals announced in the Government's statement on NHS dentistry of 5 April,Official Report columns 1214–15, and when he will implement them; [94]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost of relating payments given to dentists to disease levels in children most in need as announced in the Government's statement on NHS
  28
  dentistry on 5 April; and how he is planning to meet this expected expenditure; [95]

  (3) if he expects to maintain the current levels of gross payment to dentists working in the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [96]

  (4) if he will estimate the selected costs and potential savings from the introduction of more rigorous prior approval procedures as announced in the Government's statement of NHS dentistry of 5 April; [97]

  (5) if he will estimate the number of patients who will he deregistered as a result of the proposals announced in the Government's statement of NHS dentistry of 5 April; [98]

  (6) if he plans to produce criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of any proposals announced in the Government's statement of NHS dentistry of 5 April that are implemented. [100]

  Mr. Malone
  The reform proposals I announced to the House on 5 April 1995 fall into two parts. For the longer term, the Government intend to introduce a system of local contracts between health authorities and dental practices. This requires primary legislation and would need to be carefully piloted and evaluated.

  For the medium term, the Government put forward measures to reform the current system. Discussions with the General Dental Services Committee on the detailed development of these proposals are making progress. We hope to move to implementation of the measures from 1 April 1996.

  The issue of relating payments to disease levels is one of those currently under discussion with the profession, as are the proposals for more rigorous prior approval. We would seek to minimise any additional administration costs arising from greater rigour. There is no reason why patients should be deregistered as a consequence of the reforms which are intended to create a secure and stable future for NHS dentistry. The proposals should lead to an increase in the number of children registered.

  The level of gross payments to dentists working in the NHS is determined by a number of factors, including the annual recommendation of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body.

  The measures we hope to introduce in April are developments of the existing remuneration system for dentists rather than a new untried system. Nevertheless, we intend to keep their impact under close review.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with members of the dental profession concerning the development of the Community Dental Service as announced in the Government's statement on NHS dentistry of 5 April. [99]

  Mr. Malone
  We are currently discussing this issue with, among others, the joint negotiating forum for community dentistry at the British Dental Association.

  Leukaemia
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plan he has to hold an investigation into the incidence of leukaemia amongst children in the Pembroke
  29
  road area of Northampton; and if he has consulted the Northamptonshire health authority about this; [101]

  (2) what representations he has received from medical professionals and members of the public with regard to the incidence of leukaemia amongst children in the Pembroke road area of Northampton; [102]

  (3) what estimate he can give of the comparative incidence of leukaemia amongst children nationally and in the Pembroke road area of Northampton. [103]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that Northamptonshire health authority has been investigating the situation and expects to publish a progress report shortly. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Simon Schanschieff, chairman of the authority, for details.

  Administration Costs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for (i) 1985, (ii) 1986, (iii) 1987 and (iv) 1988 expenditure on administration by health authorities. [104]

  Mr. Malone
  The expenditure on headquarters administration by health authorities in England for 1984–85, 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 is shown in the table.

  £ thousands

  Expenditure

  1984–85

  416,173

  1985–86

  402,126

  1986–87

  434,739

  1987–88

  492,776

  Note:

  The figures represent the total revenue expenditure on pay and accommodation cost of staff of all disciplines and their support staff employed at headquarters levels. These figures are not comparable with those for later years as there have been changes in the roles and responsibilities of health authorities, together with changes in accounting policies.

  Source:

  The annual accounts of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year since 1985 Department's expenditure on administration costs. [105]

  Mr. Sackville
  Details of the Department's administration costs are provided in the Department's annual reports for 1992–93 to 1994–95, Cm 1913,1993– 94 to 1995–96, Cm 2212, and 1995–96 to 1997–98, Cm 2812 copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for the years 1986–87 to 1988–89 are an estimated apportionment to the Department of Health prior to the split of the DHSS in 1990–91. Department of Health administration costs are not available prior to 1986–87.

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the protection of child workers. [608]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have a comprehensive legal system in place to protect the health, welfare and education of children who work. I refer the hon. Member to the reply 30
  I gave my hon. Friend the Member of Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on 30 October, Official Report, columns 42–43 detailing my recently announced proposals for some minor improvements to that system.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of children working over 10 hours per week; and if he will make a statement. [609]

  Mr. Bowls
  Such information as is available centrally was published in the April 1995 edition of the Employment Gazette, copies of which are available in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Liable Relatives
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of claims for income support by liable relatives that ceased within four weeks of Department of Social Security action; and what were the annual benefit savings produced in(a) historic and (b) current prices as a result of these actions in each year since 1989. [624]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Income Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the number of income support claimants with deductions from benefit and (b) the average amount of deduction for each category of deduction for (i) 1988 and (ii) the latest date available adopting the figures contained in his Department's annual statistical inquiry. [622]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Deduction2

  Number of claimants3

  Average amount £

  DEDUCTION FROM INCOME SUPPORT: 19881

  Electricity

  152,000

  9.22

  Gas

  152,000

  8.59

  Mortgage Interest

  7,000

  24.20

  Service charges for fuel and water included in rent

  18,000

  4.65

  Rent arrears and other housing costs

  94,000

  2.39

  Board and lodging direct

  10,000

  61.18

  Recovery of overpayment

  66,000

  3.40

  Social fund loan recovery

  31,000

  5.24

  Other deductions

  6,000

  4.56

  DEDUCTION FROM INCOME SUPPORT: 1994

  Electricity:

  Current charges only

  27,000

  8.62

  Including arrears4

  44,000

  11.99

  Gas:

  Current charges only

  36,000

  7.62

  Including arrears4

  185,000

  10.49

  Mortgage Interest:

  Current costs only5

  294,000

  32.23

  Arrears cases4

  137,000

  52.70

  31

  Deduction2

  Number of claimants3

  Average amount £

  Water and Sewerage:

  Current charges only

  22,000

  3.41

  Including arrears4

  217,000

  5.83

  Rent arrears and other housing costs:

  Current charges only

  14,000

  58.82

  Including arrears4

  151,000

  4.90

  Community charge higher arrears only

  27,000

  3.59

  Community charge lower arrears only

  432,000

  2.29

  Council tax arrears only

  33,000

  2.30

  Fines recovery

  8,000

  2.30

  Child support

  34,000

  2.33

  Recovery of overpayment

  115,000

  4.09

  Social fund loan recovery

  663,000

  6.37

  Notes:

  1Figures for 1988 include cases with deductions for current charges plus those with deductions for arrears.

  2Claimants can have more than one type of deduction.

  3Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4This category includes cases with current cost deductions.

  5Debt in mortgage interest cases not a prerequisite for deductions to occur.

  Source:

  "Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry 1988" and "Quarterly Enquiry November 1994"

  Child Support
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what facilities there are for newly separated couples to draw up an amicable and binding child maintenance agreement without the involvement of the Child Support Agency in cases where neither party is a recipient of income support, family credit or disability working allowance. [625]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  All such couples are free to do so.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the level of child support would be in 1995 if it had been uprated in line with prices since 1965. [1058]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  First child £

  Second child £

  Third child £

  Under age 11

  9.16

  11.98

  12.58

  Aged 11–15

  11.17

  13.89

  14.60

  Aged 16 and over

  13.19

  15.91

  16.61

  1. The amounts quoted are those which would have been payable from April 1995. 2. The table shows the combined value of child tax allowance and family allowance and assumes payment of tax at the standard rate

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent examinations of child support systems within the United States of America. [620]

  Mr. Mitchell
  This is a matter for the United States' federal and state Governments.
  32

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of the Child Support Agency have(a) been dismissed and (b) faced other disciplinary action from each office of the Child Support Agency indicating the month and year that such action was taken for (i) the improper use of confidential information and (ii) other improper behaviour. [623]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what total gross and net savings in 1995–96 resulted from not uprating child benefit in line with prices since 1979. [444]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  If child benefit had been uprated annually in line with the retail prices index and with the normal rounding to the nearest 5p, the April 1979 rate-£4.00 per week per child-would be £10.85 from April 1995. It is estimated that the total savings in 1995–96 from paying £10.40 for the eldest qualifying child and £8.45 for each other child, instead of £ 10.85 for every child, are about £900 million. The corresponding net savings, after allowing for normal adjustments to other benefits are around £650 million.

  Extra help has been made available to less well-off families since 1988 through the income-related benefits. This will be worth around £1.2 billion in 1995–96. The overall expenditure on families has increased by 121 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1995–96.

TRANSPORT

  Search and Rescue Helicopters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new assessment he has made of the safety implications of the changes made in the past year in the helicopter search and rescue service. [355]

  Mr. Norris
  The only change in search and rescue helicopter provision in the past year has been the withdrawal of the Royal Navy helicopter at Portland and its replacement, on a temporary basis, by a coastguard helicopter. This has no adverse implications for safety. At the same time, we have established an inter-departmental helicopter review group to examine the national requirement for helicopters for search and rescue, and how this might most effectively and efficiently be met, as part of an integrated approach to search and rescue. The group is due to report to Ministers in the new year.

  Drowning Incident
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport following the drowning of Pamela Drew on Sunday 5 November at Musselwick, Marloes, Pembrokeshire, if he will list the times(a) the coastguard was informed of the emergency, (b) Littlehaven lifeboat was informed, (c) Chivenor SAR helicopter was informed, (d) Littlehaven lifeboat was launched, (e) Chivenor SAR helicopter took off, (f) Littlehaven lifeboat spotted casualties, (g) Littlehaven lifeboat got casualties on board,

  33
  (h) of the arrival of Chivenor SAR helicopter over lifeboat, (i) casualties were winched on board the helicopter and (j) of the arrival of casualties at Withybush hospital, Haverfordwest. [905]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 20 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the drowning of Pamela Drew on Sunday 5 November at Musselwick, Marloes, Pembrokeshire.

  The times given are in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC)

  (a) 1654

  (b) 1656

  (c) 1656

  (d) 1702

  (e) 1703

  (f) not recorded

  (g) 1724

  (h) 1733

  (i) 1738

  (j) 1745

  Abnormal Loads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial arrangements are made when abnormal loads are moved on motorways. [343]

  Mr. Watts
  The suitability of any route for the movement of an abnormal load has to be notified and cleared by the highways authorities and police forces involved. The vehicle operator or his employer is required to meet the cost of any surveys of structures involved, any strengthening required, and in some cases, for the provision of police escorts.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the danger of bull bars from(a) coroners, (b) industry, (c) road safety organisations and (d) the public. [353]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of representation the Department has received over the past two years is as follows:

  Coroners

  Industry

  Road safety organisations

  Public

  1994

  0

  0

  0

  64

  1995

  0

  19

  5

  364

  Acts of Parliament
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the Acts of Parliament including consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [36]
  34
  Mr. Norris
  Schedule 6 to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend's predecessor on 23 November 1994, modifies the functions of planning authorities in relation to development authorised by part I of the Bill

  Consolidation Bills are a responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General

  Ministerial Transport, London
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times in the last year he has used(a) London Buses and (b) London Underground while on official business. [414]

  Sir George Young
  I travel on London Transport buses and on the London Underground both as a constituency MP and in a personal capacity. For short journeys in London, I often walk.

  East London Line (Correspondence)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will answer the letters from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, of 18 October, 26 October, 30 October and 9 November concerning the closure of the East London Line. [200]

  Mr. Norris
  I replied to the letters of 18 October, 26 October and 30 October on 13 November. A reply to the hon. Member's letter of 9 November will follow shortly.

  Ministerial Travel (British Rail)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times in the last year he has used British Rail while on official business. [420]

  Sir George Young
  I travel regularly to work by British Rail and I have used British Rail in the course of nine official visits since July this year.

  Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Act
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Act 1993 has not fully been brought into force; and when he intends to do so. [199]

  Mr. Norris
  It has not been possible to bring this Act into force because the implementing regulations and related amendments to other regulations have proved more complex than was expected. I am pleased to be able to say that the difficulties have been resolved and we now intend to make the regulations to enable the Act to come into force in the first half of next year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set Aside
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to ensure that set-aside land contributes a greater benefit to the environment. [351]
  35
  Mr. Baldry
  Proposals have recently been agreed that allow land removed from production under agri-environmental and forestry schemes to count against set-aside requirements; this will allow longer term environmental gains.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Fisheries Council, held on 15 November listing all votes, and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [436]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Fisheries Council which was to have been held on 15 November was cancelled, following successful negotiations at official level on fish guide prices for 1996.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Agriculture Council, held on 13 to 14 November listing all votes, and all decisions which were determined by unanimity or without dissension. [437]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Agriculture Council meeting scheduled for 13 and 14 November did not take place. It has been re-scheduled for 29 and 30 November. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will report to the House on its outcome in the usual way.

  Common Agriculture Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to recoup moneys lost in fraud and mismanagement of the CAP in Britain. [350]

  Mr. Baldry
  EC finance regulations place an obligation on all member states to recover sums of money lost as a result of irregularities or negligence. The Government take their responsibilities very seriously and every effort is made to effect recovery from CAP beneficiaries where it is established that they are in receipt of money to which they were not entitled.

WALES

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the revenue shortfall in the land and buildings assets sales programme agreed with the agency; and if he will recalculate the grant-in-aid level to take account of the shortfall in(a) the remainder of this financial year and (b) 1996–97; [1053]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Welsh Development Agency's announcement of a suspension of all expenditure other than direct inward investment programmes for the remainder of the financial year. [1052]
  36
  Mr. Hague
  I regularly meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a wide range of issues.

  The agency has decided to adjust its programmes in line with its priorities to take account of the lower than anticipated level of receipts this financial year.

  Grant-in-aid to the agency for 1995–96 was determined last year along with my Department's commitments to other Welsh programmes. I will be announcing the position on all Welsh programmes for 1996–97 in December.

  Fish Passes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Wales region of the National Rivers Authority in relation to the provision of effective fish passes for migratory salmonid and other fish on the weirs on the lower reaches of the River Taff. [1051]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Fish passes at Radyr weir, Blackweir and the design for the Cardiff barrage fish pass have each received my Department's approval.

  South East Wales Ambulance Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South East Wales ambulance trust concerning incidents in which Mercedes-Benz Wadham Stringer ambulances have rolled over at low speeds and the removal of all such vehicles in the trust fleet from road duty since 8 November pending a determination of the mechanical explanation for the incidents; [1055]

  (2) if he will set up an inquiry into the Mercedes-Benz Wadham Stringer ambulance models used by the South East Wales ambulance trust for the past 18 months and removed from the road since the night of Wednesday, 8 November and if he will make a statement. [1054]

  Mr. Hague
  This is an operational matter for the trust which has already taken action to ensure the safety of the ambulance fleet.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he proposes to ensure that there are no further closures of emergency admissions to hospitals in West Glamorgan; on how many occasions emergency admissions have been closed since July; how many patients have been refused admission; and if he will make a statement. [218]

  Mr. Richards
  Hospitals in West Glamorgan have closed to medical emergencies on 44 occasions since the beginning of July. However, no patient has been refused treatment.

  This is a matter between the West Glamorgan health authority and local trusts. This issue will be discussed between NHS representatives and the Department shortly when it is hoped that an agreement can be reached on an approach to minimise the risk to patient services both over the coming winter and in the longer term.
  37

  Students' Living Standards
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call for a report to be conducted on the living standards of undergraduate students in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [616]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The Department for Education and Employment has recently commissioned a survey of student income and expenditure to take place in the current academic year. The survey will be based on a representative sample of full-time home students on higher education courses below postgraduate level at publicly funded institutions in the United Kingdom. The report of the survey's findings will be published in due course.

  Inward Investment Shares
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of jobs created by inward investment in the United Kingdom in each of the past three years are now located in Wales. [345]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The forecast job creation in Wales as a percentage of the United Kingdom total from inward investment by overseas owned companies in the past three years continues to be greater than our proportion of the United Kingdom population at about 13 per cent. in 1992-93, and almost 13 per cent. in 1993–94. In 1994–95 the figure was 8 per cent. These percentages are based upon information provided by companies at the time of the decision to invest and take no account of any subsequent decisions.

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received to make St. David's day a bank holiday in Wales, and what response he has made to them. [354]

  Mr. Hague
  I have received a number of representations on this matter. In each case I have advised that Government have no plans to designate St. David's day a public holiday in Wales.

  Roadside Signs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to allow rural holiday businesses to display small roadside advertising boards where it is safe and useful for the business's economic viability; and if he will make a statement. [617]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has circulated proposals for extending the range of businesses eligible to apply for white on brown directional signs to include all establishments which are considered likely to be used by tourists. We are considering comments received and hope to make an announcement soon.

  Civil Service Jobs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to increase and safeguard the number of civil service jobs in Wales. [352]
  38
  Mr. Hague
  The number of civil service jobs in Wales, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, will be those required for the effective and efficient implementation of Government policies and services.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what mechanism she proposes to claw back standard spending assessment from local authorities to fund the nursery voucher scheme. [1057]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The SSA deduction mechanism proposed is cash neutral for all authorities, provided that the schools that they maintain continue to recruit four-year-olds at present levels.

  The sum deducted in 1997–98 will be the product of the voucher value and the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in 1995–96, taking into account termly variations in attendance. This is only part of total LEA expenditure on under-fives; authorities can continue to spend above the voucher value on full or part-time places for four-year-olds, and on three-year-olds, as they judge appropriate.

  The views of local government as a whole will be taken into account in the usual way in determining changes to funding methodology in 1997–98.

  Drug Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made as to which projects on illegal drug education in Britain have resulted in a decrease in drug use. [347]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 16 innovative drug education and prevention projects supported under the Department's grants for education support and training programme in 1995–96 will be independently evaluated. In addition, the Office for Standards in Education is undertaking a specific study of provision for drug education in schools during this academic year. This will take account of existing research findings on effective drug education and will establish evidence on best practice.

  Education Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the voting record of each member state on items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's Education Council held on 23 October; and if she will make it her practice to include details of all votes, including where there have been no votes, in the future. [441]

  Mr. Forth
  No formal votes were taken at the 23 October Education Council. A record of votes taken at Education Councils is generally given in the Council secretariat press release. I shall arrange for a copy of the press release about the 23 October Council to be deposited in the Library. Press releases relating to future Councils will be deposited as soon as they are available.
  39

  School Sports Fields (Sales)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the value of land sold by local authorities formerly used as school sports fields. [509]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not held centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in the last year he has used the London underground while on official business. [574]

  Mr. Gummer
  None.

  Gritting Lorries
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of local authority gritting lorries; and if he will make a statement. [1040]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government (Legislation)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the Acts of Parliament and consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since January 1994. [40]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following Acts that affect local government have been introduced by the Department of the Environment since January 1994:

  The Environment Act 1995

  The Town and County Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc) Act 1995

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Isle of Wight council has borrowed from his Department for the costs of setting up the unitary authority; what are the terms of these loans; and when they have to be repaid. [15]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not lend money to authorities. We have introduced a scheme that, through the issue of supplementary credit approvals, allows local authorities to borrow from normal sources—Public Works Loans Board, money markets, for example—to cover one-off transitional costs of local government reorganisation. To date, the Isle of Wight council has been informed that the Department is prepared to issue SCAs to the value of £1.74 million in respect of eligible costs under the transitional costs scheme. Records are not held centrally on the terms and conditions of loans taken out by local authorities.

  Land Government Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to report on the 40
  progress of the review of the calculation of the area cost adjustment in the standard spending assessment. [19]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local authority associations are co-operating with us in carrying out the review. We and they are identifying the team which will conduct the review. It is our intention to seek a report of the review by June 1996. This would allow discussion and consideration of any possible changes to our current methodology in time for the 1997–98 settlement.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the area cost adjustment element of standard spending assessments; and if he will make a statement. [106]

  Mr. Curry
  We have no plans to change the present methodology by which we calculate the area cost adjustment until we have a robust system to put in its place.

  On 16 October, I proposed to the local authority associations an independent review of the adjustment. The aim is to establish a method of carrying out the adjustment which commands the widest degree of acceptance among authorities in all parts of the country, has a sound conceptual basis and is practical to apply.

  The review will be steered by a leading academic together with someone knowledgeable about local government finance, nominated by the local authority associations, and someone familiar with central Government processes, nominated by the Secretary of State. I hope we shall soon be able to announce who those people will be.

  Research will be commissioned to assist the review in its work. We shall seek a report from the review in June 1996.

  Local Authority Homes (Sales)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total number of local authority homes now sold in the United Kingdom, giving the total amount of money raised since 1983; and if he will make a statement. [453]

  Mr. Clappison
  In England, about 1.1 million local authority homes were sold for owner-occupation between January 1983 and June 1995. The money raised from those sales, after lending for council house purchase, is estimate to he over f16 billion.

  In addition, there were more than 200,000 local authority sales to housing associations and other types of ownership in the same period. Information on the value of these sales before October 1988 is not available, but the net receipts of the 188,000 sales after this date is some £1.6 billion.

  For information on sales elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Tenancies (Legislation)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received concerning his proposals to amend legislation
  41
  following the consultation in 1994 on access to local authority and housing association tenancies. [357]

  Mr. Curry
  There has been a steady flow of correspondence about different aspects of the policy since we announced in July 1994 our decision to proceed with legislation.

  Unfit Properties
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate for each county in the United Kingdom the number of unfit properties, together with the distribution of these properties by tenure; and if he will make a statement. [455]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England are requested to provide information on dwellings in their area which are unfit—that is, fail to meet all the fitness criteria in section 83 of schedule 9 to the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act—in their annual housing investment programme returns. Separate figures are requested for local authority, housing association, other public sector and private sector dwellings. The figures provided are local authorities' own estimates and are not necessarily compiled on a consistent basis.

  The reported estimates for 1 April 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, are given in the 1994 "HIP1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library. The print includes county totals where estimates have been provided by all the authorities in the county.

  For information for the rest of the United Kingdom I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown of the number of people who were accepted as statutorily homeless in the United Kingdom over the last 16 years by(a) sex, (b) age group and (c) ethnic group; and if he will make a statement. [451]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested is not available.

  Refuse (Transport and Disposal)
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal prohibitions relate to the transport and disposal of refuse from the Isle of Man to the United Kingdom. [1056]

  Mr. Clappison
  In May 1994, the United Kingdom became a party to the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The Isle of Man is not yet a party to the convention. Shipments of waste between parties and non-parties to the convention are prohibited, except where covered by a bilateral, multilateral or regional agreement or arrangement complying with article 11 of the convention.

  Imports of waste from the Isle of Man into the United Kingdom for disposal are therefore currently prohibited. The British Government and the Government of the Isle of Man are in the process of concluding a bilateral agreement, under article 11 of the convention, which
  42
  would allow imports into the United Kingdom of specific hazardous wastes for which the Isle of Man lacks suitable disposal facilities.

  Waste may also be transported for recovery purposes. The OECD decision concerning the control of transfrontier movements of wastes destined for recovery operations constitutes a multilateral agreement for the purpose of article 11 of the Basel convention. Both the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man are covered by the OECD decision. Shipments of waste for recovery between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom are therefore allowed, subject to the relevant control regime prescribed in the OECD decision.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that persons from abroad who are registered with the Home Department as asylum seekers, and who have no entitlement to benefits, will not have access to publicly-funded housing assistance. [1536]

  Mr. Curry
  Under the Government's proposals for fairer access to local authority and housing association tenancies, persons from abroad who have no entitlement to benefits will be eligible neither for assistance under the homelessness legislation nor to register on a local housing authority waiting list. This includes people who have sought asylum after entry to United Kingdom, and those whose applications for asylum have been refused by the Home Secretary. We intend to bring forward legislation to implement our proposals in the new parliamentary Session.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about regional disparities in the allocation of funds arising from the national lottery. [494]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The national lottery has captured the imagination of the country. I have received some letters from people who want to help ensure widespread distribution of lottery funding. We are committed to ensuring that the whole country benefits from the great success of the lottery.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to ensure a more equitable distribution of national lottery money throughout the United Kingdom. [496]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Every region in the United Kingdom has benefited. Over 3,000 awards have been made from the lottery in the first eight months of distribution.

  The geographical spread of awards will be kept under review. There should not be envy of the major awards in the hon. Lady's constituency.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will review the arrangements for the national lottery. [499]
  43
  Mrs. Bottomley
  The national lottery is working extremely well; the number of people playing and the money being raised for the good causes has exceeded everybody's expectations.

  The lottery will be kept under review. I recently announced the millennium award scheme which will allow us to invest in people's talent to provide a spring board for the nation's success in the next millennium.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much revenue the national lottery has generated for good causes. [503]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Over £1.2 billion has been raised for the five good causes because the national lottery is successful. No other lottery in the world has raised so much so quickly.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for amending legislation to enable national lottery money to be used for other than capital purposes; and if she will make a statement. [504]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  National lottery funding is already available for other than capital purposes.

  The National Charities Board makes revenue grants available to caring charities

  The millennium award scheme will invest in people's talent.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the benefits to poorer sections of the community of disbursements of proceeds from the national lottery. [506]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  National lottery proceeds in the areas of the five good causes are being distributed to thousands of projects that are benefiting many poorer sections of the community. They are helping to bring whole communities together, raise morale and enthusiasm and improve the quality and opportunity of people's lives. Capital spending generates jobs.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the first year's operations of the national lottery. [510]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The national lottery has been an outstanding success in its first year

  Thirty million people play and enjoy a harmless flutter every week with the result that over £1.2 billion of new money has been raised for the five good causes

  More than £720 million has been awarded to over 3,000 projects throughout the country so far. We are investing unprecedented sums in this country's sport and culture which will benefit people into the next millennium. It will provide a huge boost to regeneration, creating jobs and economic prosperity.
  44
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much money she estimates will be contributed to charities and good causes by the national lottery in a full year. [505]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Between £1.4 billion and £1.6 billion will be available for the good causes, including caring charities, in the current financial year.

  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes have been awarded funds from the national lottery in Wales. [497]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  Two hundred and fifty national lottery awards, covering all five good causes, and totalling £26,701,388 have been awarded in Wales.

  My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the Millennium Commission has today made an award in Wales: £146,500 for the church community hall in Sully.

  School Children (Arts)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures are proposed to ensure that all school children are introduced to a major opera or ballet production during their school years. [495]

  Mr. Sproat
  All of the opera and ballet companies in receipt of public subsidy are developing extensive education programmes aimed specifically at opening up their work to children at school. As part of an initiative recently announced by my right hon. Friend, I am about to consult widely on ways in which the Government and others can help to make the arts even more accessible.

  Opera Subsidies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his latest estimate of the subsidy paid out of public funds for each seat at opera performances in England. [498]

  Mr. Sproat
  The most recent available figures are for 1994–95, when the average subsidy per seat, for those opera companies funded by the Arts Council of England, was £25.57.

  Government Art Collection
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will estimate the value of works of art added to the Government art collection in lieu of inheritance tax over the past five years. [501]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government art collection has not been allocated any works of art accepted in lieu of inheritance tax over the past five years.

  BBC Transmitters
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has for the privatisation of BBC transmitters. [507]

  Mr. Sproat
  We are considering the options for the future of the BBC's transmission services and will announce our decision shortly.

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

EC Budget: Court of Auditors' Report
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take during the Council of Ministers' consideration of the 1996 European Community Budget to stem what has been described in the Court of Auditors' Report for 1994 as the waste, inadequate control and financial mismanagement of funds provided by the members of the European Union to the European Commission for institutional and administrative expense and for redistribution to member states for Community purposes.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Budget Council on 17th November welcomed the publication of the Court of Auditors' first statement of assurance and annual report. When those reports are considered in detail the United Kingdom will stress the importance of keeping up the momentum in the fight against fraud, waste and financial mismanagement. The next step will be a discussion at the ECOFIN Council on 27th November and at the Madrid European Council next month of the reports submitted by member states on their national arrangements for combating fraud and waste.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he say whether the Government are aware that, so long as qualified majority voting applies under Article 203 of the Treaty of Rome, there can be no effective intervention by Her Majesty's Government in Europe's financial affairs? Those affairs are determined in practice by the Franco-German alliance in collaboration with the Commission. They ensure that large dollops of money are shoved throughout the Community, but in particular to the Mediterranean states, in pursuit of the objectives of that alliance.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not nearly as pessimistic about this matter as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I remind him of what happened at Maastricht when we secured a full institutional status for the European Court of Auditors—the body which issued the report about which the noble Lord asks. We secured the statement of assurance, which is a general audit of the Community's finances, and at the Essen Council last December my right honourable friend the Prime Minister insisted that each
124
member state should report on action taken to counter fraud against the EC budget. Those reports will be presented at the Madrid Council next month.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we have cantered over this course several times in recent months. The Minister will no doubt agree that we have always accepted that the prime responsibility for issues of fraud lies with individual member states. Can the Minister say whether there are examples of fraud which fall within the ambit of this Government which we ought to pursue but are not pursuing? Alternatively, can he say how strongly we are pursuing fraud cases? Those of us who read the press do not find many examples of the British Government discovering such cases.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we, like other member states, are the principal people who spend the European Budget on behalf of the Community. Our system of accounting—the Public Accounts Committee and so forth—is a strong one, though we are not self-satisfied with it. However, problems have been detected in the UK. We detect a high number of irregularities, but for small amounts. For example, the 1994 fraud report indicated that the UK notified 15 per cent. of the total CAP irregularity cases. However, those represented only 3 per cent. by value, whereas the Community average is higher than that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue my point. I thank the Minister for that answer, which was extremely interesting. However, can he say what happens to all those cases of minor fraud? Are vast numbers of farmers on their way to prison at the present time? More seriously, what is going on? The farmers are fined and then what happens?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I need notice before I can go into the kind of detail about which the noble Lord asks. In those cases the spending is disallowed. The last year for which we had figures was 1991. At that time around 0.13 per cent. of the UK CAP spending was disallowed, whereas the Community average was 4.63 per cent. I do not believe too many farmers land in gaol, but there have been some high profile cases over the years which have been taken to court.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the subject of fraud about which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke, what is to happen in relation to the billions of pounds lost through fraud as regards the agricultural policy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I mentioned, we tried and succeeded at Maastricht to firm up Community procedures. The member states will be presenting a report at the Madrid Council. We shall be working to ensure that member states face up to their responsibility and that there is a full programme of further work. One of the reasons why the common agricultural policy figures so much in these matters is that agricultural spending accounts for over half the

125
budget. When one looks at mismanagement it appears to fall heavily on the CAP, but in fact that forms half the budget.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the report of the Court of Auditors shows that the level of fraud and waste in the Community is disgraceful? Is he aware that I paid a rare visit to Brussels the other day where I met the European Parliament and members of the European Commission? I gained the impression that for the first time serious efforts were being made not only by the European Commission, but also by the European Parliament, to come to grips with the problem and that one of the major influences in compelling them to do that was the report on these matters from your Lordships' Select Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I did not know that the noble Lord paid a visit to Brussels recently, but I am glad to hear it. The UK Government welcome the report of the Court of Auditors. We welcome also what we believe to be a more constructive and determined attitude by the new Commission since it took office in January 1995. With more determination from that source and a lot of determination from the Council of Ministers driven by the UK Government and UK Ministers, we can make progress.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the reports on fraud within the Community from Select Committees of this House are quite excellent both at disclosing many of the sources of fraud and making recommendations and that those reports are being pressed on the Council of Ministers, the Commission and everyone else in the Community who can help?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to take this opportunity to congratulate the various committees of the European Communities Committee on their reports, including those on fraud and how we might tighten up on it. I think I am right in saying that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared before the committee when it was taking evidence. We take these reports very seriously indeed, and, as my noble friend knows, and as other noble Lords involved in the committees know, so do many people across the European Community. I very much hope that other countries will begin to take these matters as seriously as we do.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, will the Government support measures to strengthen the ability of the Commission itself, both by the employment of inspectors and by the delegation of authority, to monitor the activities of national governments in order to tackle at that level the major source of fraud?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, we welcome what appears to be a more constructive view of the new Commission on these matters. One of the things it can do is to help member states by making
126
sure that any regulations brought forward are clear, clearly defined, well regulated and have within them the ability and wherewithal to prevent fraud.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is generally accepted that the European Communities Committee does a first-class job. Do the other countries of the Community have similar committees?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I do not think any of them has a similar House to your Lordships' House, probably the short answer to that question is no.

Commonwealth Day
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider instituting an annual British Commonwealth Day.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Commonwealth Day, which falls on the second Monday of March each year, is marked throughout the Commonwealth. In Britain it is marked by a multi-faith service at Westminster Abbey in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the Commonwealth, which includes so many people of different religions, colours and races, is a remarkable and outstanding achievement of the British people? Should we not have a higher standard of celebration for the achievement of the British people in creating one of the greatest institutions in the history of mankind?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Commonwealth is a remarkable achievement, but not just by British people—by all members of the Commonwealth. What is very noticeable is how the Commonwealth is growing in its ability to come to even the most difficult decisions, as it showed in Auckland.
The noble Lord asked about a higher standard of celebration. I can think of no better celebration than the religious service of all faiths in Westminster Abbey. The day was chosen particularly because it is the one day above all others when more school children in the Commonwealth are in school. It is the school children who make the service not only at Westminster Abbey but at all the other celebrations around the Commonwealth. It is a very important day.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, instead of using Commonwealth Day as an occasion for self-congratulation, should not the Commonwealth take the opportunity of addressing itself to some of its defects? In particular, might it not be the occasion for a meeting of NGOs concerned with human rights and democracy so that they could review the decisions which are made by the Commonwealth Heads of

127
Government Meeting, in the same way as the OSCE now has parallel NGO machinery for reviewing what is done at the human dimension review meetings?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that any ceremony in Westminster Abbey which is a renewal of all faiths within the Commonwealth is anything but a good thing, and it should not be undermined. I hope that the noble Lord did not intend to do so in his remarks.
There are many meetings of non-governmental organisations of the Commonwealth. No one is complacent. There is much work to be done. The Commonwealth showed at its Auckland meeting that it was determined to keep to the important principles agreed in 1991 in Harare. That is why Commonwealth Foreign Ministers will be meeting next month and regularly—to look at adherence to the principles.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, in order to demonstrate their solidarity with the Commonwealth, will the Government support New Zealand's proposal, carried by the General Assembly of the United Nations, that nuclear weapons should be declared illegal by the International Court of Justice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. If this House is to retain the confidence of the British people, then we should stick to the question.
Lord Rea: My Lords, following on from the question on human rights, can the noble Baroness tell us what resources will be available to the group of nations chosen to operate the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme in New Zealand which is to monitor adherence to the Harare Declaration on human rights? For instance, will that body be able to monitor elections such as the forthcoming municipal elections in the Cameroon Republic? Is it not important to have impartial observers on the ground well in advance of such an election to see that electoral registers are fairly compiled, especially when there is clear evidence that there has been serious abuse of the process in the past?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, local elections in the Cameroons, the newest Commonwealth member before Mozambique, are a long way from the original Question. However, part of the Commonwealth's responsibility is to help with the monitoring of elections. That is something which comes out of the Millbrook Declaration, for which resources will be contributed by the Commonwealth.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the light of the previous questions the House should be given a day to debate the Commonwealth? Perhaps I may also draw her attention to the difference between the way in which the Question has been framed with reference to the "British Commonwealth" and my noble friend's Answer referring to the "Commonwealth". May we have a
128
debate on the subject and discuss the Harare Declaration and all the matters that may arise from it, including the possibility of new entrants?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Earl has made his feeling well known given that my noble friend the Chief Whip and the noble Lord the Chief Whip for the main Opposition party heard it. Perhaps I may add that it is not the "British Commonwealth" but the "Commonwealth of Nations". That is why in my first Answer I referred to the contribution of all Commonwealth countries.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I attended the Anzac ceremonies last year in my capacity as Treasurer of the Anzac Group there was no Minister present, either junior or senior? May I have an assurance that that matter will be put right next time and that in the celebrations for Commonwealth Day we shall always ensure that a Minister of some rank appears?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that each one of us tries very hard to accept one of the invitations which come forward; but the pressure on diaries to attend many ceremonies sometimes means that occasionally one falls by the wayside. I take note of what the noble Lord said. I shall try to make sure that there is a Minister with appropriate interests at the next Anzac ceremony.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when I was a young girl at school in Kenya we used to celebrate Empire Day? We used to have a day free of lessons and we were all given an Empire apple. Could not something be done on these lines for school children in this country so that they become indelibly aware, as I did, of the role of the different countries in the Commonwealth and the role of the individual within these countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am all for encouraging young people to see the value of the celebrations, but I am not sure that a day free from lessons would help them in the long term. It may be that there should be a little more school and a few more apples.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge not only the existence of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to which every Commonwealth country is associated, but also the great value of its work in spreading understanding of the Commonwealth? Does she not agree that some of the questions raised today are rather odd in view of the work of that association?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as all of us who have attended the annual conferences and seminars of the Commonwealth Parliamentary

129
Association know so well, it is an invaluable organisation. However, in my answers I was trying to stick to the original Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am conscious of the fact that we do not have much time left. I wonder whether he will allow us to proceed.

National Engineering Laboratory: Privatisation
2.55 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money the taxpayer has received as a result of the privatisation of the National Engineering Laboratory.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced on 31st October, the consideration to Her Majesty's Government for the National Engineering Laboratory was a negative £1.95 million. This may be adjusted subsequently in the light of the level of net current assets at the date of completion. The successful purchaser, Assessment Services Limited, was selected because it met fully the department's objectives for the sale and because its bid represented the best value for money option. The sale represents substantial savings to the taxpayer compared with the benchmark.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords will share my dismay at the Minister's response. Is he satisfied with this arrangement, or does he share my dismay and disbelief that we have to pay £1.95 million to a firm to take away all the intellectual knowledge and the work of 223 engineers and technologists who have been with the National Engineering Laboratory for many years? Is the Minister satisfied with this arrangement?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes. None of the bids was for a positive sum. Assessment Services Limited was chosen as the preferred bidder because its bid fully met the department's objectives. It was better than the other bids and represented better value for money than our benchmark. The sale represents substantial savings to the taxpayer compared with the benchmark. This is a good solution for the Government and NEL. The strengths of Assessment Services Limited complement those of NEL. They plan to build on those combined strengths to produce a company which will be successful in world markets for engineering services. The department's need for flow measurement work under the national measurements system will continue to be met.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is there any other example of a private sector undertaking paying someone to take over at a time when there are
130
contracts worth £18.3 million on the order books and when taxpayers have made millions of pounds worth of investment in an outstanding project? Does the Minister not accept that there appears to be one government law when it comes to private individuals protecting their interests, but that the Government pay scant regard to the interests of the taxpayers of this country?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have already pointed out that this arrangement is producing substantial savings to the taxpayer, and that is why it has been done. As regards the other questions, we believe that privatisation is right in this instance and there are substantial savings for the taxpayer.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that the new private sector management of Assessment Services Limited will continue to support the current lines of research, some of which may have no immediate pay-off but may lead to discoveries of fundamental importance in future years?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes. We believe that the company which has now taken over NEL will continue to provide the services required by the Government. It is a highly reputable company and we have every reason to believe that we shall get the required services from it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, noble Lords opposite have been highly supportive of the answers which have been given, so I assume that they understand what has been said.
A Noble Lord: Never!
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the National Engineering Laboratory is an asset which complements the assets of the people who are obtaining it and yet the taxpayer gets no net financial benefit? Speaking in an ordinary common sense way, that makes no sense to me whatever. I should have thought that we could at the very least get a net zero outcome. If one or two of us had been involved we might have made some money for the taxpayer. Is the noble Lord aware how absurd his answers sound to ordinary lay people?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not think that I would ever refer to the noble Lord as an ordinary lay person. The point is that if through privatisation we reduce the taxpayer's expenditure in the future, there is a net benefit to the taxpayer from such action.

Alcoholic Drinks: Imports from Europe
3 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can give an estimate of the value of business lost to the brewing industry and to British vendors of alcoholic drinks as a result of the freedom now given to travellers in Europe to import duty free unlimited quantities of drinks for their own consumption.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Customs estimates that beer imports are equivalent to about

131
£130 million although the brewing industry puts the figure at nearer £367 million. Customs and the UK industry estimate that in 1994 the value of legitimate duty-paid personal imports alcoholic drinks was equivalent to between 3 and 5 per cent. of the UK market which at UK retail prices would amount to between £646 million and £1,290 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very revealing Answer, but can he say whether our European neighbours, particularly France and Germany, allow similar concessions?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as far as I understand it, single market rules apply to all members of the European Community. That is why people from certain European countries come in considerable numbers to parts of this country to shop. That is why people from the Republic of Ireland visit the North of Ireland and Wales where they can buy a number of items, including alcoholic beverages, on which the duty is lower in this country.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the trouble is that a great many British citizens cross the Channel in order to buy beer in Calais and bring it back here to sell, which is quite contrary to what is allowed under Community law?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that point which allows me to say that if anyone is bringing back alcoholic drinks simply in order to sell them, they are committing an offence. Since the start of the single market, Customs has detected over 5,800 offences involving something like £11 million of revenue. There have been almost 800 prosecutions.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am afraid that it is me again—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peston:—on this subject of the utmost gravity—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Peston: My Lords, the one thing that I missed in the noble Lord's answer was the British Government's view of this matter. It is not a question of criticising the Community or those consumers who wish to buy in the cheapest market. Does the Minister agree that the brewing industry and the alcohol industry generally could argue that they are subject to a modicum of unfair competition? That is the essence of the matter. If individual countries fix their own excise duties, market distortions arise. One would like to know whether the Government have a view on that. It seems to me that the £367 million quoted by the brewing industry is quite a large sum of money. Do the Government think that they will be able to do anything about it in due course? Forgetting the usual answer of "We can't talk about the Budget at this point", and sticking to matters of principle, what line will the Government be taking in the longer run than next week?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the longer run than next week, which keeps me on fairly
132
safe ground, as I said in my original Answer, the position is that when one considers the single market as a whole there are pluses and minuses to having different rates of duty and different excise rates. However, we believe as a matter of principle that questions of taxation are for individual countries to decide and that they come clearly within what we believe is a matter of subsidiarity. The principle upon which we operate is that it is up to each country to decide on its own levels of duty and taxation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, accepting that the last answer is correct, does my noble friend agree that current levels of duty in this country (and their disparity when compared with levels elsewhere in the EC) are increasingly, unfortunately, attracting criminal elements? Are we in danger of seeing once again the old-fashioned revenuers trying to come back as smugglers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the position in regard to smuggling is quite that depicted in Treasure Island or other similar yarns. However, perhaps I may advise my noble friend that, as I mentioned, not only is there some distortion between ourselves and the French, but there is a distortion the other way between ourselves and the Southern Irish. We zero-rate many items, including children's clothing, which means that many people on the Continent find it advantageous to come here to shop. My noble friend should be careful about suggesting that we come to a common position. We might adopt the French position, but we might equally adopt that of the Danes, the Swedes or the Finns whose taxation on alcohol is very much higher than ours.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that his comparison of the situation with regard to alcohol with that of people coming here to shop for clothes is misleading because those who travel here from France or Germany to buy things from Marks & Spencer do not do so with a view to reselling those items in their own country whereas, as was confirmed by the answer which informed us that 5,800 offences have been detected involving a loss of revenue of £11 million, there are many other examples of people evading the rules which prohibit the resale of alcohol? Is not the Minister aware that the situation will become worse as a result of reductions in the number of Customs staff at ports and that very large sums of money, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds, are being lost to the taxpayer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I had already answered the question about people importing products for resale. It is clearly illegal and we are taking steps against it. I have no doubt that our European friends are doing likewise when the slope is in the other direction, so to speak. There will inevitably be a marginal loss to the taxpayer, but before one computes the loss to the whole of the UK industry, one must bear in mind that many of the items imported

133
are spirits and, to a lesser extent, beers and that the spirit concerned tends to be whisky, which is manufactured in this country.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks airily of "distortions", but does he agree that the argument tends towards the establishment of an excise union on top of the present Customs union?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I have already answered that question. We believe firmly that matters of taxation are for individual countries to determine. They are not matters to be determined by the European Union.

Human Tissue (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require a person lawfully in possession of the body of a deceased person to authorise the donation of the body or any specified part of the body for therapeutic or medical purposes if the deceased person had requested such a donation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion in the name of the Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish to be taken before those in the names of the Lord Middleton and the Lord Chesham on Thursday next.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee for Privileges be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal be named of the Committee—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

L. Campbell of Alloway,

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos,

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

L. Glenamara,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

L. Mowbray and Stourton,

134

L. Nathan,

L. Richard,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

Weatherill,

V. Whitelaw,

Wigoder;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman; and
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on any Sub-Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Bancroft,

L. Barnett,

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Bridges,

B. Carnegy of Lour,

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Dubs,

L. Elibank,

L. Geddes

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Hoffmann,

L. Hunt of Tanworth,

L. McConnell,

L. Middleton,

L. Reay,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Slynn of Hadley,

L. Stoddart of Swindon,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

B. Williams of Crosby;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;

135
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delegated Powers Scrutiny: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power; to report on documents laid before Parliament under Section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders laid under Section 1(4) of that Act; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Alexander of Weedon (Chairman),

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Elton,

B. Perry of Southwark,

L. Shaughnessy,

L. Shepherd,

L. Wigoder;

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on the Committee or a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
136
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.9 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Denham—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Denham on the elegance with which he moved this Motion for an humble Address and on the elegance of his dress, and to thank him for his kind remarks about me. I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on so fully maintaining the family tradition in the excellence of his contribution to our debate. May I say also how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cuckney.
I regret that I shall be unable to stay for the whole of the debate, owing to a longstanding evening engagement. I hope to hear a good deal of the debate and to read the remainder. I greatly regret that conflict.
The gracious Speech contains many Bills in the field of law, home and social affairs. I would therefore ask your Lordships' forgiveness if, in the limited time available, I am unable to conduct a comprehensive review of them all.
I should like to begin with a Bill in which I, as Lord Chancellor, have a direct interest. The Family Law Bill contains the Government's proposals on divorce and mediation and the Government's amended proposals on family homes and domestic violence. They are intended to strengthen the institution of marriage and to ensure that those whose marriages are in difficulty are apprised of all the options available to them before making any irreversible decisions which will affect them and their families.
The proposals will bring to an end what is called "quickie" divorce and the use of allegations of fault as a passport to "quickie" divorce. Allegations of fault will no longer be used to establish the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage—they do nothing to support the institution of marriage and can give rise to strong feelings of bitterness and hostility. These feelings, together with the present system of resolving disputes, give little opportunity for couples to consider whether their marriages can be saved. The new system will be better suited to identifying saveable marriages.
Legal aid funding will he available under the proposals for mediation. Mediation has been shown to improve communication between couples and so reduce conflict. Parental conflict is very damaging to children

137
and a reduction in conflict in the divorce process will reduce the damage inflicted on the children of divorcing couples. Legal advice and assistance will be available for eligible parties, where needed, in support of mediation.
The proposals in the Family Law Bill will require that parties initiating divorce, or wishing to apply to the court in respect of certain matters connected with divorce, attend an information session where information on the consequences of divorce, and the services available, will be provided.
After the initiation of proceedings, a minimum of 12 months must elapse before a divorce can be applied for. The purpose is to give a reasonable opportunity to reflect on whether their marriage can be saved and to consider arrangements for the future before making an application for a divorce. The consideration of future arrangements regarding children, finance and property will ensure that parents understand their responsibilities to each other and to their children before they divorce, so that they realise what the future holds prior to going forward with the divorce.
The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill was considered by this House in the last Session under the "Jellicoe procedure". The Bill had been proposed by the Law Commission, following extensive consultation, and was recommended for introduction by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. The Bill had wide Cross Bench support. However, as your Lordships are aware, issues were raised on that Bill just before it was due to receive a Third Reading in the other place. It was not possible to resolve those issues in time for the Bill to complete its stages in the last Session. However, as I said at the time, the Government are anxious that the provisions should reach the statute book as soon as possible. For that reason, with some important amendments, the Bill has now been re-introduced as Part III of the Family Law Bill. The amendments which have been made to the Bill further distinguish the treatment of married and unmarried couples, underlining the value which we place on marriage. The Bill will be considered by Parliament under the usual procedure. That will afford an opportunity for a full debate in both Houses.
In the field of law and order, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, which was introduced in this House last week, provides a statutory scheme for prosecution and defence disclosure, and makes a range of improvements to the management of criminal proceedings.
The task we have set ourselves is to provide a scheme which reduces the unnecessary burdens of the current disclosure requirements, while providing the defendant with access to material he needs; which focuses the issues in dispute before the trial; and which protects sensitive material more effectively than at present. In short, a scheme is needed which will help to ensure that the guilty are convicted, while the innocent go free, and that the whole system is not bogged down with useless paperwork.
138
The Bill makes other improvements to pre-trial procedures. Judges will have a power to make binding rulings on points of law before the start of the trial. A scheme of preparatory hearings, similar to those held in serious fraud cases, will be available for other potentially long or complex cases. Defendants will be invited to give an indication of their plea before a decision is taken on which court is to try the case.
The Bill gives effect to recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice by making it possible for a judge to impose reporting restrictions on allegations made in a speech in mitigation which are false or irrelevant. That should reduce the distress experienced by victims of such allegations. It allows also for a retrial to take place if the original trial resulted in an acquittal, and the acquittal has been tainted by a conviction for interfering with the jury or witnesses at that trial.
Continuing with the theme of law and order, in October the Prime Minister announced a package of measures to reinforce the fight against organised crime. That reflects a firm commitment on the part of the Government to respond decisively to the threat from that type of criminal activity, and indeed we will bring forward a Bill in this Session to allow the Security Service to support the law enforcement agencies in their efforts against organised crime.
At present, the Security Services Act 1989 restricts the functions of the Security Service to protecting national security and safeguarding our economic well-being against threats from abroad. Tackling organised crime does not come into either of those categories, so the Security Service is prevented from lending its support, even though organised crime is a cause for serious concern. It is also becoming an increasingly complex and international phenomenon. That is why the skills and experience of the Security Service, acquired over the years in countering espionage and terrorism, will be of great value to the law enforcement agencies in combating organised crime. Accordingly, we will amend the 1989 Act to allow the Security Service to act in support of the law enforcement agencies against serious crime.
I said that this was just the first part of a package of measures for dealing with organised crime and a number of other changes will be introduced over the coming months. The Home Office has begun discussions with chief police officers on how to provide a better co-ordinated police response to organised crime at a national level. The National Criminal Intelligence Service will be central to that response and we are already exploring new ways to strengthen its contribution. We are also looking to build on the considerable achievements of the regional crime squads to give them a more focused, national role. I should add that that will not detract from the role of individual local police forces which will remain the primary focus for policing.
Changes are also taking place within the Home Office, with a new Directorate of International and Organised Crime being established on 1st April 1996. The intention is to ensure that policy work on that issue is properly co-ordinated.

139
Taken together, the Government believe that those measures represent a formidable, focused and effective response to the problem of organised crime.
The gracious Speech also announced the Government's intention to introduce an Asylum and Immigration Bill. The United Kingdom has a long and honourable tradition of helping those facing persecution and in genuine need of protection. But our asylum procedures are increasingly being abused by people who are not refugees. That is both damaging to immigration control and contrary to the interests of genuine refugees. It also places an unacceptable burden on taxpayers and public services. Asylum claims have been rising steadily for over 18 months: 1994 saw an increase of 45 per cent. This year, claims are expected to exceed 40,000, nearly double the level in 1993. That has created an unacceptable backlog in our system. There are currently over 70,000 cases awaiting decision or appeal. Just by claiming asylum, a person can expect to extend his stay or fend off removal action by 12 months or more. And the level of abuse is high. Asylum is regularly claimed by immigration offenders to frustrate removal. The prospect of gaining access to benefit and housing is undoubtedly a significant incentive to claim asylum.
We are, in fact, becoming Europe's soft target for those intent on abusing asylum procedures. A number of our neighbours have tightened their asylum systems and experienced substantial reductions. Last year, claims in the rest of western Europe fell by over 40 per cent. We are now the only country in western Europe where claims are rising substantially.
The Government believe that we must take action on a broad front. We announced two significant initiatives in February. The Home Secretary is making wider use of the power to curtail leave when refusing asylum, thereby preventing applicants from having two opportunities to appeal on the same asylum claim. We are also investing an additional £37 million over three years in extra asylum caseworkers and adjudicators. The Secretary of State for Social Security is now consulting urgently on proposals to limit the availability of benefit to asylum applicants. In addition, I have been consulting with the Immigration Appellate Authority about measures to reduce asylum appeal delays. But it is now clear that we also need to strengthen the legislation and the Bill will further streamline decision taking and appeals. The Government's proposals will be fully compatible with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. I wish to emphasise that after the proposals are in place all claims will still be individually considered.
The Bill will also address the problem of illegal working. It is unacceptable that those here illegally or working in breach of their conditions of leave are able to take away employment opportunities from our own workforce and those legally entitled to seek employment. Other European countries have recognised these risks and responded to them. The United Kingdom will become a soft target if we do not act now.
Turning to social affairs, the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill (and subsequent regulations) will allow local authorities to give some disabled people cash
140
payments as an alternative to the community care services for which they have been assessed. People who take up this option will use the money to purchase those community care services themselves. Disabled people have been asking the Government to legislate in this area and local authorities also welcomed the announcement last November of the Government's intention to introduce legislation. Direct payments will give people more choice, more control over their lives and so more independence. Direct payments are, therefore, a natural extension of both the Government's aims for community care and of the Citizen's Charter. The Bill will grant the necessary power. Local authorities themselves will decide whether or not to make direct payments available.
In Scotland, the Government are committed to further enhancing what I believe to be already high standards of education and training. I may not be entirely objective in this assessment. The Education (Scotland) Bill proposes changes that will benefit parents, teachers, pupils, employers and employees.
A new Scottish Qualifications Authority will he established to take on the current functions of the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council and, in addition, to administer the new unified framework of courses and awards for upper secondary education in Scotland. The merger of the two bodies was widely welcomed in consultation as the most appropriate response to advances in Scottish education and promoting parity of esteem between academic and vocational training. We will facilitate the Government's pre-five initiative with a new power to pay grants to providers of pre-school education. We also intend to amend the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 to simplify the workings of that Act and amend the provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 on placing requests to enable education authorities to retain places at certain schools for incomers to the area served by a school. The requirement on education authorities, under provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State before the commencement of building work, will he repealed and the Secretary of State's regulation-making power under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 will be clarified to secure the basis for making regulations.
The gracious Speech also contains proposals for the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland to continue in place after the expiry of the current Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act next year. I should like to explain the reasons for this in the light of calls from some who say that the emergency in Northern Ireland is over and that the time has therefore come to dismantle the emergency legislation.
For the first time in over a quarter of a century the people of Northern Ireland—and elsewhere in the United Kingdom—have enjoyed 15 months free from bombing and its related misery. The Government want to see this peace become fully established. But it remains the case that more progress needs to he made, especially on the decommissioning of illegally held weaponry, before we can truly say that the threat of a return to violence has disappeared completely. To that end the Government are considering jointly with the

141
Irish Government the establishment of an independent international body to consider and report on the issue. Depending on the body's findings, legislation to underpin any decommissioning scheme may need to be introduced later in this Session, but until a satisfactory outcome has been secured, we shall continue to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland receive the protection which the emergency legislation has afforded them until now.
Against this background, and acknowledging the progress that has been made since the ceasefires, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced earlier in the year in another place that an independent review into the future need for counter terrorism legislation in the UK would be held. I understand that the review will commence in the near future but it will not be possible for a report to be made available in time to influence the shape of the next Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. As a result, the lifespan of the Act would be much shorter than the five years of the present legislation and the Government will carefully consider the reviewer's findings when they are received next summer.
Your Lordships will wish to know that the Government will consider suspending individual provisions of the current Act or its replacement, should satisfactory progress continue to be made and confidence in the permanence of the peace finally secured. Seeking a just and enduring settlement has been and remains a priority of this Government. We hope that all sides will co-operate in generating the atmosphere of confidence necessary so that talks can take place to create such a settlement based on the principles of democracy and consent.
Before I finish, I should like to mention the progress that has been made in implementing law reform. As many law reform measures, including thirteen Law Commission reports, have been implemented in the last two Sessions as in the previous five. The backlog of Law Commission reports has been reduced by a quarter over the past year, even allowing for new reports published by the commission during that period, and I am confident that, with the continued co-operation of noble Lords on all sides, this trend is set to continue. A significant factor has been the readiness of this House to use the full range of procedures, such as special Public Bill Committees, sometimes termed "fast track", although that term does not do justice to the detailed scrutiny which such committees make possible, as any noble Lord who has served on one will attest. The Government intend to continue with this approach, making use of the various routes as appropriate. The choice of measures and the parliamentary route for each one will depend on the legislative time available and the content of the measures, but the Government intend, if time allows, to bring forward at least three law reform Bills. The Bills in question are a Defamation Bill, which will enable speedier, cheaper and more effective resolution of claims for defamation; a Trusts of Land Bill, which will be a technical measure to reform the law governing co-ownership of land; and a Damages Bill, which will provide for the disposal of personal
142
injury claims by structured settlements tailored to the injured person's needs and for other improvements in the way that damages for personal injuries are assessed.
As I stated earlier, the legislative programme in the field of law, home and social affairs is detailed and wide ranging. I have merely been able to give your Lordships a flavour of it today. I believe that the proposals in the gracious Speech on the subjects covered by today's debate are extremely important and of the highest relevance to the British people in many aspects of their life. The desire which I cherish that they will reach the statute book is based on the Government's belief, which I warmly share, that they will be of lasting benefit to our people in the years to come.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I join the noble and learned Lord in his congratulations to the Mover and the Seconder of the Address. From these Benches, we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney.
It really is a pleasure still to be able to follow the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He has been in the wars, if that is not to overstate his recent skirmish with the silly tendency in his own party. The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill was the casualty in the other place. The Opposition had been able to agree with the noble and learned Lord that it could go through your Lordships' House and the other place as politically uncontroversial; and so it truly was. It was a Law Commission Bill and the product of five years' work. The Government published a Green Paper, no dissent; a White Paper followed, not a word against; and they published their Bill which received widespread support and agreement by the Opposition.
The Government then allowed the Bill to be killed off at the eleventh hour in the other place by succumbing to a campaign of misinformation by a tabloid newspaper, backed up by a tiny and unthinking minority in the noble and learned Lord's own party.
We welcome the return of the Bill as part of the Family Law Bill, which is a more anodyne title. We do not welcome the weakening of its provisions as a sop to those who must be appeased. The noble and learned Lord could have soldiered on with his Bill as was and it would have passed with all-party support. The price of appeasing the silly tendency is to lessen protection against domestic violence. The noble and learned Lord's first thoughts on this subject were better than his second thoughts. We shall be tabling amendments to persuade him to agree with himself.
Under the present law, the courts may grant injunctions to prevent one party to a marriage from molesting the other. They may also order a molesting spouse to leave the home, or to allow the other to return to it. At present, the law protects both the husband and wife and a man and woman living together in the same household as husband and wife. Therefore, the argument that the Bill was bad for marriage because it would enable an unmarried cohabitant to remove a partner from the home was wide of the mark. That right has

143
been part of our law since the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. That Act stands as a proud memorial to the late Lord Elwyn-Jones.
The measure which is now reintroduced will extend protection against molestation to former spouses, to persons who used to live together as though married and to persons living in the same household for reasons other than that one is employed by the other; for example, a tenant, lodger, boarder or close relative. Therefore, the Bill in no way gives the grasping mistress any greater protection than she enjoys at present. But it does protect against granny-bashing or beating up a flatmate or child. A court order removing the perpetrator of violence from the home may be sought only by a spouse, a former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant, and then only if he lives or used to live in the house. There was absolutely nothing in the wild allegations that a weekend guest would be able to eject a houseowner after a quarrel.
Somehow or other, a minority of Conservative Members in the other place flexed their muscles and maintained that the Bill interfered with family values—by restricting the inalienable right of the houseowner to be violent to his partner without putting his home at risk. The truth is that by protecting the young and the weak—predominantly children and women—the Bill strove to strengthen family values. These provisions provide emergency and temporary measures to safeguard the victims of abuse. They do nothing to diminish strict rights of ownership.
I turn now to the divorce proposals. Where a marriage breaks down, we should not think inevitably in terms of the guilty party and the innocent party who is entitled to a divorce. A breakdown principle reflects the reality of divorce, not as a reward for marital virtue or punishment for marital delinquency, but a defeat for both, however unequal their responsibility.
A no-fault principle for divorce is to be supported for two basic reasons. A marriage breakdown is almost never exclusively the fault of one of the parties and any investigation of fault is productive of acrimony and is harmful to both parties and especially the children. In any event, there is no-fault divorce in practice under our present system. The sole ground for divorce under the present law is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably because the other party has committed adultery, behaved unreasonably, deserted the other for two years or both parties have lived apart for two years and consent to divorce or they have lived apart for five years in the absence of an agreement.
Only unreasonable behaviour, desertion and adultery are in reality fault-based. Moreover, there is only the most cursory examination by the court of the allegations. There is no hearing. It is all done on paper. Legal aid is not available to defend the divorce and if parties pay for lawyers themselves, or act without a lawyer, the court will bring pressure to persuade them that this is futile because the marriage must be over: it takes two to make it successful and one party wants it to end. In those circumstances, the courts' position is that it is better not to waste time and money in an exercise which is painful and doomed to failure.
144
I wonder whether the absolute prohibition which the Bill imposes on a divorce in less than 12 months of asking for a decree is correct. If the parties, before the expiry of 12 months, have made sensible and acceptable arrangements, why should they have to wait? The only answer is that there should always be a minimum one year period of waiting for reflection and the possibility of reconciliation, although it is extremely doubtful in practice that that will prove productive. Certainly, I could not support a longer period than 12 months as the mandatory period of delay.
On the other hand, I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord now accepts that a divorce should not go through merely because a year has elapsed, if arrangements have not been agreed and that is not due to unreasonableness by either party. That will give some protection to a party who would otherwise feel pressurised into agreeing to an unfair arrangement which will apply for years to come. If either party has, on the other hand, been unreasonable then I would agree that the court should have power to permit the divorce to go ahead.
Central to the Bill is the process of mediation. That is a much misunderstood concept. Undoubtedly mediation has an important part to play in helping parties to deal with the consequences of bringing their marriage to an end, but this role needs to be understood accurately. It is not about reconciliation. The starting point of mediation is that the parties agree their marriage is over but wish to resolve issues of finance and children sensibly. If the marriage is "saveable", the mediator would be bound to close down the mediation and refer the parties to a marriage guidance organisation, such as Relate.
The mediator's influence can only hope to succeed if both parties recognise that the marriage is over and that acceptable arrangements need to be made for the future. But fair arrangements depend on independent legal advice and representation. By eroding such advice and representation for those on legal aid, the Bill will deal a hard blow to the weaker party going through divorce and, possibly, a mortal blow to the interests of the children. That is our principal concern.
Mediation is not in terms to be made compulsory, but the iron fist of the Treasury is to be seen within the mediator's velvet glove. Mediation will not be free for any but the very poor. The costs are not to exceed those which would have been borne by the Legal Aid Fund under the present system. In other words, the new provision is to be made at the expense of independent legal advice and representation now available under legal aid.
Let us take a quite typical case. The husband runs his own business. He has unsupervised access to its cheque book. For some unexplained reason, the company accounts show a deteriorating situation which remarkably coincides with the time of the marriage breakdown. The wife says the accounts arc a sham. The courts are well able to penetrate beneath the surface distortion to uncover the realities. But how is the mediator to perform a similar role? Let this he clearly

145
understood. The fairness or otherwise of his mediated settlement is decisively dependent on the accurate assessment of the family assets.
The simple question that I ask the noble and learned Lord is: how is the weaker party, often the wife, to be protected from agreeing to something wholly inconsistent with her interests? It is quite a chilling thought that the meanest criminal has the right to the full services of a lawyer but the discarded wife or abandoned husband will not, unless they can pay for such services themselves.
In recent weeks, the noble and learned Lord has sought to reassure many troubled by the reduction of legal advice and representation which will inevitably be a consequence of the mediation provisions. He has said that legal advice and representation by way of legal aid will continue "where appropriate". We would like to know what is really meant by this. Who is to decide? It cannot be the lawyer because, ex hypothesi, he will not be involved. It is unlikely to be the court because it is difficult to see how the question can be brought before it. For legally aided litigants, it is to be the Legal Aid Board. We had hoped that the noble and learned Lord would have laid all our fears to rest by saying that he would give guidance that the board should not refuse legal aid solely on the ground that one of the parties no longer wishes to continue in mediation. That would make clear that mediation is to be truly voluntary with no unspoken sanctions. But, alas, the Bill says quite the opposite. The Legal Aid Board is to be under a duty to channel parties into mediation. We shall be putting down amendments designed to ensure that mediation is truly voluntary and that access to justice is not restricted.
The noble and learned Lord touched on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill. In a speech to which I look forward, my noble friend Lord McIntosh will examine it. However, perhaps I may say just one thing for myself. The present disclosure rules were established by the Court of Appeal to deal with the scandal of the Irish cases which resulted in defendants spending 15 years-plus in prison because evidence had been concealed. As a result, the public standing of our justice system was hugely diminished. Not only was great injustice done to those who were wrongly convicted, but great anguish was also caused to the families of the victims. We will have to consider with care in Committee the proposition that the prosecution can safely decide what information is irrelevant to the defence and can, therefore, be withheld from it.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the Asylum and Immigration Bill. We understand that it will create a so-called "white list" of countries deemed to be safe and so unlikely to produce true refugees. Contrary to the noble and learned Lord, I believe that we are at serious risk of conflicting with the United Nations' convention which confers a right on asylum seekers to have their claims individually examined in a way inconsistent, I would think, with the presumption proposed. I suggest that there is great merit in what came from the Leader of the Opposition; namely, that a special standing committee, free of party acrimony, should consider dispassionately the true extent of bogus applications, the
146
true extent of fraud, and also examine, free of acrimony, whether the Government's proposals comply with our international obligations and are capable of working efficiently and fairly. We gather that that is not to be.
I have confined myself to three of the Bills foreshadowed in the gracious Speech—a flawed Family Law Bill, flawed to placate the "silly tendency" which could have been brushed aside if the Government had stuck to their guns; a tawdry asylum Bill; and a criminal investigations Bill which will merit our closest scrutiny. We will continue, when invited by the Government, to support Law Commission Bills that are politically uncontroversial through fast-track procedures. When we promise our support we will deliver, but subject to one condition. That the Government's resolution will match ours and that they will not capitulate to a fractious and unrepresentative minority in their own party.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I, too, look forward with keen anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney. It is almost 20 years since our paths first crossed when the noble Lord was chairman of the Port of London Authority. He is a man of many parts with a distinguished record in more than one career. No one is better fitted to contribute wisely and widely to the business of the House. I for one will always listen to the noble Lord with great attention.
I am one of those who has a certain scepticism about the value of our annual debate on the Address. These days, the content of the gracious Speech is known well in advance and is anticipated in speeches at the Conservative Party Conference and in endless press releases and contrived leaks. In any case, I see from the Annual Report and Accounts of the House for 1994–95 that during the calendar year of 1994 your Lordships' House spent 53·7 per cent. of its time on legislation compared with 54·6 per cent. in the previous year. Either way, almost half of our time is not spent on matters set out in the gracious Speech. At best, this annual occasion enables us to speculate on the year ahead and refer, as I intend to do, to some items of unfinished business carried forward from our last Session.
The promise in the gracious Speech to bring forward legislation to reform procedures in criminal cases has been quickly honoured. We shall discuss the Bill on Second Reading in a week's time. The Minister has described it as a sensible measure containing some useful reforms and has explained it to a number of your Lordships in a helpful letter. However, in practice it is not quite as innocuous as that. I do not want to anticipate the scrutiny of the Bill except to ask the Minister to place in the Library—unless she has already done so—copies of the response that the department received to the consultation document published last May. No doubt she will explain on Second Reading exactly what changes have been made as a result. I saw one headline which stated:
"Howard sounds retreat on help for prosecutions".
It would be interesting to know whether the Minister sees it that way.

147
These are difficult matters, with a fine balance of advantage. In May the Government said that they agreed with,
"the general approach recommended by the Royal Commission",
on Criminal Justice. I believe those were, in effect, the words used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today. The Government's statement in May contained a significant "however". At paragraph 23 of the document the Government stated:
"The Government believes that the scheme developed by the Royal Commission would not significantly reduce the current burdens on the investigator and prosecutor and that its proposals for defence disclosure would not in practice contribute sufficiently to the development of the process of narrowing issues in dispute".
To my mind that is not a parenthesis but a rejection of the Royal Commission's scheme.
In his speech at Blackpool the Home Secretary said:
"The present rules on disclosure of evidence unfairly favour the criminal. We will change them. It is time to even up the scales of justice".
It will be for your Lordships to decide whether in practice the Bill is about evening up the scales of justice or tips the balance towards a more frequent miscarriage of justice. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that its purpose is to make sure the guilty are convicted while the innocent go free. It will be for your Lordships to judge whether the Bill points in that direction.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead said from these Benches last Wednesday that we were glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had at least partially won his battle over changes in what the gracious Speech calls,
"other aspects of family law".
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House in his remarks took that to mean an assurance of our support for the Bill when it is published. I hope it is support that we shall be able to give, but we shall want to consider the Bill carefully to discover precisely what has been left out.
The noble Viscount was robust when in response to a question from my noble friend Lady Seear on 2nd November he expressed his anger—it was almost that—at what he called the,
"ill-informed attentions of a national newspaper".—[Official Report; 2/11/95; col. 1505.]
However, in so doing he turned away from the real cause of the trouble; namely, the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been "mugged" by members of his own party. They alone doomed the previous Bill to oblivion.
I have read that what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has called the "silly tendency" is still on the warpath looking for more concessions. What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House should know is they cannot take for granted support from other parts of the House if the Government continue to shift their ground in response to a handful of their own supporters. If these measures are worthy of Cross-Bench support, that Cross-Bench support should be sufficient to carry the Bill.
148
I hope that I am wrong but I confess I am a little uneasy about the Bill to enable the Security Service, MI5, to assist in combating organised crime. We are all in favour of more resources for the police and we are all concerned about the growth of organised crime. However, if the Security Service really has spare capacity, surely some contraction and a straight transfer of resources to the police would serve the purpose better. There are dangers in an alliance between two competitive forces with a different culture and accustomed to different tasks.
The Bill will have to define organised crime. I understand that the intelligence and security committee is currently trying to do so. There will have to be clear lines of accountability. It would be unfortunate, to say the least—I choose my words carefully—if the public began to feel that secret police were operating on our streets, whatever the purpose to which they were committed. We await the Bill with interest.
As I believe the whole House agrees, the most disturbing proposal in the Queen's Speech is the asylum Bill. It appears not to be devised on merits but, as the chairman of the Conservative Party has gleefully boasted, to wrong-foot the Opposition. For a moment last week the Prime Minister seemed to be thinking better of it and appeared to favour the search for a consensus through the procedure of a Special Standing Committee. He has since been pulled back to political correctness. We shall see Parliament at its adversarial worst when it considers the Bill, and this is a Bill which could mean imprisonment, torture and death for some people. On the evidence available to us it looks like an ignoble Bill, introduced not to focus on a genuine problem—and there are problems in the fair treatment of asylum seekers—but to win votes by an appeal to prejudice.
On 4th July last year the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon introduced a short debate in your Lordships' House on asylum seekers. He said that the detention of asylum seekers was not a practice which in principle he opposed, but he reminded us that asylum seekers come to this country fleeing from persecution and fear of death. They are not criminals. The Minister in her reply said that the subject was inclined,
"to arouse an emotional response rather than a rational one".— [Official Report, 4/7/95; col. 1075.]
She favoured the latter. However, it is precisely to an emotional response that the Government are at present appealing. That is why they have chosen to promote the Bill in the way they have. I hope that the Minister will feel just a little ashamed when she introduces it to the House. She deserves a better hand to play.
This morning I heard the Home Secretary speak on the radio on BBC's "Today" programme. He was asked a question about his parents, who came to this country in 1938 to escape persecution from Nazi Europe. He was asked whether they would be free to do so under the legislation he is putting before the House. But he gave no reply. I hope that that was not for reasons of personal embarrassment. It would be a frightening condemnation of this Bill if it were more restrictive than the Government's policies of 60 years ago. The Minister referred on a previous occasion to our immigration

149
policy as being robust. In regard to asylum seekers I would much prefer it to be generous. I hope that when your Lordships discuss this matter we will find ways of making it more generous.
There is one proposal which I cannot see in the gracious Speech to which the Home Secretary referred at Blackpool. He said that he intended to form a brand new crime prevention agency. I am not sure where this idea came from and I am not sure where it has since gone to, unless of course it is the matter to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred today when he mentioned international crime. It would be helpful—I am only asking for information—to know from the Minister what has happened to the brand new crime prevention agency; whether this constitutes merely a rearrangement of Home Office functions or whether there will be a Bill on the matter during the current Session.
I wish to refer briefly to two matters which I believe will come before the House in the current Session, not as items contained in the Queen's Speech but, as I previously suggested, as matters carried over. On all sides of the House your Lordships have been exercised by the new rules governing entry to the probation service. Despite the reservations already expressed in this House and elsewhere, the Government are still proposing to go ahead with unacceptable changes. The Government have boasted of a shake-up removing the current requirement for recruits to undertake a two-year, full-time academic course. However, elsewhere in the gracious Speech there is a pointed reference to,
"raising educational and skill levels".
It is surely extraordinary that when there is virtually universal agreement that what this country needs is more education and training in every department of our national life the Government are proposing less in the case of the probation service. There is no real evidence that mature, experienced and talented people—to use the Home Office's own description—find the present arrangements a serious barrier to joining the probation service. The suspicion remains that the Government would prefer probation officers to look more like military policemen than social workers.
In the coming Session we shall also be discussing the prison service again. The Government got off lightly on the occasion of the publication of the Learmont Report. Your Lordships took the Minister's Statement very calmly, perhaps because, as so often, your Lordships had had so little time to read and digest the report. When the report was debated in another place the Shadow Home Secretary made a hash of it, as many of us were greatly saddened to see.
We shall need to consider the relationship of the Home Office to the prison service, as well as the full record of the Government in these matters, as revealed both by the Woodcock Report, which we debated in January, and by Learmont. One of the outcomes of the Learmont Report was the admission by the Home Secretary that there is a question to answer about the status of the prison service as an executive agency, which is precisely what we said from these Benches on
150
28th January last, when it was strenuously denied. Following the Statement on Learmont I asked the Minister who was to conduct the inquiry into the relationship between the Home Office and the prison service which the Home Secretary had announced. The noble Baroness was unable to reply at the time, but she kindly wrote to me a few days later.
In her letter the noble Baroness said:
"The work",
by which she meant the in-depth study to which the Home Secretary had referred,
"is being done by Miss Kate Jenkins, an independent consultant who was the chief author of the report which led to the creation of the agency concept in 1987".
I find that odd. The person who devised the system in the first place is being asked to sit in judgment on its success; in other words, to consider whether her original advice was correct, as Ministers have previously claimed. I do not doubt for a moment Miss Jenkins' talent and integrity, but I cannot believe that that is really the way to get the right answers and a formula which will last.
A year ago in the debate on the Address I referred to the Home Office—and my remarks today have been addressed entirely to matters which come within its competence—as one of the great offices of state which every incumbent held on trust for the nation. I said that above all the Home Secretary of the day must take a long view of his responsibilities based on knowledge and not on prejudice. His task was to lead opinion, not heedlessly to follow it, to be a statesman rather than a narrow party politician. It gives me no pleasure to say that in the past 12 months the Home Secretary has too often fallen below those standards. I regret that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech that leads me to hope that in this current Session of Parliament we shall see a change of heart or a new beginning.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Cuckney: My Lords, I feel greatly honoured to have the opportunity of making my maiden speech in the course of the debate on the humble Address to Her Majesty. I am also grateful for the kind remarks made by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who was Minister of Transport when I was Chairman of the Port of London. I hope that he will not wish to alter those remarks after he has heard what I have to say, because I shall take a rather different position on one particular issue.
Last Thursday, in the course of the debate on the Address, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as reported in Hansard of 16th November 1995 at col. 74, warmly welcomed as he put it, the emphatic statement in the gracious Speech that national security remains of the highest importance, and it is on one particular aspect of national security that I should like to make three points. I wish to refer to the threat that could, if we are not more careful, arise from an increase in international organised crime. Also earlier in the debate on the Address, the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said:

151
"Crime is now globalised. It is estimated that 1,500 billion dollars a year are laundered as the proceeds of crime, one-third of them being the proceeds of drug trafficking".—[Official Report, 16/11/95; col. 52.]
The noble Lord went on to emphasise the level of co-operation which exists between criminals across frontiers. Indeed, I recall him adding that their co-operation bettered that of the governments supposedly controlling their activities.
It is against that background that I was particularly pleased to read of the proposal to introduce legislation to enable the Security Service to assist the law enforcement agencies in their work against organised crime.
I believe that at this stage I should declare an interest in that I was at one time a member of the Security Service and it might therefore be thought that I am biased in its favour. However, I have had time in which to reflect on my experience and see it, and the Security Service's role and unique characteristics, in perspective. I have also more recently been involved in an international initiative to fight maritime fraud and piracy, which have many of the features of organised crime. Indeed, in many instances they represent good examples of organised crime on a truly international scale.
I should like to make the following points. First, I recognise the natural and understandable concern from a civil liberties point of view over extending the remit and area of operations of the Security Service. But perhaps I may point out that there are now strong and effective control and oversight arrangements in place. The Security Service is subject to judicial oversight by two separate commissioners, one of whom is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and by two tribunals, as set out in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Interception of Communications Act 1985. Additionally, in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provision was made for the establishment of a statutory oversight committee, reporting directly to the Prime Minister, made up of nine non-ministerial Members of both Houses, one of whom is my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
Secondly, full account should be taken of the great changes to which the director general has recently drawn attention publicly that have taken place in the Security Service's priorities and experience. By last year the proportion of effort devoted to counter-terrorism had doubled compared with the previous four years, and over the same period resources applied to counter-espionage had halved. Only a fraction of the work now concentrates on countering subversion compared with 10 years ago.
The important point that I should like to make is that those changes have meant a fundamental change in the working practices and methodologies and closer co-operation with other government departments and the police. The skills of countering terrorism have a direct and relevant application to countering organised crime, especially in the skill and care needed to convert intelligence into evidence. The very trends which have helped the growth of international terrorism—ease and
152
speed of travel and communications—have also aided the growth of organised crime, which is increasingly becoming transnational.
Thirdly, while I accept that the Security Service and the police are different services with clearly defined roles and functions, they have both demonstrated that they complement one another in their approach to common problems. I believe that in the Security Service, as it is now overseen and controlled and with its considerable counter-terrorism experience, we have a valuable national asset, the greater deployment of which to help fight organised crime would be of benefit to the stability of the country.
May I conclude by recalling that, although this alone is not the sole basis for the amendment being proposed, one of the functions of the Security Service as defined in the 1989 Act is:
"to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands".
I am delighted that there is recognition of the importance of the challenge posed by serious and organised crime and that action, as was outlined by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor earlier this afternoon, is being taken to strengthen the fight against it.
4.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to express on behalf of the whole House our warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney, on his maiden speech. Drawing upon his long financial and industrial experience, his speech was in the best traditions of this House and we look forward to many further contributions to debates from the noble Lord.
For the avoidance of doubt, I must preface what I have to say on the Family Law Bill with the statement that the House of Bishops of the Church of England is second to none in its belief that marriage is part of the order of God's creation, designed to be a joyful and enriching partnership, bringing comfort and mutual help to those who commit themselves to it. The Bishops also believe that the family is essential to the health and wellbeing of our society and that no effort should be spared to prepare people for marriage and to assist them in understanding what it takes to maintain faithful marriage relationships and to provide a stable family life.
Bishops, however, as well as being church leaders, teachers of the faith and upholders of the ideal, are also pastors who know that human nature is frail and that people, including a lot of us, are prone to make mistakes. In supporting the provisions of the Family Law Bill, let me also say that I warmly welcome the fact that this debate is now taking place, especially against the background of a deepening concern over the fact that we have the highest divorce rate in Europe, with 150,000 couples divorcing each year and with a good deal of attendant misery forced upon the children. Moreover, I welcome the Bill for its intention not Just to make divorce procedures more satisfactory, as sad and as necessary as that is, but also to enable couples to

153
receive help in considering their life together and that of their children and whether the step they are proposing to take is reflective of sound judgment and a proper sense of parental responsibility.
It seems to me that there are two approaches to what is being proposed in the Bill. The first is to perceive the provisions of the Bill as resulting in easier divorce and in the undermining of family life. There has been quite a lot of criticism along those lines, although one can see positive value in legislation which would require a 12-month period of waiting with time at least for reflection on whether the marriage can be saved, which takes the emphasis away from the adversarial approach and offers comprehensive family mediation.
Of course one has to admit that a period of consideration and reflection will certainly not always change minds or attitudes, but in many cases what can be said for it is that it can enhance the opportunities of saving a marriage by reducing bitterness and hostility and also minimising the harm caused to children. The proposals contained in the Bill are certainly an improvement on the present system which, despite its original intentions, has resulted in "quickie" divorces for many, based on allegations of fault. If, however, this is to be the way forward and if it is to command the respect and support of those who believe in and strive to enable sound marriage and wholesome family life to continue, then the Government will need to be serious about the adequate provision of mediation services. I note that recently the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference when commenting upon the White Paper has urged the generous funding of marriage counselling services and other family organisations so that access to such services is readily available when difficulties arise. There will be many in this House who will wholeheartedly support such a view.
At its very heart, marriage is a loving and caring relationship and when that relationship of trust and intimacy is in danger it is not the legal bonds which need attention but the relationship that they are designed to protect. The tragedy of marriage breakdown and its consequences for the children of such broken marriages are only too obvious to us all. Far more attention needs to be paid to measures which will strengthen and support marriage.
At the Second Reading and Committee stages Bishops will be expressing concerns, especially in relation to the public nature of marriage, the clarification of the purpose and organisation of mediation and of the necessary funding. When mediation was introduced in Canada 19 per cent. of those seeking divorce decided in the end on a reconciliation because they had been given the opportunity of looking at their marriage and at the consequences of its break-up with the assistance of a mediator. In New Zealand it was found that the result of mediation in divorce in the case of first marriages was a drop of 60 per cent. in the divorce rate in the case of second marriages, the problems of the first marriage having been resolved instead of being carried into the second.
If we are concerned to support marriage and help those with problems, as well as rescuing children from
154
the antagonisms of the present fault-based system, then I believe that the provisions contained in the Bill deserve the supportive consideration of this House.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cuckney. It was a strong speech, thought-provoking and based on his own experience. I recall how varied that experience has been. I was fortunate enough to get to know him well when he was in charge of the Crown Agents, where he did distinguished work in an organisation which had earlier been going through an unhappy period. I hope that we shall hear from him often on many matters. Perhaps I may also apologise to the House because unavoidably I have to leave before the end of the debate. I regret that.
I wish to make a contribution under the heading of "social affairs" and make a suggestion which may be considered eccentric in a period of fervid political argument. It is that the whole subject of social security could usefully be approached in a somewhat less partisan way than has been customary and that we might think in terms of the appointment of a Royal Commission or some similar body to study the present and future problems of this difficult subject. In saying that, I realise that Royal Commissions have gone out of fashion; no doubt in previous years we had too many and they wasted much time. Sometimes I suspect that they were appointed in order to waste time. So, perhaps rightly, it has become less common in recent years for governments to send problems to Royal Commissions and similar bodies. However, it seems to me that there can be exceptional circumstances when a problem has become so difficult and complex and when successive governments have failed to produce radical answers that such an approach could be helpful. The problems of the social security system are very serious and are getting worse.
Compared with the earlier implementation of the Beveridge Report in the year 1949, the cost of social security has increased by some 700 per cent. in real terms. In 1949, it represented about one-twentieth of the national income; now it represents a quarter of a very much larger national income. It is costing an average of £15 a day for every person at work in Britain. I submit to the House that that figure is much too large and is liable to grow larger for demographic reasons, among others. I submit that often payments are misdirected, particularly in the sense that low paid workers are paying a great deal of money to affluent pensioners and some of that needs radical readjustment.
I was worried about those matters when I was Minister of State for Social Security from 1979 to 1981. In that period, we undertook some measures which slightly changed the upward growth of the system. For example, we made more stringent rules for the up-rating every year of benefits. We thereby saved billions of pounds which would otherwise go out every year. However, we did not do enough. That was clear to me then, and it is even clearer now.

155
I personally applaud the savings that have been made by Mr. Lilley in the past few years. I shall probably applaud any further savings that are announced next week. But the savings he has made have been piecemeal. There has been no overall review of the whole system. I believe that that is difficult for any government to undertake. That is one reason I suggest a Royal Commission or something similar.
I also applaud little bits of Labour Party thinking—I wish to be cautious in saying that—and I applaud some of the conclusions of the commission. Sir Gordon Borne, who will shortly join us in this House, presided over them. I also applaud some of the thoughts of Mr. Frank Field, chairman of the relevant Select Committee in another place.
But—and it is a big but—from day to day the Labour Party always has a knee-jerk reaction against any measure which appears to save money in any direction. Every one of Mr. Lilley's reforms has been opposed by the Labour Party and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrats. They are already criticising in advance possibilities for further savings in the current public expenditure review.
The question I wish to put to the House is this: does the conventional pattern of party warfare totally and permanently prevent a fundamental examination on less partisan lines? I do not wish to be optimistic about the answer, but I suggest that it should be a matter of concern to all parties in this country and all Members of both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me that sooner or later—and sooner rather than later—a government of whichever party will be forced into emergency measures which will lead to reductions in some benefits and the serious disappointment of people's expectations. Certainly, if one looks at it purely in terms of party political advantage or disadvantage, it would be a serious matter for whichever government will have to do it. At the moment, in France M. Juppé is introducing severe reductions in social security benefits and other welfare benefits, none of which was mentioned in the presidential election campaign. He faces a great deal of opposition, demonstrations and strikes. I read this morning that he faces a possible general strike. In the United States, a great deal of the argument between Congress and the White House about budgetary matters relates to welfare payments. Recently, as a result of all that, we have seen a shutdown of American government offices for a week.
Only in Italy, in the recent past, has there been a successful carrying through of radical reforms in that field. It must be significant that it has happened at a time when the traditional Italian political parties are being sidelined and Italy has had a temporary government of technocrats who are able to go further in a more radical direction than previous governments.
I do not suggest a general suspension of party political warfare. In a modest way I participate in those activities and shall continue to do so. But it seems to me that sometimes, in relation to some subjects, it would be of mutual benefit to all parties and, more important, to the country to set aside or at any rate try to reduce the nature of the argument. We do it on some matters.
156
On the whole, we have had a non-partisan approach among the main parties to the problems of Northern Ireland. We have had a non-partisan approach to events in Bosnia. But on the mainstream domestic issues, we find it difficult. I submit to the House that the problems we face in social security which will be faced by future generations are on such a scale and of such a nature that they should be tackled by a new approach. That approach might well be a Royal Commission or a similar body, so far as possible launched with the support of all political parties.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened with attention to the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney. I am sure that the House is grateful to him for taking the occasion of his maiden speech to give us his thoughts on a matter of the greatest importance, of which he clearly has immense knowledge and experience.
It is natural, after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney, that I begin my small contribution by welcoming the reference in the gracious Speech to Northern Ireland. It ranks with the most important matters in the gracious Speech. I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went out of his way to devote an important part of his speech to the position in Northern Ireland.
There is no doubt that there are real concerns and, possibly more worrying, grounds for such concerns, about the stalemate that has developed in the search for a political settlement. These anxieties are shared by the people in Northern Ireland. They are voiced by international opinion. I accept that perceptions of the root cause of the difficulties differ greatly. There is perhaps inevitably a tendency to blame the other side. It is very much against that background that I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech,
"to build on the present peace and to create the conditions for political progress through inclusive talks".
Notwithstanding the huge obstacles that lie in the path of the peace process, that statement is as positive and affirmative as the statement in last year's gracious Speech. That is saying a great deal.
It is obvious that all the political parties in Northern Ireland, as well as the two governments, bear a heavy responsibility for achieving a peace settlement. Therefore, given the huge difficulties of recent months, I welcome again the encouraging sentence in the gracious Speech which promises,
"close and friendly relations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland".
Clearly the two governments and the political parties have a long way to go. To achieve a lasting political settlement will require understanding, patience and a willingness to face up to the facts of history. At the same time it will call for imagination and courage. Those are not inappropriate aims for any statesmen.
There is a connected, but narrower, subject to which I wish to refer; namely, the transfer of prisoners to Northern Ireland jurisdiction. The release last Thursday of more than 80 loyalist and IRA prisoners convicted of

157
serious crimes took some courage. But rightly or wrongly—and I offer no judgment on that—such prisoners occupy a position of respect in their respective communities. It would help if the Government were now to look seriously at the case for the transfer from mainland prisons to Northern Ireland jurisdiction—and, where appropriate and where arrangements are in place, to prisons in the republic—of those prisoners who are not to be released. To my knowledge at least two prisoners who have been the focus of a great deal of attention seem to have a strong case on compassionate grounds for such a transfer, at least on a temporary basis. As for the general case for transferring prisoners to Northern Ireland jurisdiction, I believe that it can be supported on the grounds that the attitude of prisoners towards the permanent cessation of violence has been, and continues to be, a factor of considerable relevance to the success of the peace process.
Reference to prisoners leads me to my next point; namely, the relationship between Parliament and the prison service. I agree with almost all the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Much concern has been expressed in this House about the lack of adequate accountability of the service to Parliament. I believe that the issue was last touched upon during Question Time on 26th October. It would be quite inappropriate on this occasion for me to go into detail. However, I have to say that I have been somewhat alarmed by my experience in trying to get a satisfactory response from the prison service to a complaint which a number of us from Wales have been pursuing on behalf of a Welsh prisoner.
The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will be aware that last March I drew her attention to the complaint of Sion Aubrey Roberts, who is serving a very long sentence. The complaint was referred by the Minister to her ministerial colleague with special responsibility for prisons—which I accept—who in turn referred it to the director-general of the prison service. It is possible that some of the facts may embarrass some people in high places. But it is a matter of regret to many of us from Wales, as well as to the prisoner, that in November I am still awaiting a satisfactory response from official quarters. Do the Government think it right that we should be kept waiting for more than seven months?
I recall very clearly that when the enabling Bill for the Next Steps agencies was before this House in 1990, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington pressed the Minister (I hasten to add, not the noble Baroness) for certain assurances. The Minister in charge of the Bill gave this assurance:
"Individuals can still appeal to their MPs and MPs to the Minister responsible for all the activities of the agency".—[Official Report, 8/3/90; col. 1293.]
The Minister added at col. 1294:
"With regard to freedom of information. Next Steps is a contribution to that rather than the reverse".
In the light of my experience, that assurance given in 1990 by a Minister in this House makes rather sorry reading.
158
The divorce Bill has received its First Reading. I tried to obtain a copy before I went home on Thursday but it was not then available. I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon. I understand that the Bill incorporates the main principles of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill, which failed to pass during the last Session. I am very pleased that it incorporates those main principles. My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Irvine, with his usual piercing clarity, gave an analysis of the strength and weakness of the Bill, to which I have nothing to add. I was particularly grateful for the thoughts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, which are obviously of the greatest importance. I listen to the voice of the Church.
I now turn to an important subject that is not mentioned in the gracious Speech; namely, young people between 16 and 18 years of age who leave the care of local authority social services departments. From inquiries I made, I understand that about 10,000 young people leave care in any one year. That number is, I am pleased to acknowledge, substantially smaller than it used to be. Noble Lords may know from their own experience that some of those young people may have been abandoned by their parents, some are in a crisis of adolescence, many have been neglected, abused or offended against, and some have suffered a great deal of disruption to their young lives.
It is the experience of the Children's Society, which has an excellent record of working directly with children and young people in England and Wales, that some thousands of young people leaving care have precious little chance of a job, of a home, or of adequate income. Moreover, many receive too little preparation for leaving care. The net result is that many are exposed to danger from crime, prostitution and ill-health. They deserve better. I accept, of course, that the state cannot be a substitute for good parents; nevertheless, the state's relationship is in loco parentis to young people leaving care and therefore it has a special responsibility for them.
The whole House, and all the organisations and statutory authorities with an interest in helping children and young people, are particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his great personal interest in the drafting and passage through Parliament of the Children Act 1989. We welcome that Act. It had the great merit of introducing a legal framework for the provision of services for young people leaving care, and obviously for other reasons. As I acknowledged, there have been improvements; but I have had discussions with other Members of your Lordships' House and we all agree that there remain widespread anxieties. Part of the trouble is that the important Section 24 is being implemented at a time when major changes in other social legislation are seriously undermining it. I shall not go into detail.
There is another weakness which I certainly did not appreciate in 1989. According to my count, the issues affecting young people leaving care straddle at least six departments of central or local government, but without one single department being in overall lead. That is a flaw; that is a weakness. I hope and trust that the

159
Department of the Environment will ensure that the proposed legislation referred to in the gracious Speech, to make better provision for housing, will have a relevance to the long-term housing needs of young people leaving care, whether they are to be met by local authorities or housing associations. If we can be assured by the noble Baroness in her reply that the Bill will provide for that need, that will give at least a gleam of comfort. I am advised that much more is required. I sincerely hope that we do not go through this Session without positive initiatives being made on the other relevant issues.
I end as I began, with another nation or province which makes up the United Kingdom. I regret that not a single word was said in the gracious Speech about Wales or its problems. I believe that in itself is further evidence, if evidence is required, of how remote the Government have become from the Welsh scene and the urgency of Welsh problems. The Minister will know that there is a spectacular row at the moment about the unwillingness of the Home Office to listen to Welsh opinion on a particular matter. I have no doubt that that indifference will help to bring about the overdue constitutional changes which are necessary. But that is an issue for another gracious Speech in the not too distant future.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney, on his fascinating maiden speech. I hope that we hear from him often in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, touched on a subject which I shall develop in relation to another part of the United Kingdom. There is little in the gracious Speech that specifically relates to Scotland. However, the Education Bill intends to expand the nursery voucher scheme. That scheme may work, but only if there are sufficient nursery places available, and there are certainly not, especially in many of Scotland's rural areas. Surely such educational provision must be investment-led by the Government rather than relying upon private enterprise. The Education Bill also aims to amalgamate the academic and vocational award bodies into a Scottish qualifications authority. I hope that that will end the confusion felt by many people in regard to the status of specific education awards.
What was more interesting about the plans for Scotland came from announcements made recently by the Prime Minister and the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal. Following the success of the standing committee for the Children (Scotland) Bill, which took evidence in Scotland, and also the success of taking the Committee stage of that Bill off the Floor of the House, the noble Viscount said that the use of such processes would be extended. He envisaged the possibility of a Lords' standing committee taking evidence in Scotland.
Last week the Prime Minister said that he now acknowledges that the Scottish people feel remote from the Westminster Parliament. The proposal is that the Scottish Grand Committee will hold debates on non-contentious Bills and issues at several venues in
160
Scotland. That will certainly make the British Parliament more accessible. However, watching our 61 opposition MPs being dominated by 11 government MPs on a regular basis may end up being similar to being made to watch video recordings of every defeat in sporting history.
The Prime Minister's second acknowledgement was that Scotland would survive on its own, but that Scotland and England would both be poorer as a result. I am surprised that he believes England would he poorer. For Scotland, that would initially be true, until the benefits of self-government took effect. It depends somewhat on the truth of the statistics that the tax taken from Scotland is £22 billion and the government spend is £28 billion. The unshackling of the Scottish economy from being an extremity of the British economy would be the key. Unfortunately, there was nothing about that in the gracious Speech.
The issues which are vital in Scotland revolve around the choices: do we reform the British Union or do we abandon it? There is substantial interest in the answer to that question. In particular, what incentives are there to stay in the Union? The Government will be wise to address that problem very soon. On St. Andrew's day, 30th November, the Scottish Constitutional Convention will be highlighting the cross-party plans for a devolved Parliament. It would supervise the work of the Scottish Office and its 15,000 civil servants. I believe that 60 per cent. of Scottish residents support these plans. This would be a democratic Parliament elected by the additional member system of proportional representation. There would be 73 constituency MPs and seven MPs from each of the eight Euro-constituencies.
The merits of the plan would be, first, that the Scottish Parliament would not be dominated by central West Scotland, which is my code word for Strathclyde; secondly, that the Government would have to secure 50 per cent. of the vote; thirdly, that it would be consensual rather than adversarial; and, fourthly, that legislation could be proposed both by the Government and by parliamentary committees. Now that the Prime Minister has acknowledged that Scotland would survive on its own, I hope that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party will come back into the Scottish political debate and perhaps even take its place, albeit belatedly, in the constitutional convention. Bringing forward such legislation in next year's Queen's Speech would certainly wrong-foot the Opposition and possibly make the British Union sustainable.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, perhaps I may for a moment or two repatriate this debate from Scotland and Wales to England. First, I should like to welcome most enthusiastically the reference in the gracious Speech to "Other measures, including other measures of law reform", which was a repetition from the speech of 1994. I should very much like also to welcome the expression of intention by the noble and learned Lord, which was endorsed, although a little conditionally perhaps, by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to

161
continue with the process of law reform using both the parliamentary route and what is known as the Jellicoe procedure. It is very good news that the noble and learned Lord is producing, or is allowing to be produced, three Bills, dealing with defamation, the law of trusts and the law of damages, for the next Session. That has to be looked at against the background that there are already 25 reports of the Law Commission awaiting implementation, 10 of which have received government approval. So there is still, even after this programme, plenty of room for action under one or other of the procedures. Nevertheless, so far, so good, and we must be grateful for what we have.
I do not propose to proceed with consideration of that programme. I am glad of it and certainly, so far as I and my noble friends are concerned, we shall do our best to see that it is implemented. I want very briefly to consider two rather different points. We have so far been dealing with law reform under the rubric of uncontroversial or technical measures suitable for rapid consideration. I do now suggest that the time has come, or at least is coming, when we have to look at a somewhat larger dimension, passing beyond the simple, technical measure to measures of major importance for the structure of our law.
Two of those are particularly urgent: first, a criminal code and, secondly, the law of landlord and tenant. As regards a criminal code, there is no doubt whatever that there is immense need for such a thing in English law. Reasons have been put before the public by the Law Commission in its paper 122 of 1992. English criminal law is, as everyone knows, complex and antiquated, an illogical mixture of common law and statute, and, worst of all, is inaccessible to the citizen. England is almost alone in not having a comprehensive code dealing with the criminal law. The Law Commission's position on this has received large support and hardly any opposition. The commission has gone even beyond this generality. In 1989 it produced what was virtually a draft of the whole of the criminal law of England, relating to indictable offences, in an accessible and comprehensible form. It went even further. It suggested a programme of rolling legislation under which a series of Bills dealing with identified areas of the law could be successively enacted and made up ultimately into a complete code. It has gone further than that. In its paper 218 it has produced a draft code dealing with offences against the person and general principles and offences. The paper received an enthusiastic welcome, this being an area of the law which is most particularly antiquated and full of absurd provisions. I need not elaborate upon that.
A similar case can be made for the law of landlord and tenant. That is an area which affects thousands of people in their daily lives. It is full of obscurities and difficulties. It has been covered in detail in the Law Commission's sixth programme, with recommendations for action. Again the case for comprehensive reform is undoubted and incontrovertible. But now we have the problem. Why do we not do it? What is always said to me when I raise the question is, "These are important measures of public policy. They must be introduced in
162
the House of Commons. They cannot go through the accelerated procedure and there is no time in the other place to deal with anything so controversial". I would say two things to that. First, the other place has shown itself very flexible in dealing with procedures and in getting legislation through. We are quite proud of the Jellicoe procedure but the House of Commons introduced the same idea many years before we brought it into operation and has been operating it quite successfully in relation to legislation of different kinds. It must not be assumed that its procedures are incapable of accommodating this reform.
But wider than that, even assuming that there are some difficulties, can we really accept in this day and age and for the indefinite future that a parliamentary system is incapable of enacting a measure so generally necessary as a criminal code? If Parliament cannot adapt itself to these procedures, Parliament must be changed. Surely we cannot rest content with a negative position of that kind. Of course, there is not much to be done in relation to the present Session. All the slots are pretty well filled. But I would most urgently invite, if I respectfully may, the managers on both sides of the House—there is no controversy about this issue on party lines—to get together, along with their colleagues in the other place, to see whether we cannot devise some procedure for taking on board these important and massive matters.
That is my first point. My second point is rather a different one. I was very sorry to see in the gracious Speech no mention of a Bill on arbitration. I have been urging that for a number of years and everyone knows it is very necessary. A good law on arbitration is of immense importance in this country. It is necessary for our traders and our financial people; it is necessary for our citizens; for example, in small disputes; it is necessary in our construction industry; it is necessary in many other contexts. A good arbitration system is a vital part of our whole system of justice. The noble and learned Lord has recognised that on a number of occasions.
In addition, it is necessary internationally, to persuade people to come to London to settle their disputes here. That will be a valuable export if it is done. All our competitors on the Continent have revised, or are in the course of revising, their arbitration law. Institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce are in the course of revising it or have revised it. We stand alone and we should not allow ourselves to be left behind. As everyone knows, the present law is a mess of partial Acts and decided cases, many of them, including some in this House, not at all satisfactory decisions.
What has been done? Excellent work has been done over the past years by the Department of Trade and Industry. It has consulted very widely and instructed a number of draftsmen and experts to produce a Bill. An excellent Bill has been put into draft. It is one of the best drafted Bills I have ever read; it is readable, sensible and up to date. If it were enacted, it would put us at the head of the arbitration law system. There is nothing controversial about it in any sense.

163
I understand that there is one point, which is not of fundamental importance, but on which some disagreement still exists. But that should not be allowed to hold up this very important Bill. Under the pressure of impending legislation, surely that particular point can be resolved. Nothing so concentrates people's minds as being told that their Bill is coming before Parliament in the next Session. If the difficulty is not settled outside Parliament it is perfectly capable of being settled inside Parliament. As your Lordships all know, we have in this House unrivalled resources in this particular field of the law. We have some of the greatest experts in relation to arbitration who can be found anywhere. Surely this Bill could be brought on here and any outstanding points rapidly disposed of.
I recognise of course that arbitration and this Bill are not the responsibility of the noble and learned Lord's department and neither are they that of the Home Office, with which we are dealing today. They are matters for the Department of Trade and Industry, whose day is Wednesday and not today, but I can speak only once in this debate and therefore I have had to take this opportunity of raising these matters today. I most urgently hope that the noble and learned Lord, with his influence, as a Member of the Cabinet, in relation to legislation, will use it to see that this Bill, which I do not believe will take up very much time, is fitted into some slot which surely will appear in the course of the next Session. Subject to that, I have very great pleasure in endorsing my welcome to the programme laid before the House by the noble and learned Lord.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it is unusual for governments to bring forward controversial moral issues at this stage of a Parliament. It is for that reason that I particularly welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to the reform of the laws governing divorce. We now have before your Lordships' House the Family Law Bill. Anyone who listened to my noble and learned friend this afternoon, or who heard him earlier, will know that he approaches this subject with a high regard for the sanctity of marriage from a Christian viewpoint. I feel quite certain that my noble and learned friend will give no support to any measure that made it easier to break the marriage bond. It is generally agreed that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory.
I particularly welcome in the new Bill the emphasis on reconciliation, on time for reflection and on the welfare of children. It is also very encouraging that this measure has received widespread support after a long period of consultation and that that support includes the Churches whose voice should be particularly listened to in a matter of this kind. I was very glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford warmly supporting the principle of the Bill in his speech earlier this afternoon.
May I now turn to another social affairs issue; that is, the National Health Service. I am profoundly relieved that there is no measure of reform of the structure or finance suggested for the National Health Service. I say that out of no disrespect to my noble
164
friend Lady Cumberlege, whose charm and mastery of her subject are very well known in this House, but simply because the present reforms need time to settle down. Time is needed to deal with some of the problems which still exist. I do not remember a year when somebody has not said that the health service is in chaos; that it is falling apart and that it is not up to the job. In my view the new reforms are working well despite some difficulties. The acid test of any reform in the National Health Service is the patient. The fact is that more patients are being treated than ever before and the waiting time for treatment is being reduced, particularly the long waits. That is a mark of progress under the new reforms and progress for the patient is what really matters.
Perhaps I may now turn to the social services and particularly social security, which was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Prentice. I am also glad that there is no major Bill on this subject in the gracious Speech. It is not surprising because my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish really earned his oats last Session. There was hardly a week when he was not promoting a Bill from the Government Front Bench. So in recent years, including the last Session, the Government have introduced major reforms, all designed to concentrate resources on those who need them most and to make savings wherever possible.
That process must continue. Indeed, there are signs of some consensus emerging in this field. I understand that the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in another place has asked his team to think the unthinkable. The Government have been thinking the unthinkable in this field for a good many years now. It is good to know that the Opposition may now be doing likewise because consensus in this field, particularly as regards pensions where policies are long term, would be highly desirable. I am probably expecting too much to believe that in a highly charged political field it will happen, but if there is a sign of consensus that is very much to be welcomed.
I now mention two major areas concerning the elderly where future reforms are needed. One was mentioned earlier by my noble friend Lord Prentice; it is the state pension. Nearly everyone who retires is entitled to the state pension. There is huge expenditure involved here and it grows relentlessly year by year. The money has to be found by those who are working and paying taxes. Are we asking future generations to bear too big a burden? My answer to that is, yes.
Another factor to take into account is that, fortunately, a growing number of people now retiring have, in addition to the state pension, an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension and income from other savings. Indeed, by some of the young we are described these days as "well off old folk" or "woofies". There is some truth in that position. So I ask: in the present circumstances do we really need a universal state pension or should we concentrate resources on those whose private means are inadequate? These are awkward questions and they cannot be dodged very much longer. My noble friend suggested a Royal Commission, but I have my doubts about that. Someone said some time ago that a Royal Commission takes

165
minutes and waits years. I believe that the problem is too urgent for that. In any case, any solution in this field is bound to be long term. We cannot disregard the legitimate expectations which people have and which the state is pledged to honour.
Perhaps I may refer to one other aspect concerning the elderly; namely, the cost of accommodation and nursing in residential and nursing homes. Here we have a great contrast. In the National Health Service there are long-stay wards for the elderly. They obtain their accommodation and medical treatment free. However, if they are in old people's homes or nursing homes (whether in the public or private sector), they have to pay if their resources allow. Unless people have made adequate provision previously, they are bound to ask themselves, "Can I afford it? What will happen if my savings run out?" We have all heard those anguished questions which cause so much anxiety to old people and their relatives. Indeed, we must not forget the relatives because it is no good getting rid of inheritance tax if there is going to be nothing to inherit.
I hope that the Government will find ways of giving greater incentives to people to save and insure for the residential accommodation which many of them will need in the evening of their lives. That, too, is long term and help cannot be given overnight, but I hope that in next week's Budget some modest steps will be taken to deal with this growing problem.
For the more immediate future, I hope that the Government will consider giving some help for at least the nursing element of residential home costs. They could seek to equalise the situation to some degree with regard to the treatment that is provided in the National Health Service. I realise that I am making a plea for extra expenditure. It was for that reason that I emphasised earlier the need to continue, wherever possible, to find economies within the system.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I suppose that all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today may be at risk of missing something else that is to appear on television. I suspect that we are the only volunteers in the country to do that.
I shall deal exclusively with the issue of asylum and immigration. It is with some sadness, anger and shame that I view the proposed legislation which has been revealed in the gracious Speech and referred to today by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I must at once declare my interest as chairman of the Refugee Council, for which I have worked for several years with my noble friend Lord Dubs, its executive director. I am proud of what the Refugee Council does. It is a respected, responsible and independent non-governmental organisation, working closely for and with refugees, seeking to address their manifold problems and to integrate them into our society.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that neither the Refugee Council nor any sensible person is in favour of perpetuating clear abuses which adversely affect the rights of genuine asylum seekers, but we are profoundly
166
disturbed at the creation of a presumption that asylum seekers (or the overwhelming majority of them) are bogus and that they look to Britain as a "soft touch". I regret that that is almost what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said today. I believe that that is not true. I also believe that it fosters a climate in this country that is destructive of civilised standards.
Yet that was the message that was given at the Conservative Party Conference this year in the deliberately inflammatory speech of the Home Secretary, only to be outflanked by the even more odious speech of the Secretary of State for Defence. Incidentally, both are children of refugees—and I speak as the grandchild of refugees from Russia and Poland over 100 years ago. Other Members of your Lordships' House are in a similar position. One has to wonder whether those parents, grandparents or more distant forebears would have satisfied today's stringent Home Office-enforced rules. Some might have been dubbed "economic migrants". Both Ministers indulged in simplistic devices to deal with substantial issues. It is no small wonder that it is rumoured in the Home Office among the mandarins that they are thinking of establishing a new committee to deal with the Home Secretary's follies—"The Penal League for Howard Reform".
So, we are to have another crackdown on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants and a "white list" of allegedly safe countries from which, in effect, asylum will hardly be possible. Employers and others will he recruited as informers—coppers' narks—to check on their staff or face fines. As from 8th January next year, 40,000 people claiming asylum after entering the United Kingdom or who may be appealing against the rejection of their claims will have all rights to benefit removed. They will have to beg or to starve.
As the noble and learned Lord said at the beginning of this debate, over the ages this country has had an honourable record of offering haven to the oppressed. By their very circumstances asylum seekers are vulnerable people, often subjected to torture and inhumane abuse. On arrival they are often exhausted, disorientated, frightened and desperate for refuge. When information is demanded of them by the immigration officials, they are not always capable of clear, concise, calm explanations of what has happened to them. The risks of error about their status by immigration authorities are very real. Errors have occurred—and the consequences can be horrendous for those people if they are restored to the country from which they have been seeking refuge. Indeed, that is why the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees was drafted. It imposes clear obligations on governments to assess each asylum application on its merits. Accordingly there must be deep concern about "white lists". A presumption that certain countries do not practise persecution can well be in conflict with the requirement for individual assessment.
That is why I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate a number of questions of which I have given notice. What basis is there in international law for the so-called "white list" that is proposed? I say "international law" because I am not speaking of some

167
secret device organised by members of the European Union which is not the subject of any parliamentary scrutiny. To which countries did the Home Secretary refer in his Statement as,
"generating large numbers of asylum applications but hardly as genuine refugees"?
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question.
However, I am not worried only by the talk about a proposed white list; the fact is that that white list is already being applied without any parliamentary approval or scrutiny. The Home Secretary says that Nigeria was never included on his white list, but a Home Office report which was sent to immigration officers dealing with Nigerian asylum seekers after the seizure of power by the generals described Nigeria as a country where "rights are generally respected" and "unfair trials" against racial, religious or political opponents of the regime are unknown. I stress the word "unknown" because that was said after what happened not only in the past few days but in the entire period since that miserable regime came to power. In that time four Nigerians have been given refugee status and a further 15 have been permitted to stay on compassionate grounds while more than 3,500 Nigerians have been refused asylum. Does not that cause some questions to arise about the application of the rules by the Home Secretary and his officials? There has been a huge increase in—I suppose the Government would say—bogus applications from Nigeria, or perhaps what is much more likely is that there has been a huge increase in bogus rejections.
We now face the prospect that thousands of Nigerians awaiting decisions on their applications will lose any entitlement to social security benefit in a few weeks' time. The question—again I have given the Minister notice of this—is: is the Home Secretary prepared to declare Nigeria to be "a country in upheaval", which gives him discretionary powers to enable Nigerian asylum seekers to claim benefits and not to be forced into starvation? That is a question to which I hope the Minister will give us an answer tonight.
I wish to talk next about the in-country oral right of appeal—all part of the speeding up of the appeals process. Are the Government proposing to repeal an asylum seeker's oral right of appeal against refusal of his application? That right was introduced into the 1993 Act, and I remember participating in the debates then. I do not think that it was done with more than reluctance by the Government. Nevertheless, it was a right afforded. Is it now to be abandoned two years later? If so, why?
The real problem seems to be the length of the appeal procedure. That does not justify the withdrawal of a basic right to provide an asylum seeker with effective legal representation or even his ability to have a right of audience. I agree with the UNHCR, which said in November 1994:
"The more accelerated a procedure, the higher the risk that an erroneous decision will be taken".
Do the Government accept that?
168
I understand that there is the possibility of the introduction of more visa requirements. Already airlines are treated as unofficial immigration officials, and £62 million in fines has been imposed since 1987. It is a matter which has caused some of your Lordships considerable concern. They carry the can if people are found with forged or no proper documents. The Government have never seemed to appreciate the difficulty genuine asylum seekers face in acquiring these documents. They said, for example, that no Bosnian could travel to Britain—this was in November 1992—without a visa, when there was no British Embassy available from which they could acquire a visa. So is it true that more stringent visa requirements are now to be imposed?
I come to the issue of internal checks by employers, who will run the risk of serious fines if they do not comply with the new arrangements. Another group of quasi-immigration officials is to be set up. It is no small wonder that employers, some Conservative MPs and even some Ministers do not like the idea. The Institute of Directors and the CBI claim this to be, "an unacceptable burden on business". What about all the assertions we had from the Government in the last Session of Parliament about removing burdens on business as a result of the deregulation legislation? Yet here we have another major burden.
Business interests claim:
"fewer people from ethnic minorities will be taken on".
Mr. Tim Melville-Ross of the Institute of Directors has said:
"business should not be forced to adopt the role of policemen by government abdicating its responsibility and imposing more burdens on business".
Adair Turner, the new Director General of the CBI, says:
"It will undermine employers' commitment to implement equal opportunity policy".
Then, the Minister's own colleague, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, to her great credit, has argued strongly that the Home Secretary's proposals would discourage employers from recruiting ethnic minority staff because companies would concentrate checks on black or Asian workers, or even exclude them from the possibility of employment—ironically of course causing them to become more and more dependent on social security. These issues do not seem to have been dealt with properly, or at all, by Mr. Howard.
So we have a new era for coppers' narks. It is compounded by the fact that information regarding asylum seekers, hitherto privileged, seems to be passed from one department of state to another, with checks on people seeking social security benefits, council housing and school places for their children. Is that morally or legally justifiable?
There are to be the changes to social security benefits for asylum seekers which have been announced. Benefits are already paid to asylum seekers at a lower rate than to other claimants. From 8th January, benefits will no longer be provided to asylum seekers, exercising their right of appeal in-country against a negative decision: 70 per cent. of asylum seekers make their

169
applications in this country. So the Government seem to be suggesting that genuine asylum applications must be made at the port of entry. Is that right?
The Refugee Council denies that most asylum seekers claim asylum at the end of their extended leave to remain in this country just to stay here. We have undertaken considerable research into that matter—I believe the Government are aware of it—and 81 per cent. of in-country applicants apply for asylum within seven days of arriving in this country. That seems to be at odds with what the Government are saying.
Already, asylum seekers have few financial means of support available to them. They face huge problems simply to survive within that first six months, and after that period many other problems arise particularly over employment. These are exacerbated for the disabled, the elderly and others among them who experience even greater difficulties. Will the Government make any exception for those especially vulnerable groups? That is another question I put to the Minister. How, if 13,000—perhaps many more—plus their dependants are to lose all benefits, are they expected to survive?
It is because there are so many doubts about the Government's proposals, and the facts upon which they are based, that the Government should reconsider, as my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg said at the beginning of the debate, their refusal to agree to the proposal of Tony Blair, the Leader of the Opposition, to refer the whole issue to a pre-legislative Special Standing Committee, capable of calling evidence and investigating how the problems that we face compare with other European countries which seem to have taken a much greater burden in the past, proportionately and otherwise. What is the scale of the problem of employers taking on illegal workers? How many people work illegally here? How many are claiming benefit? These matters can be considered together with all the other questions that I have asked during the course of my remarks. The response is important if the Government want to rebut the claim that their proposals amount to playing the racist card. Of course the Home Secretary denies that. He denied it on the radio this morning. He is not likely anyway to admit that he is playing a racist card. The real test is what will happen to these people. It was a Conservative research director (now a Conservative candidate) who said:
"Immigration, an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 Euro-elections campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt".
That is what he said, so how is that consistent with the claim made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, and the Home Secretary, that this Government have always attached the very greatest priority to preserving good race relations in this country? It has not always happened. That was the impression clearly gained, not just by the Labour Party, but by many others. Let me just quote this passage from the Financial Times of 26th October of this year:
"The procedures could be speeded up if more resources were devoted to them, but natural justice would require, by way of quid pro quo, that the applications be more sympathetically examined in
170
the first place. Unhappily, Mr. Howard's policies have little to do with natural justice, and everything to do with setting an electoral trap for the opposition".
"An electoral trap"—almost the precise words of the Chairman of the Conservative Party, Dr. Brian Mawhinney.
While the Home Secretary was away somewhere else the Prime Minister appeared to be impressed with the idea of the Special Standing Committee. With the return of the Home Secretary, he seemed to change his mind. They say that the proposals are controversial and that the Select Committee idea is for uncontroversial legislation. With respect, that seems to give the whole game away. Surely it is all the more reason for seeing whether, in dealing with alleged abuses and working out rational solutions to a deeply perplexing issue, we can maximise consensus and not deepen the divide. I believe that that is the right approach and I beg the Government to think again about their rejection of what was a constructive and sensible policy to take this issue out of the realm of party politics.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, the gracious Speech states:
"My Government will introduce legislation to reform the law governing divorce and other aspects of family law".
The decline of the traditional family and family values is disturbing, to say the least. The illegitimacy rate has escalated from being a little over 8 per cent. in 1971 to now well over 30 per cent. The sheer numbers of children born in one-parent families has more than doubled over 20 years. Lone mothers have been having more children while married couples have been having fewer.
If the Government are really concerned about the problems of law and order and child abuse they must end the policies that encourage the one-parent family and introduce others that build up and support the traditional family. This obviously has implications for the taxation and benefits system, council housing policy and, of course, divorce reform. Unless the Government are prepared to confront the threat which the collapse of the traditional family presents to the nation the problems will continue to escalate.
I turn to the Family Law Bill and I speak in particular about Parts I and II which relate to divorce reform. It will deprive the innocent of justice and the long-term consequences are very serious indeed. As was stated in the Observer on 7th May 1995:
"The abolition of fault will virtually kill marriage as a concept with any legal meaning. Fault implies responsibility. Abolishing fault effectively declares that the breakdown of the marriage is no-one's responsibility. Moreover, eradicating failure to meet marital obligations eradicates the obligations themselves. Duties such as staying together, being faithful to each other, and treating each other reasonably, exist in law only by virtue of the fault that accrues to desertion, adultery or unreasonable behaviour".
In Christian theology no-fault divorce is unknown. When the Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason. His reply was an emphatic, no. That shocked even His

171
own disciples. They were stunned into concluding that if that was the situation between husband and wife it was better not to marry.
Abolishing fault means legislating sin out of existence. An adulterer will no longer have his or her conduct regarded as reprehensible. And a husband who beats his wife would not be held responsible for his actions. Battered women often say how important it is to them for the court to declare that their husband was at fault. The essence of no-fault divorce is that it removes a notion that has always been central to the concept of marriage; that somebody has to do something wrong before it can be ended. This notion of blame is just what the liberal reformers wish to dismantle. Why, they ask, should people involved in the most personal of all relationships have to accuse one another publicly of some misdeed before they can part? After all, it may not be a question of one wrongdoer and one wronged. A marriage may simply "not work out", as they say. Why force people to pretend that some sort of a crime was committed when really it was nobody's fault, just a sad mistake?
All that is perfectly plausible as a psychological account of private sexual relations. But what it loses sight of completely, and no doubt deliberately, is what makes marriage different from other relationships. To marry is to make a public commitment not merely to one other person but to a wider set of relationships; to extended families and to future generations. It is an acceptance that one's private life has a role in a greater social continuity. That is why one needs a moral justification for breaking up a marriage. It is the crucial intersection between personal life and civic responsibility. Indeed, the legal force of marriage is what binds private relationships into a society.
The effect of the Government's proposals is to treat marriage as little more than living together on a short-term contract. A partner will be able to announce that he or she no longer wishes to be married without being required to give any reason why. That will significantly weaken marriage as an institution and increase the number of those seeking divorce instead of couples weathering the inevitable difficulties which are always experienced in marriage.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for explaining to the House the relationship between mediation and reconciliation. It is mediation on which the Bill focuses and I suggest that it is reconciliation on which it should focus.
England and Wales already have the highest divorce rates in Europe; some 40 per cent. of all marriages. In Britain today 25 per cent. of all children experience their parents' divorce before they are aged 16. In the two years after the previous Divorce Reform Act came into force in 1969 the divorce rate doubled. The figures rose steadily to hit a new peak of 165,000 in 1993. Would it not now make sense for the Government to invest in marriage with an overtly pro-family policy? As it is, we are spending billions of pounds dealing with the results of family breakdown, quite apart from the human misery that is inevitably caused.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wish to spend a few moments on a matter which is not directly dealt with in the gracious Speech but of which I have given my noble friend the Minister notice. I believe that it is related to the gracious Speech. It is the urgent need for national identity cards. It is relevant in particular to two issues with are in the gracious Speech. The first is the reference to the fight against terrorism, organised crime, drug misuse and trafficking. The second is the proposal to streamline further the handling of asylum applications and to strengthen the enforcement of immigration control.
A great deal of progress has been made in the Government's attitude to identity cards since we last discussed the matter in your Lordships' House in July 1993 and February 1994. In May this year the Government produced an excellent Green Paper on identity cards. I strongly recommend those of your Lordships who have not read it to do so. It is one of the better documents to come out of the Home Office. The consultation period on the Green Paper finished at the end of September. In the Green Paper, the Government stated that the time had come for a full debate.
The history of identity cards in this country has been superficial. During the First World War there was a form of identity register. During the Second World War a primitive form of identity card existed. It was abandoned in 1952 at a time when it was seen as necessary to have a bonfire of controls, although in those days the identity card system was not particularly effective.
However, things have moved on in a big way since then. My noble friends, and even some noble Lords opposite, may agree with me that the central role of the state is to protect society and individuals in society from exploitation, abuse or ill-treatment as individuals, whether that be as employees, consumers, investors, taxpayers, who are very important, and certainly not least important, those individuals who go about their legitimate business should be protected from crime.
In the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, at present we are a soft touch in Europe in many respects. Of the 15 members of the European Community, 11 already have an identity card system and of the four which do not—the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark and Sweden—Denmark and Sweden have a system whereby one has a personal identification number at birth which is a crucial element of an identity card.
The benefits of identity cards are fairly obvious and have been well rehearsed. I shall refer briefly to one or two of them. They will probably replace not only a mass of cards but a mass of numbers which we all have. The old identity card number from wartime is given to us at birth in the form of a national health number. We later have a national insurance number, a driving licence number, and so on. An identity card system would mean that it would not be necessary to have more than one number.
It would be of great benefit in the sphere of travel. It would be a legitimate travel document in all the countries of the EU all of which already recognise identity cards as travel documents. It would he a great mistake to have a "cheapo" form of identity card as a

173
travel document because, as my noble friend knows only too well, the Government have been forced, rather humiliatingly, to withdraw the 'British visitors' passport' because it was seen as a fairly feeble document and proved to be increasingly unacceptable. I believe that that document is being phased out from the end of this year.
An identity document is also useful as a proof of age whether it be for a young person who wishes to buy, for example, alcohol, or for elderly people. I discovered that when I reached the age of 60, I was entitled to buy cheap tickets at a number of theatres. I am rather hurt that I never seem to get asked for proof of age!
An identity card is of value in the medical sphere. I believe that an identity card would be valuable if it showed one's blood group and other crucial medical information although that should not be discernible to anyone not authorised to receive it. Clearly it is valuable in the banking and commercial world. There is an enormous amount of credit card fraud which could be prevented by the use of an identity card system.
At the moment the Government are—and I think it is a mistake—introducing photo driving licences. Identity cards would make such a measure completely unnecessary because a separate driving licence would not be needed. One would merely need to have "DL" printed on the identity card. If the police stopped a suspect, they would know immediately whether someone had "DL" printed on his card by checking with the computer. Anyone losing a driving licence would have to pay for the cost of replacing the card without "DL" written on it and, on regaining one's licence, one would have to pay for a licence with "DL" printed on it. At a stroke, that would eliminate the need for driving licences.
An identity card system would play a very real role in relation to immigration control. I suspect that it could make less onerous, less intrusive and less objectionable some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised as regards immigration if it were possible to have a clear indication of those people who were already citizens of this country.
The system would have an obvious value in relation to crime control. In 1993, the Association of Chief Police Officers recommended the adoption of voluntary identity cards. I spoke to some chief officers and they told me that they had recommended that it should be voluntary rather than compulsory because they thought that that would facilitate the introduction of the cards. The cards would play an obvious role in the prevention of terrorism. They would make it possible to screen large numbers of people.
My noble friend knows that I believe that, in administrative terms, prisons in this country are astonishingly badly run, particularly as regards knowing where prisoners are. An identity card system would help to alleviate some of the problems. The prison service still does not have a proper computerised system of its inhabitants. There is no attempt to link the inhabitants of Scottish and English prisons. If the police wish to know whether somebody is in prison or where he is, it
174
takes quite a long time to ascertain that information. There have been a number of reports on the prison service and that problem has been highlighted for years but still there is no central administrative system such as that which any commercial organisation has. Therefore, I am rather critical of the administration of the prison service in terms of its domestic housekeeping.
Since identity cards were abolished in 1952, technology has moved on and it is possible to have much more sophisticated cards at a remarkably low cost. It would not be possible to forge the cards easily and the information which they contain can be kept closely guarded. The understandable fears which are expressed by civil liberties groups can now be met. In general—and of course there are exceptions—computer-held information is much more secure than paper-held information. It is relatively rare and needs a lot of effort—although sometimes that effort is made with success—to penetrate computer systems. And of course, all the time technology for security of computer-held information is increasing.
The total cost of introducing the identity cards is estimated by the Government to be some £600 million. My noble friend Lord Prentice referred to social security costs and I think he said that they are £15 per head per day in this country. One has to think only of the present amount of social security abuse to realise that that £600 million would be repaid very quickly indeed. Therefore, we are talking about something of which the cost is infinitesimal when compared with the likely benefits to be drawn from it.
I hope that the Government will not go forward in tactical half-way stages. I believe that it is a mistake to introduce photo driving licences. I am glad that the Government did not introduce the crazy system, for which they legislated, of identity cards for football supporters. That was not put into effect although I believe that it is still on the statute book.
Identity cards are a great equaliser. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would have exactly the same identity card as the humblest citizen in the land. Therefore, there is nothing which is in any sense discriminatory about identity cards.
When I mentioned to one of my noble friends that I was proposing to raise this matter, he told me that Ministers are divided on the issue. I fear that they are divided on many matters and they may not have much longer to become united on them. I hope that they will become united. Certainly public opinion appears to be in favour of identity cards. Research carried out shows that 75 per cent. are strongly in favour. Identity cards would represent sensible government and the agenda for the rest of this Parliament should be for sensible government. There is much sensible government in the gracious Speech but the introduction of identity cards is missing from it. But luckily there is that little phrase at the end:
"Other measures … will be laid before you".
5.50 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I had hoped not to intrude on your Lordships deliberations during

175
this Session or, indeed, subsequently. But as I am convinced that the proposals as to divorce would imperil seriously a central pillar of our society, and as I am convinced that they pose grave injustices to many people, especially to married women, and threaten the welfare of tens of thousands of children, I have felt that, if I refrain from speaking, I would be untrue to the Summons which brought me to your Lordships' House.
It is proposed that what shall go under the name of marriage will be an arrangement that two people shall live together until either of them gives one year's notice of its termination, whereupon the arrangement will determine at the end of that period irrespective of the interests of the other spouse or of the children. That seems to be the fundamental question in the measure which is to be put before the House. Indeed, it is more fundamental and more important than the various other ways that it has been approached during today's debate.
So far as I can see, in the White Paper the Lord Chancellor's department has arrived at that astonishing proposition in four steps. First, the present law is most unsatisfactory; secondly, the present law still embodies some element of investigation of fault and that exacerbates the unravelling of the situation which is attendant on divorce; thirdly, there is a scheme for mediation and conciliation which is to be welcomed and, indeed, it has been generally welcomed; and, fourthly, it ends the scheme of the quickie divorce which has been found to run counter to general interests and to the expectations of 1969. Each of those steps demands some scrutiny in turn. I do not believe that there will be time today to investigate all of them in depth. However, I may perhaps return to those that I do not deal with next week.
However, I should like to deal first with what your Lordships may believe to be the most cogent part of the White Paper— namely, that the present law is seriously defective. It is set out at length in Chapter 2 of the document under several headings which say that under the present law:
"Divorce can be obtained without proper consideration of the consequences and implications".
Secondly:
"The system makes things worse for the children".
Thirdly— and I should like to emphasise this:
"The system is unjust".
Fourthly:
"The system is confusing, misleading and open to abuse … [and] The system is discriminatory".
Finally, the document says:
"The system distorts parties' bargaining position".
I believe that few would gainsay that indictment. However, there are a number of extraordinary aspects about it. The first is that those were the arguments which were advanced against the 1969 Act which is now consolidated as the 1973 Act. They were the arguments of Lord Hodson (the most experienced matrimonial judge in the land) and of Lady Summerskill who were alert to the threat that the proposals posed to the welfare of married women. In the other place they were the
176
arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and by the late Sir Lionel Heald, a former Attorney-General.
However, there is no recognition in the White Paper that those were the arguments which were advanced at the time; nor is there any recognition that the system with those faults was the creation of the Lord Chancellor's department which is now advancing the White Paper. The Divorce Reform Act 1969 was, on the face of it, a Private Member's Bill, but it was drafted in the Lord Chancellor's Department and handed to the private Member. Moreover, the whole weight of the Government was put behind its implementation, so much so that, in order to facilitate its passage through the House of Commons, it was arranged that the House should sit in the morning so that the supporters of the Bill (who at that time were in the majority) could come in at one o'clock for lunch and vote the clause under discussion into the Bill. That was the extreme that the Lord Chancellor's Department went to and it is that department which now advances the defects of the measure as a ground for proceeding further along the path to divorce on the hoof: divorce on demand.
In his thoughtful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, quoted some statistics; indeed, they are important. It is only by looking back to see what has happened in consequence of 1969 and 1973 that we may hesitate from going further down the same road as we are now invited to do. In 1970, before the Bill came into effect, there were 61,000 decrees nisi of divorce, while in 1994 (which gives the latest figure) there were 154,241. That is an increase of two-and-a-half times. However, one should also look particularly at the position as regards children. In 1970, the figure regarding children under the age of 16 was 71,000, but in 1993 (the last date for which figures are obtainable) the figure was 176,000. Every one of those figures is cumulative— the figure of 176,000 is to be added to that of the other children under 16 who are the children of divorces from previous years.
We see an astonishing increase in the incidence of divorce which affects children. Another interesting figure is the number of marriages. In 1970 415,000 marriages took place; in 1993 there were fewer than 300,000. In other words, there was a steady falling off in the rate of marriage which was commensurate with the increase in divorces. That is not surprising because as society becomes more and more divorce minded and more ready to have recourse to divorce— as the figures show— it comes to value marriage less and less.
There are other figures in the same schedule of the population statistics which show that the number of single parent families has increased together with the increase in the divorce rate. As regards the rate of illegitimacy— children born outside marriage— one assurance that was given was that if one withheld divorce people would simply live together in irregular unions, and by giving them the right to divorce one would mitigate the tendency to irregular unions and would limit the quantity of illegitimacy. That argument, too, has been falsified.?

177
The second odd thing that the White Paper does not indicate in dealing with the previous law is that every time divorce is made easier there is not only an initial surge in the rate of divorce but it goes on and on increasing year after year. Again, that is not surprising because divorce constitutes not merely a right to live separately but a right to remarry. It is the right to remarry which is frequently the incentive to divorce. That is why divorce tends to be cumulative.
I wish to emphasise the issue of children. I wish to quote a short passage from a speech made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when we debated the Law Commission Report on 31st January 1991. He said,
"Research work has shown that there is a significant excess in the signs of emotional disruption among children of broken families, not just in the short term but, apparently, on into adolescence and even adulthood. The research points to increased delinquency, increased ill health and a greater likelihood of divorce in spouses who themselves were the children of broken homes".— [Official Report, 31/1/91; col. 800]
That is absolutely true. That is the true result of the research that was carried out at Cambridge and at Exeter. It is misstated in the White Paper; it was truly stated by my noble and learned friend on that occasion. What we are doing and what we have done is to condemn more and more children to what my noble and learned friend has described. That being so, are we really going on in the same direction? Those who have advocated easier and easier divorce over the years have always had the objective that, ultimately, a divorce would be merely registered in a registry office. That was done in the early years of the Russian Revolution under the radical thinking that led to the revolution. However, there was a rapid retreat from that when it was seen how disastrous that was. So much for the first head, that the present law is unsatisfactory. So it is. We want to get rid of it and the Bill gives us a chance to get rid of it. However, there is no need to go further on the same road.
I wish to make one other remark about the present law; namely, that it is humbug and it is now recognised as humbug. It pretends to be based on breakdown of marriage but it is no such thing because Section 1(2) of the 1973 Act sets out five facts which are exclusive proof of breakdown. Any one of them is a conclusive proof of breakdown. In other words, there are five grounds for divorce and the pretence of breakdown was so much eyewash. We were told at the time that it was a "kiss and make up" Bill. After the figures to which the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, referred, and which I have ventured to supplement, is that not a cruel joke— a "kiss and make up" Bill— and are we again now to be sloganised by the phrase "a cooling off period"? In my respectful submission, if one looks at the present law, not only is it unsatisfactory and should be repealed, but it also indicates that one should not go further down the same road.
I wish to say a few words about the question of fault. One can only get rid of the concept of fault in the law at the price of depriving the law of its moral content. We are told on the basis of the highest ethical code that
178
we should love our neighbours as ourselves. However, the law cannot do that and does not pretend to make people love each other. What it can and does do is to insist that they will not harm each other. It then investigates the cause of harm and either takes penal action or action by way of civil remedy to make good the harm that has been done. That is particularly true in the case of the divorce law.
It would be grossly unjust to deprive a woman who had gone through labour, the dragging fatigue of bearing children and the nausea and agony of parturition, and who had put up with the difficult early years of marriage, the pennypinching and so on, and say that she can be cast off irrespective of her having performed substantially all that could be required of her as a wife, and indeed— taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree— deprived of her pension. That is a matter to which we shall certainly wish to return.
In any case, the proposal does not really get rid of fault, it merely postpones its investigation. At the stage of mediation the parties are told that they must face their own faults. Under Section 25 of the 1973 Consolidation Act the courts, in considering property adjustment orders and financial orders, are enjoined to look at conduct. Therefore it is a mere pretence that one is getting rid of the concept of investigating fault. All one is doing is postponing it.
I have gone on for longer than I intended, and I do not have time to deal with the other two matters. However, I should like to trespass a few minutes more on your Lordships' patience, because it is not enough for those who believe in the family as a fundamental institution of society and a source of domestic felicity to say that the proposals laid before your Lordships are unacceptable. There is a great deal that is positive that can be done to foster the family and to sustain the institution of marriage. A well-trodden path is the married couple's income tax allowance. We can only hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find the resources to enable him to restore the value of that allowance.
There is another possibility which has not been canvassed. At present we have one death duty— the inheritance tax— but we could perfectly well revert to taxing the estate in the hands of the recipient, taxing it more lightly in the hands of children than in the hands of strangers.
There are also a number of other matters that lie firmly within the compass of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The first is the married woman's right in the matrimonial home. It is strange that we are now in the position whereby a woman is much better off if she secures a divorce than if she stands by her marriage. The Law Commission addressed the subject in an important paper published in the early 1970s entitled Matrimonial Property: A New Approach. It bears the sign of the thinking of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman. It proposed three measures. At the instance of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, then Lord Chancellor, I took up the first and it passed into law. That completed the work of Lady Summerskill as to rights of occupation in the matrimonial home.

179
More important is the right to co-ownership of the matrimonial home and its chattels. The Law Commission drafted two Bills to cover those aspects. A number of antipodean jurisdictions have adopted those regimes and there is no reason why we should not. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to the importance of implementing the Law Commission reports. The Law Commission reports have been accumulating dust for well over a decade since my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman left the Law Commission and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham the Lord Chancellor's Woolsack.
I hope that there will be an opportunity to deal with these matters when we debate the Bill. I hope that we shall have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. The proposals have considerable electoral attraction. A general election in New Zealand was won on the matrimonial homes proposals, so the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, should not be too hasty in waving it aside when he replies.
There is both negative and positive action which we can take if we truly wish to do nothing that will harm the family as an institution and its integrity but wish, on the contrary, to foster it. I hope that the Bill will give us an opportunity to do so.
Finally, those who rely on the mediation and the "quickie" divorce provisions for their support of the Bill must say why those two measures depend on the divorce proposals and why we cannot have them without having divorce on demand of a person who has disrupted the marriage as is now proposed.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for explaining the Bill which figures in the gracious Speech. I listened with interest to the survey of the history of divorce law by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. In 1968 I attended a weekend conference held at All Soul's College, at which the recommendations of the Bishop of Exeter for the reform of divorce law in respect of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage were considered.
I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord supports the present Bill, but I imagine that he seeks to alter it greatly. I approve of the Bill and I support it. Why do I support the Bill? During my working life I have dealt with divorcing parents and their children. As a servant of the courts I have had to attend courts and give evidence.
It is thought by some that the proposals in the Family Law Bill will make divorce easier. I submit that that is not so, as set out in the White Paper, Looking to the Future— Mediation and the Grounds for Divorce. Furthermore, the Bill will in part minimise the acrimony engendered as between parents by the adversarial system, which obviously affects children as well. I have to say as regards the adversarial system that when cases come to court it has a great effect on children because the parents' feelings affect their children greatly.
180
Some people have denigrated the Family Mediation Service which helps parents to mediate the conditions of their divorce before presenting the arrangements to a judge. I have to declare an interest. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, I am a patron of the Family Mediation Service. Furthermore, I am the president of the Oxford Mediation Service; a judge is the chairman and at the annual general meeting this year other interested judges were present supporting the local mediation service. The principal mediator in Oxford is a probation officer, well qualified and with further qualifications in regard to legal training. The Mothers' Union, which supports marriage, family life and the care of children, supports this Bill, as do the NSPCC and all the voluntary and statutory agencies which deal with children.
On the Family Home and Domestic Violence Bill, anyone who has had to remove a child from his or her home can appreciate the harm done to that child. This was shown in the Orkney affair. A child who has been abused or ill treated, a child of a single parent family or a child of an unstable relationship is clearly at a disadvantage, and if the child is removed from his or her home, the child suffers yet again through no fault of his or her own. It is right that we should support this section of the Bill. Are we really upholding the concept of marriage by damaging children?
In the gracious Speech it is stated:
"Measures have been taken to ensure that the public sector borrowing requirement is brought back towards balance over the medium-term."
It is appreciated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeks to set the nation's finances along the right lines. However, I would suggest that our legislation and administration at both central and local government levels are fragmented, overlapping and, as a consequence, wasteful of resources. The attitude and policies of the Home Office are at variance with those of the Department of Health. The non-school attendance and exclusion from schools provisions affect the juvenile delinquency rate and the welfare of children. The closing down of youth clubs due to lack of resources is again affecting the juvenile crime rate among young people; it also affects their well-being.
There is a court procedure which was set up by the Home Office, and I would suggest that it would have been better had that section been dealt with by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Indeed I go further. I wish that there could be a Ministry of Justice under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps then we might have the implementation of the Pigot Report, which is supported by organisations like the NSPCC.
There is a further divergence, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me because she has been extraordinarily kind in explaining it to me. But we now find that the training of probation officers is going in one direction, leading to no formal qualification, although it does involve some training. Social workers are going in another direction under the Department of Health, and here a three-year degree course is called for. Indeed, some universities have already started a three-year course, supported by Mr. Jeffrey Greenwood, chairman of the Council for

181
Education and Training in Social Work. In his presidential address Mr. Kubisa, the Director of Social Services for Cambridgeshire, recommended that a Royal Commission be set up to look into our fragmented social services. This is supported by the National Children's Bureau.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government might consider setting up some body. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, that there should be a Royal Commission. At this point may I also say that if social security were to be looked into, the problems mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, with regard to young people would in part be solved.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government might consider setting up an all-party Select Committee of the House of Lords to consider an overarching strategic policy at central and local government level with regard to policies and practice relating to parents and children. In this century we have had two outstanding committees. One was the Curtis Committee and the other was the Seebohm Committee. These two committees were well known to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and I believe that the time has come for a third committee.
6.26 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I should like to stress, in looking at the various Bills under consideration today, the importance of the human relationships running through them. I believe that as we draft and as we consider these Bills we need to look at the human and personal aspects that are involved. So far as the Family Law Bill is concerned, I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor point out again that its object is to strengthen marriage, which is of course a relationship of two people plus perhaps 2.4 children. On this point I quote:
"The institution of marriage is a divinely appointed arrangement fundamental to the well-being of our community".
That is not a quotation from the right reverend Prelate but from the Green Paper that preceded the White Paper. Marriage is meant to be a life-long commitment, and I believe that the proposal for this one year for reflection is a very strong and positive proposal towards strengthening marriage. I warmly welcome it, together with the abolition of the "quickie" divorce. There are a large number of divorcees who after five years state that they greatly regret having been divorced and I hope that this year for reflection will help to improve the situation.
I welcome the removal of the fault basis of divorce for a number of reasons. I came to this view reluctantly and for the reasons that were expressed by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne so eloquently earlier this afternoon. Speaking as a lawyer, I believe that it is very difficult in many cases to apportion fault; it is usually partially one and partially the other. I also believe that those for whom the divorce is relevant— surrounding families and friends— will actually be well aware of any fault basis without it being formally implemented and demonstrated in court.
182
There is another reason, which I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, touched on. But I am taking a slightly different line from his. It concerns cohabitation. He rightly pointed out the great increase in cohabitation today. I believe that the benefit of marriage over cohabitation flows from the greatly increased commitment that a man and woman give in marriage as opposed to what they give in cohabitation. Therefore, we need a balance in the divorce law in order to show that getting married is not too big a handicap when and if divorce is needed. I hope and believe that the new Bill will give us a worthwhile chance of getting that right balance so as to strengthen marriage and remove a major disincentive to cohabitation.
Touching on one other issue relating to the Family Law Bill, when I was employed I had to undergo a continuous training programme. I believe that that would be highly beneficial for married couples. At present, if you are married in church you may receive marriage training by a Church minister before you are married, but you will probably not receive any afterwards. I hope that any minister or registrar marrying a couple would encourage post-marriage training and support. There is a very good organisation spreading through the Church of England called FLAME which I strongly endorse. I should like to see it being used much more in the Church of England than at present. The HMSO publication produced earlier this year, called Looking to the Future, promised a widespread public information campaign to encourage those in marriage difficulty to seek appropriate help in good time. I do not believe that that campaign has yet materialised and perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could tell me when it will do so. I would warmly welcome the public information campaign.
I turn to the question of mediation in relation to the Bill. I am not clear where the question of reconciliation is promoted in the Bill, about which there has been a large amount of talk. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, clearly separated mediation from reconciliation, but I should like to see definite moves during the year of reflection for reconciliation, not just for a slick divorce.
The right reverend Prelate gave us some helpful figures from overseas on the benefit of reflection leading to reconciliation. I hope that we shall see it in this country as well; the reconciliation question is very important during the time of reflection. I should also like to emphasise that divorce as well as conflict is harmful to children. There is much in the White Paper on the harm caused by conflict between parents, but the divorce itself is very harmful to the family around the married couple. Perhaps I may quote from the studies carried out by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, in January this year. The document states:
"Most divorced people become financially worse off. In Britain 75% of lone parents receive income support from the State. As financial pressures bite, resentment increases, communication becomes strained and conflict flourishes".
That is so, even if there was little conflict in the divorce.
"These are just the kinds of conditions which undermine parenting abilities and cause the greatest difficulties for children.
"Children of divorced parents do indeed seem to be more vulnerable; they are more likely to get into trouble … to experience stress related illness and eventually to get divorced themselves".

183
I very much hope that the pressure to rein in the legal aid budget will not cause underfunding of either mediation or reconciliation services. I hope that there will be real encouragement to reflect; that remains more important than providing a smooth dissolution of the marriage.
Perhaps I may make a few comments on children, particularly in divorce proceedings. There is to be a conference in your Lordships' House on Wednesday entitled: What on earth are we doing to our Children? That is what some Members of this House and of another place consider important for an all-day conference, chaired by my noble friend Lady Faithful!. There is a charity of which I am a patron called "National Missing Persons Helpline". Of the thousands of missing people with whom the organisation is currently dealing, 15 per cent. are vulnerable people under the age of 18 and 50 per cent. are vulnerable people of all ages. The organisation's database helped to resolve problems with some of the alleged victims of Fred West, referred to in the newspapers recently. There is a great need for support of children.
I also wish to include a plea for children of other nations to be protected from sexual and other abuse by UK residents, through the reform of our law. I understand that a distinguished delegation from this House and another place is to see my right honourable friend the Secretary for State later this month. Other countries have shown that a law enforcing such protection can be brought about and I hope that we shall change our law to make such abuse a criminal offence here. I believe that the very fact of changing the law will serve as a deterrent to UK residents committing sexual abuse overseas.
I wish to make a few comments on the question of the criminal procedures Bill and related matters. I warmly welcome the power for the security services to give support in the fight against organised crime. The services have their own systems of intelligence and the power for those to become available in the fight against organised crime is definite progress.
Crime harms relationships. It is not just a question of breaking a state's rules; when crimes are committed we are hurting each other in one way or another. The prison population reached 52,444 on 10th November, so I am told. There are many moves afoot which point to increased numbers in prison populations. We need a robust law and order programme, but the main aim is to deter criminals. Eighty-two per cent. of our young offenders in custody are reconvicted within four years. I believe that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs from the point of view of the deterrent effect of our present law. Some non-custodial sentences achieve a 25 per cent. lower recidivism rate.
Our prisons need to become more "relational", to encourage prisoners to develop and sustain relationships. On 25th September, the Prison Governors' Association published the document: A Manifesto for Change with some 60 recommendations. The document gives practical affirmation of relationships being important as a prison resource for rehabilitation, control of prisoners and improvement in industrial relations. Relationships are important in prison.
184
I have the impression that prison service morale is very low at the moment and I hope that my noble friend is taking real steps to improve it. I should be interested to know, if the Minister is able to tell me, how much is spent on training prison service personnel, first, in England and Wales and, secondly, in Scotland. I believe that I picked up vibes that there is a great need for further training in the prison service to give help and to improve morale.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on the proposed Asylum and Immigration Bill. I was horrified to hear, if I correctly understood the remarks of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that there are 70,000 awaiting appeal at the moment and that the appeal takes 12 months. I am very glad to hear that extra staff are being introduced into the process. I warmly welcome streamlining of the application handling system if that will speed up the process. There has been a ten-fold rise since 1988, and this must cause serious difficulties for the Government. We all appreciate that problem. It is important, however, that we give asylum to political refugee applicants, although I agree that we should not give it to economic refugee applicants.
By the very nature of being refugees, applicants are vulnerable. They need good relationships with those who handle their applications. I hope that those handlers are well aware of their need. We need to be seen to treat such applicants with justice— not merely to treat them with justice, but be seen by the world to be treating them with justice. Perhaps I may quote two statements from the Bible to show the importance of this. We are told: "Do not ill-treat an alien or oppress him". God also says: "I will come near to you for judgment … against those who … deprive aliens of justice". I am sure that I shall never see the day when my noble friend on the Front Bench faces an unsatisfactory judgment from the Almighty. I hope that the Bill, when it comes before us, will ensure that that is not necessary.
I am not sure how people will survive when, on 8th January, they are deprived of benefit while still awaiting the results of their appeals, as I understand some will be. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me how they are to survive while they await a final decision. Fraudulent applications must be treated severely. However, many will present genuine cases which they hope will be properly acceptable. I find it difficult to understand the difference between those who apply at the port of entry and those who apply 24 hours later. There are many honest reasons why these vulnerable people do not apply at the port of entry. I do not see why sensible applications should be treated differently.
I wonder if there is a substantial increase in applicants from Nigeria after the recent round of executions in that country, and I wonder how they are to be treated.
Finally, I hope that in drafting the Bill the Government will be prepared to hear what those who support the applicants, such as the refugee council, have to say if there is to be no special standing committee. In one way or another I hope that they will take account of the needs of asylum applicants in drafting this Bill.
6.43 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the last three speakers all made weighty contributions on the subject of divorce law reform. Personally, I feel somewhat guilty whenever that subject arises. A few months before I joined the Labour Party, in 1935, I was election agent for A.P. Herbert, who is much to be admired on other grounds. But in my eyes he performed a fatal disservice when he introduced and carried into law the first reform Bill which started us off on the slippery slope. However, there is no doubt still time to pull back a little. I am very happy to think that this new Bill has the support of my own Roman Catholic bishops. In their eyes at least it is not likely to increase the numbers of divorces. I hope that that will not cause any embarrassment to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. On a previous occasion his friendship with a Catholic colleague got him into bad difficulties with some of his religious colleagues. I hope that this time there will not be any nonsense of that sort.
The House will not be surprised to hear that I propose to offer a few thoughts on penal matters. A good deal has happened since last we met in July. There have been half a dozen important events since then, to which I shall come in a moment. First, I must remind the House that since the Conservative conference in 1993 we have been living in the age of Howardism. I call it Howardism because it will always be associated with the name of Mr. Michael Howard, although of course when he introduced his policy in 1993 it was in sharp contradiction to the policies of his half-dozen predecessors, with one possible exception. When he introduced it, he was explicitly backed by the Prime Minister, and it has since received the support of the Cabinet, so we must not make this a personal matter. Nevertheless, Howardism stands as a definite new approach— in my opinion a lamentable approach— to the treatment of those who offend.
It has two main tenets: one is that prison works; the other is that prison will work better if it is made much more disagreeable for prisoners. As a prison officer of experience said to me the other day during one of my weekly visits to a prison, "We all know in the service that Mr. Howard would be unhappy if he saw a smile on a prisoner's face". It is not surprising that the noble Lord who just spoke seemed to agree that prison morale is rather low. As an ex-prison governor said not long ago, Howardism has poisoned the whole atmosphere in the prisons. Do not let us be under any illusions about that.
However, let us examine events since July. First, there was the manifesto of the prison governors referred to by the noble Lord who just spoke. I raised the question of this manifesto the other day in the House. I say again and again that none of us holds the noble Baroness responsible for Howardism. She is not in the slightest responsible. She is just doing her job. The noble Baroness said that the Government welcomed this report. The noble Baroness is a good Christian, and no doubt a good Christian welcomes self-mortification. It must be very painful for her as an intelligent, high-minded woman to support this dreadful doctrine. However, that is her task. This manifesto was the most
186
severe criticism of Ministers ever produced by their servants, the high officials employed by them. That was at the end of September.
Then came Mr. Howard's effort at the Conservative conference, which won an ecstatic ovation. I believe that he received the longest ovation of any speaker there. And what did the Lord Chief Justice have to say about it? He denounced it in the clearest possible terms.
We move on, and we find the Home Secretary dismissing Mr. Lewis, the director-general of the prison service who was appointed not so very long before by Mr. Howard's predecessor. Mr. Lewis was a scapegoat for the failures of the prison arrangements. The first division Civil Service strongly backed him and much sympathy was shown by prison governors generally. They agreed with Mr. Lewis that the Home Secretary and the Ministers who help him had interfered intolerably in day-to-day operations of the prison service. I shall not get involved in the proper relationship between the Government and the prison service. That is a difficult area. I shall leave the matter there for the moment. Howardism is quite a separate subject.
Then there is the Chief Inspector of Prisons, whom no one supposes to be a friend of Howardism. Since retiring, Judge Cohen has written an important article in The Times indicating the strongest disagreement with the Learmont Report, which places security above humanity, indeed above everything else. On the one hand stands the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who spent eight years investigating the situation, and on the other General Learmont, a great soldier but a novice in the prison field. I prefer the opinions of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Finally, Mr. Howard was once again overruled by the courts. I can leave the lawyers present to explain the matter in detail but, in general terms, his handling of the tariff recommended by the judiciary was held to be unlawful. So Mr. Howard antagonised the judiciary, the prison governors, the prison service, the probation service and a considerable part of the Civil Service. That is what he achieved. However, he was supported in that he received an ecstatic ovation at the Conservative conference. In this House we must make up our minds whether we prefer those reactions or the reactions of those who know something about the matter.
I do not want to seem unfair to that estimable gentleman. He, the Prime Minister and the Government have one thing to their credit in this field. Around two months ago I interviewed a member of the Police Federation and came away convinced that nothing would make an immediate impact on crime except a major increase in the police force. At that time I was told that neither the Government nor the Opposition was ready to spend the money necessary. However, that view turned out to be too pessimistic. When the Labour Party came together in conference it announced that it would increase the police force by 3,000. Mr. Major went one better and announced that the Government would increase it by 5,000.
Let me return to the equation. I am entirely in favour of such an increase and, when the last day comes, Mr. Howard, a skilful lawyer, will be able to

187
make one plea of extenuation; that is, that he and his Prime Minister increased the police force. Otherwise I regard Howardism as an evil thing. In the future we shall look back on it and wonder how we ever allowed ourselves to suffer under it.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, each year your Lordships are subjected to reform in the field of criminal law. In accepting that position, your Lordships are surely entitled to expect that that law reform should put right any major deficiencies revealed in the course of the year. That does not happen and did not happen this year, certainly in regard to one major incident.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the case of R. v. Clegg. The facts were quite simple. On the night of 30th September 1990, Lee William Clegg, a soldier serving with the Parachute Regiment, was on patrol in Glen Road, West Belfast when the driver of a stolen car and one of his passengers were shot at, the passenger being killed. Private Clegg was charged with murder of the passenger and attempted murder of the driver. His defence was that he fired in self-defence. He was convicted on 4th June 1993, after a trial before Mr. Justice Campbell without a jury. His appeal to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the firing of the shot that killed the passenger was, on the facts found by the judge, a grossly excessive and disproportionate use of force. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on that date and on 3rd July, two years later, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ordered that he be released on licence.
That case is responsible for at least three propositions. First, it totally destroyed the validity of the Government's oft-repeated phrase that the justification for the automatic life sentence is that murder is a "uniquely heinous crime". Clegg was released after only two years' imprisonment. How in those circumstances murder can be classified by the Government as being a "uniquely heinous crime" beggars belief. Every first year law student knows why it is not a uniquely heinous crime. We have no categories of murder. We did have at one time, but they worked to disaster. In addition, one does not have to establish an intent to kill in order to establish murder; an intent to do really serious bodily harm is adequate. That means that a fight in a pub in which one man glasses another which leads to his death is murder; it is not manslaughter.
The second proposition which the Clegg case established, if it required to be established, was that the decision as to how long a person should stay in prison is a judicial decision to be decided by a judge in open court after hearing evidence, listening to argument and with a right of appeal. One would have thought that the embarrassment which the Government sustained as a result of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland— in private, without hearing any evidence, without being present at the trial, without having to give any reasons for his decision— deciding, perhaps rightly, that Clegg should be allowed out on licence after only two years' imprisonment would have convinced the Government
188
that it was wrong for a politician to perform that function and that essentially it was a judicial function. The combination of those two propositions should have led the Government immediately to accept the decision made frequently by your Lordships in amendments to Bills and in the actual creation of a Private Member's Bill; that is, that the mandatory life sentence should go and imprisonment should be for life at the discretion of the judge, where appropriate, as occurs in many serious offences, indeed some offences more serious than murder— attempts at terrorism, attempts to poison, attempts to explode bombs and so forth.
The third matter that the case established was the wisdom of the recommendation made 15 years ago by the Criminal Law Revision Committee that where excessive force is used, either in self-defence or in the prevention of crime, the criminal offence should not be murder. It should be manslaughter, with the result that the sentence would be at the discretion of the judge who heard the case. Those recommendations were adopted by the Law Commission in its draft criminal code. They were recommended to your Lordships' House by your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment.
In the Clegg decision in the Court of Appeal, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal recommended that the law should be changed. When the matter went to the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, the same recommendation was endorsed by my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick saying that the recommendations were all one way. Cornered by Clegg, the Government agreed that they would review the law in this regard. I say "cornered" because I put forward an amendment in the previous year, supported by the Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats, but the Government resisted it. That review was set up in January. It not only has not reported yet but in answer to a Starred Question the noble Baroness the Minister said that she was unable to say when the Secretary of State would reach any conclusion.
The matter is simplicity itself. I have not put forward, nor do I put forward, that there should be a special defence for the Armed Forces. I am merely putting forward the recommendations which had been made all one way, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said. It is quite clear that the Government are dragging their feet, and one naturally asks why. The answer— and there appears to be only one— is that there is a pathological anxiety with the Government that they may, in adopting those recommendations and abolishing the mandatory life sentence, spoil their macho image of being tough on crime— a political disadvantage so they think.
Perhaps I may now turn to consider quite a different and in many ways more startling omission. There is no provision in any of the foreshadowed legislation for the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to be amended. Why should it be amended, comes the rhetorical question. For a very simple reason: before the Act was passed and in support of the Act there were three White Papers; in 1988, 1990 and 1991. I shall quote from them. The first quotation:
"Nobody now regards imprisonment as an effective means of reform".

189
The next quotation:
"Imprisonment can be an expensive way of making people worse".
The last quotation:
"Most crimes are not violent. Punishment in the community is likely to be better for victim, public and offender".
At that time there was considerable publicity devoted to criticising the judiciary for being too tough: they sent too many people to prison and for too long; and there was thrown at them references to the United Kingdom sending more people to prison than any other country in Europe, I think, with the exception of Turkey. Therefore the 1991 Act was passed in order to make imprisonment the sanction of last resort; and that is what it did.
In order to succeed in so doing that Act sought to restrict the judicial discretion; it sought to do so by saying, "You must not take into account any offence other than the offence before you and one other offence; you must ignore the outstanding offences except one which the accused wants to take into account; you must ignore his record; you must even ignore his reaction to the non-custodial sentences which he has previously experienced". At the time I said that that was putting judges into blinkers, that it would not work and that the 1993 Act would have to give that discretion back.
But the point I am emphasising is that the complaint was that judges were imposing too many sentences of imprisonment and for too long and for that reason it was said, "We must curb their discretion; we must take the discretion in part away from them", thereby making prison, as I have indicated, the sanction of last resort; and Section 1 of the Act and the other relevant sections have been so interpreted by the Court of Appeal in its guidelines.
Why does the Act require an amendment? It requires an amendment only because the Government have changed their policy. I would respectfully submit that it is not legitimate to change their policy and seek to put that policy into operation by exhortation without amending the Act. It is somewhat reminiscent of the Government's action in regard to compensation for victims of crime: an Act provided what the scheme should be but the Government decided to ignore it and, using the Royal Prerogative, brought in a different scheme. Their action was declared to be illegal.
This is not recent. It goes back, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, at least to 1993 when the Home Secretary said that he anticipated:
"More convictions and longer sentences … More people will go to prison. I don't flinch from that … No longer shall we judge our system of justice by a fall in the prison population … Let's be clear— prison works".
He must have been party to the chairman of the party's exhortation at the conference last month in which the public were urged to write to judges where they were dissatisfied with sentences and were told that that would have an effect. It has had an effect. I do not have the exact statistics but I believe that since 1991 the prison population has gone up by around 5,000. The policy which Parliament laid down after considerable thought
190
and which is enshrined in the 1991 Act is being altered by the Government without returning to Parliament for permission.
Why not? The simple answer is that probably the Cabinet would not support it. With regard to Mr. Howard's proposal that because judges are not tough enough there should be minimum sentences in future— because the judges are not tough enough on major crimes there should be an extension of imprisonment for life, thereby giving the discretion to the Home Secretary to decide how long the prisoner stays inside— I do not think the Cabinet, if it is at all thoughtful, would do other than remind itself that that approach has been and is being tried in America. One has only to look back two or three weeks to the letter column of The Times to find a devastating letter from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointing out the consequences.
But I believe that there is a more crude reason why no attempt has been made to put this policy into the legislation. It would cost an enormous amount to build the prisons to accommodate this new population and the Secretary of State would never get that past the Treasury. But it leads to the conclusion that the Government are playing politics with the administration of justice, which is a very dangerous game. I believe and hope that that form of tactics, which is not worthy of any government, will backfire.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, as has already been indicated, the Queen's Speech does contain a number of useful and constructive measures concerning law, home and social affairs. Not least affecting the reform of divorce and other aspects of family law is the proposed legislation outlined by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As explained, through amended divorce law this Bill seeks to protect and hold families together to a greater extent than may be the case at the moment and thus constitutes what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, if not on behalf of A. P. Herbert, has just described as a step back in the right direction.
Apart from that, clearly the family in general will always be central to the aims and means of social stability, whether these be measured by a sense of purpose and well-being in all age groups, yet particularly in young people, or by the level of care and responsibility in the community, or by the control and reduction of crime in the state.
On employment prospects, the Government already have a good record over job creation and retraining. Yet, as we know, for European states, including the United Kingdom, a paradox besets employment trends into the next century. This is because unemployment is likely to rise even when well-run economies create more jobs. Nevertheless, for the short term the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts a fall in European unemployment. That is based on the assumption that growth rates will be in excess of 2.5 per cent., which is calculated as the minimum to keep unemployment at its existing level.
In the longer term, however, it is unlikely that in the different European states growth rates will be sufficient to achieve a lasting reduction in unemployment without

191
substantial reforms. The concern, therefore, is that we could quite easily change from a two-thirds society, in which two-thirds of the population are relatively well off and employed, to a one-third society, in which only one-third of the population can be counted all right, with the remaining two-thirds under-employed or unemployed and increasingly poor.
The question is of what measures can reverse such an outcome. One expedient, no doubt, is the practice, already carried out in certain cases, of flexible working time, which in theory can increase the scope for employment and improve the quality of life while at the same time avoiding loss of business productivity. Volkswagen in Germany may be one successful example of that. Yet clearly the effect of flexible working time on our own economy and on others should be judged very carefully, case by case, lest it work against rather than for efficiency and so that it can work alongside other measures, not least those of structural change, which seek to bring about motivation and stability.
This leads to the theme of employment in the wide sense of an occupation or undertaking of some kind which has come to he respected and encouraged within the state, even though what is done may not be a job on the labour market. An obvious example of that is the care of invalids and dependants at home. There are many similar examples of current work or potential future work which stand to benefit the community and the environment in one way or another. Correspondingly, and alongside other initiatives, are the voluntary and private bodies which provide training in skills and motivation for young people. One such— and under the chairmanship of the television presenter Martyn Lewis— is an organisation called Drive for Youth, which has recently expanded from its centre in Wales to take on additional work in Scotland.
Clearly, one logical and useful prospect is that of partnership between government and these voluntary organisations. That is particularly relevant when the latter may have proved to be active and effective in cities and areas of deprivation. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that in the interests of social stability, employment and occupation there is a strong case for partnership between government and voluntary organisations? Can she say what practical steps she will support in that regard?
A parallel issue is the control of crime and in particular the issue of disincentives given against crime as far as young people are concerned. Over the past 16 years improved systems for rehabilitating prisoners have been put in place. Further alternative sentences to prison have also been introduced. However, as we are all well aware, recidivism in this country and elsewhere is far too high and our prisons are far too crowded. Clearly, there are no quick and easy solutions. Yet in this connection does my noble friend the Minister agree that those issues are best addressed through a long-term policy, which includes, first, greater use of alternative sentences to prison for non-violent criminals; secondly, encouragement of more systematic rehabilitation of inmates within prison and, thirdly, recognition that such measures as outlined are complementary and consistent
192
with firm deterrents against crime in the first place and thus, where properly administered, in no way contradict or undermine such deterrents?
My noble friend Lord Prentice referred to the importance of a non-party political approach to social affairs and thus to the need for an agreed long-term strategy for social affairs. Although representative of all different political parties, the Council of Europe and its parliamentary assembly, where I serve, precisely set out to adopt a non-partisan approach to all issues including social affairs. Here I should pay tribute to the United Kingdom delegation leader, my noble friend Lord Finsberg, who has always emphasised that approach and from the Benches opposite to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Mackie of Benshie, who all actively support it.
One benefit for the Council of Europe in carrying out its business is the opportunity to refer to method, experiment and evidence from over 35 countries. As it is, through example and proven results, the United Kingdom already provides good guidance for other member states. This good example is certainly assisted by the measures contained in the Queen's Speech, which we consider today. Yet, as many of your Lordships have implied, social affairs policy has to go beyond a single year of parliamentary legislation. It has to go beyond the confines of party politics. And in the interests of this country and others its related aspects and initiatives must be focused and developed into a long-term strategy to advance the aims and means of social stability.
7.18 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's continuing commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland. The present cease fire is very much due to the Prime Minister's personal commitment, which he gave the day after he took office. The people of the Province have a great deal to be grateful for to him and his Ministers. I also welcome the Government's approach, which we heard of earlier from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, to emergency legislation and the fact that when the time is right we may be able to do without it.
However, converting this cease-fire of indeterminate length into a permanent cease-fire and, by definition, peace, will take some time and progress will come about only through compromise. Therefore we should look at the balance sheets of the concessions of the Government and the law-abiding citizen on one side and Sinn Fein/IRA on the other. We must remember that there are Loyalist terrorists as well. However, it is generally accepted that they will follow suit should Sinn Fein/IRA hand in their weapons.
The terrorists declared the cease-fire and, since then, Her Majesty's Government have removed virtually all military patrols; returned two regiments to the mainland with another coming back at the end of this month; opened all border roads; reduced helicopter flying by two-thirds with none in the hours of darkness, or rather between the hours of midnight and 8 a.m., and given increased remission to prisoners. The Government have already met and talked to Sinn Fein, and Sinn Fein/IRA

193
have access to the media. We must also include among the benefits the worldwide benefits that they have been granted, such as access to the White House and other seats of government.
Sinn Fein/IRA declared a cease-fire, but beyond that I can find nothing else that they have given up since then. Your Lordships should understand that they did not do that for anyone else; they did it for themselves and for their own advantage. They continue racketeering because it suits them to do so. They continue intimidating and seriously beating up people, causing broken arms, legs and necks because that is what they want to do. They continue kidnapping. They kidnapped someone only last week in Strabane. They commit fraud and money laundering. They continue to target and to update their files on soft targets and military bases. Again, they are doing that for the future and for themselves. They have become smartly dressed while speaking eloquently to the media and dignitaries. They are persuasive to the ill informed— many Americans among them— because it suits their ends to be so. In addition, Sinn Fein/IRA insist on refusing to give up any weapons.
Those are all hallmarks of a highly sophisticated criminal group, indulging in organised crime on a massive scale. That is not only my view from one side of the community, but that of police forces throughout the United Kingdom and of our security services, including intelligence. In addition to all that, they refuse to give up any weapons and yet they presume to have the right to sit at constitutional talks without a mandate and with the guns under the table. Would a curator of a museum of priceless art discuss its security with a gang of thieves who refuse to give up the tools of their trade, especially if they advise him that they will steal the lot tomorrow if it suits them?
I personally recognise the significant compromise offered by the Unionist parties— that they will sit down at the table with Sinn Fein/IRA providing that they hand in some of their weapons. That accepts the fact that, unfortunately— it is hard for lay people to see it this way— the IRA will continue with their criminal activities, as they are continuing at present.
In my view the minimum starting point is this: no weapons decommissioning: no talks. I do not see how you can have the one without the other. Without any doubt at all the IRA could hand in enough weapons tomorrow to satisfy the "significant" number required to show good faith, if it suited them. That quantity would not damage their ability to return to full terrorism tomorrow or next week. They will not do it yet because they do not wish to get to the table at present. They are working to their own agenda and timetable. The reason for that is that they are getting such preferential treatment worldwide, and especially in the media, while they stay away. They will not go to the table before they have milked this phase for all it is worth. Please believe me: despite their prevarications they do not wish at present to be treated like the other political parties. They want to be a special case for as long as they can remain that way. It is their wish not to go to the table; not that of anybody else. Although some believe that they are
194
reformed terrorists and are now upright pillars of society with high moral standards, the truth is a little different. As I have demonstrated, they are the largest highly organised criminal group outside the Mafia in Europe— and that is a fact. More than that, they still have the weapons to back them up.
The day before yesterday, at the SDLP Conference, that party was split over whether to make an electoral pact with Sinn Fein for the next election. Sinn Fein/IRA are trying to take over the SDLP, which they believe would give them a mandate for round table talks, but the majority of MPs were disgusted. Perhaps I may read your Lordships three quotations from that conference. Your Lordships should remember that we are talking about democratic Roman Catholic Nationalists. Mr. McGrady said:
"I'm not prepared to sell the SDLP family silver for immediate or short-term gain.
"We have encouraged people to stand up to bomb and bullet and violence and we owe it to them to continue to give them the opportunity to support the policy of justice and equality we have pushed for years".
Dr. Hendron said:
"We don't have pacts with other parties, especially with people who go out and smash people's legs. There is no way we could have pacts with such people".
A Dungannon councillor, Vincent Currie, said even more clearly:
"My flesh crawls on me when I think of the number of occasions in the past 20 years when I personally have been a victim of assault by hoods and so-called supporters of Sinn Fein.
"There are SDLP supporters who have suffered physically at the hands of Sinn Fein supporters and to ask these people to go out and work for them to return a unity candidate is anathema to them".
I think that that states the democratic point of view and, coupled with what I have said, the view of all law-abiding people in the Province.
It was of note, however, that Mr. John Hume who, rumour has it, will not stand at the next election, did not actually say anything in that debate but sat on the fence. Indeed, the person who is supposed to be designated to follow him in that seat was a supporter of the motion to allow a pact with Sinn Fein at the next election.
So what I am saying is that no amount of pressure on Sinn Fein/IRA by Her Majesty's Government, President Clinton and Mr. Bruton will bring them to the table before they are ready. Indeed, I believe that, if we were to give way on the arms issue, they are already steaming up to say that, unless the RUC is disbanded or re-formed to allow in many of their supporters— which would obviously be unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government and everyone else— they would put that in the way of the next stage. This is because they do not want to go to the table until they think that they have a mandate. That will be very difficult for them, so they are looking for a way forward. We must remember that they are terrorists or, if not, that the vast majority of them are criminals. They are not businessmen. They are not county councillors and they are most certainly not MPs, so one wonders how they will find a way forward.
Finally, I urge Her Majesty's Government to have patience and an iron will to resist what is clearly wrong and to exercise their democratic responsibility to the

195
law-abiding communities in the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that I speak for everyone in Northern Ireland when I say that the peaceful stalemate that we have at present is preferable to future years of violence or to giving more concessions before some weapons are given up.
7.29 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I shall speak this evening about the probable effect of the Family Law Bill on the role of the state in supporting and sustaining civil marriage. The passage of that legislation may well start the withering away and finally end support for that institution. The reason is that the status of civil marriage, and its standing, will be so weakened that it will no longer have any attraction for anyone. I wish I could say of civil marriage— "buy now while stocks last"— but I cannot, because the Bill carries the clear indication, the clear threat, that next year there will be even less meaning than before in the expression "the contract of marriage". A marriage, whether entered into 30 years ago or now, is to be terminable at the say-so of one spouse alone. That is no different from a marriage where both spouses consent to the divorce. That is a complete change from what has been the case in the past.
It is clear that the state, regrettably, has to concern itself with divorce and to take account of the breakdown of marriage. My noble and learned friend is to be congratulated, even if with reservations, on standing by his guns and bringing forward proposals for the reform of divorce law. In his introduction to the consultation paper, he reminded us of a passage in the Gospels where Jesus in reply to the Pharisees explains that it is because of the hardness of men's hearts that Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife. That is a good text, and I say immediately that many of the proposals in the White Paper, if contained in the right package, would represent a considerable improvement on what has gone before, being more humane, more honest, and more likely to heal wounds. But the reforms to the law of divorce in this country over the past 30 years have left the law in a state from which it has to be rescued. So it may be felt that I am merely offering faint praise.
I shall try to explain how it is that the backing and support of the state for the institution of marriage itself, as a viable commitment of man and woman to each other, and of both to their family, now stand at risk. There is an intellectual argument abroad which has been running fast since the 1960s. It is attractive to those who were first seduced by and then damaged by the ideas that were then fashionable. They deny the usefulness and necessity of civil marriage. They portray marriage as unfairly and unreasonably discriminating against those who choose only informal ties or perhaps no ties at all with the persons with whom they have chosen to live or with whom they may have parented children.
The relevance of that to the Government's proposals is that Mrs. Brenda Hoggett, a barrister, an expert in family law, and at that time reader in law at Manchester University, put the question as long ago as 1980 in an essay entitled Ends & Means: The Utility of Marriage
196
as a Legal Institution. She pointed out that family law no longer makes any attempt to buttress the stability of marriages or any other union. She suggested that we had already reached a point at which, rather than discussing which remedy should now be extended to the unmarried, we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.
Subsequently, in 1984, Mrs. Hoggett was appointed to the Law Commission as the commissioner responsible for family law. It is to her that we owe much of the present package of divorce law reform. More recently again, in 1992, in an article in the King's College Law Journal Mrs. Hoggett nailed her flag to the mast again. The article entitled Family Law Reform: Where Will It End? surveyed the changes in family law over the past 30 years. At the end she gives some views on civil marriage and queries whether we still think it necessary, desirable or even practicable for the state to grant licences to enter into relationships. So where is that leading us, and what can be done? Is the Bill leading to the end of civil marriage? I shall try to give one answer. It is to be found in the proposed unfettered ability of one spouse to obtain a divorce against the wishes of the other. It is that one proposal which could spell the eventual end of civil marriage.
It is not just a question of one of the spouses perhaps believing the marriage to be worth saving and so there should be the right to persevere; it is a question of the institution of marriage and how it is perceived— what messages are sent to those contemplating marriage. Each one of an average couple contemplating marriage in my opinion hopes and expects the marriage to be lasting, and is accustomed to look to the state to provide some support for it. That the state can be seen to be doing even now by reserving to one spouse at least some right to delay the breaking of the vows by the other spouse. With such support there can, from the outset, be better confidence in the marriage and each other between the marriage partners. Without it, civil marriage will be, and will be perceived to be, no more than the temporary licensing of cohabitation on an ongoing basis. Such a cheap utility version of marriage can hardly command more than minimal respect. There will be less and less inclination to bother to enter into such a watered down minimal union.
Going on from that point, the final question I would ask is whether, if civil marriage is to be so marginalised by the Bill, it will serve a useful purpose for the state to dissolve one marriage merely to enable a party to enter into such a marriage with someone else. May not the final question to be answered turn out to be not is there a need for marriage, but is there any need for divorce as such?
7.35 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, in the corresponding debate on the Address a year ago we heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, during which he made a powerful plea on behalf of the arts and their place in society. I recall that he was the only speaker on that topic then, and when I saw the list of speakers today I soon realised that

197
I would be the only speaker today on more or less the same subject, to which of course reference is rarely, if ever, made in the gracious Speech.
I am aware that my noble friend Lord Palmer instigated a stimulating debate on arts and heritage funding as recently as last April. However, I did not participate in it for the simple reason that I am not convinced that arts and heritage necessarily make good bedfellows. I often have the feeling that since neither enjoys high rating on the political agenda, they have, for the sake of convenience, been lumped together. I have read that the present Secretary of State has said that heritage is a, "Ministry of the Future". I confess I am not entirely clear as to what the right honourable lady means by that, but I should have thought that it is the arts that are of the future; heritage, to me, is primarily retrospective.
Questions of heritage often have a stronger connection with the environment and should be treated as such. I note the argument going on today about the proposed roads in the vicinity of Stonehenge. Let the Environment and Heritage Ministers work together on that. I live for most of the time by the sea in an area which has been designated as a heritage coast— very agreeable, but I cannot see what it has to do with the artistic scene. I shall shortly propose a solution for the location of the arts. Nevertheless, I must pay tribute to my noble friend's admirable speech in April, which, within the bifurcation of the Motion, dealt with both subjects so adroitly.
I have noticed that whenever a Minister is after more money for a department, such as Education, Health, Transport and so forth, he or she is said to be "pressing" or "fighting" for funds, whereas if a Minister looks for more money for the arts budget, then that constitutes "whingeing". I shall neither whinge nor cringe. Indeed I do not intend to go into the question of arts funding— it was discussed fully in April— beyond stating the obvious; namely, that government support for the arts is and always has been inadequate, and is derisory compared with that of our European neighbours which, like us, claim to be civilised societies. Rather do I wish to make a few comments and suggestions about the role which the arts play now and could play in the social infrastructure of the future.
President Kennedy once said:
"The life of the Arts, far from being an interruption, a distraction in the life of the nation, is very close to the centre of a nation's purpose, and is a test of a nation's civilisation".
To a considerable extent, this country has justified those words. We possess a cultural industry with a turnover of about £ 13 billion; which is worth as much to our GDP as the motor industry; which employs nearly 500,000 people; which is our fourth biggest earner of foreign exchange after banking, travel and shipping; which contributes significantly to indirect spending, and is our greatest tourist attraction. I expect that there are many other noble Lords like me who from time to time visit the British Museum and see the hordes of visitors, often comprising parties of raucous schoolchildren. Well, 6 million visitors go there annually, of whom between 3 million and 4 million are tourists.
198
Furthermore, cultural activities have contributed much to urban regeneration. Look at Birmingham, Glasgow and Sheffield, among other areas. A friend recently sent me the prospectus about the Bridgewater Hall which is due to open in Manchester in 1996. It looks most imposing and will surely enhance the life of that city.
Perhaps I may add one word about my own speciality, which is music. I should like to trumpet forth the marvellous standard of playing of our country's musicians, which is recognised the world over. Moreover, this standard has often been achieved under both financial constraint and the adverse rehearsal conditions which prevail. I must declare an interest in that I am the president of an orchestra which, in September, gave an outstanding concert in the Queen Elizabeth Hall.
But there is an obverse side to all this good, which lies in the underlying attitude towards the arts in this country. In a magnificent lecture entitled "Our Cultural Future: Hopes and Fears", which Sir Claus Moser gave during this year's Aldeburgh Festival— and I wholeheartedly commend it to anyone interested in this subject— Sir Claus mentioned the melancholy fact that a recent nation-wide opinion survey relating to people's views on public spending showed that for every one person who wanted more money spent on culture and the arts more than four wanted less spent.
On one side of the political spectrum we have the doctrine of market forces, which should never be applied to the pursuit of artistic excellence. Inevitably, and regrettably, this will ensure that there will be a surrender to the American-style of mass culture of degraded and degrading rubbish, which is already overwhelming in this country and many others. On the other side, we find the passion for egalitarianism deeply suspicious— indeed, resentful— of much of the arts.
In that connection, I must draw attention to the widespread use of the word "elitism" as a term of disparagement. It seems to be favoured by both sides of the political divide. My dictionary defines elite as "the pick of anything; the best, in fact". What on earth is wrong with that? I am certain that 30 years ago we never heard the word bandied about and that its use today is indicative of our general inability to think or to concentrate properly, the need for instant gratification and a general lowering of standards in so many aspects of life today.
I consider that this decline is nowhere more accurately mirrored than in the tabloid press. As a proponent of this so-called popular culture, it can hardly be expected to have much interest in the arts. In fact, it usually displays suspicion, if not downright hostility, towards them. A perfect example is provided by the recent row over the use of lottery money for various arts venues, in particular the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. "Too much cream for arts fat cats" and "Plundering the poor to pamper the chic" were typical of the headlines which greeted the announcement.
To portray this purpose as something in conflict with the care of the sick and suffering, as was done in the tabloid press, is perverse. Any country which aspires to civilised values will surely wish to see both objectives

199
sustained, and it is essential that lottery funds are used, as intended, for both of them. In July I read that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was reported to have remarked,
"I do not like the crudity of the words rich and poor. Opera audiences I have seen are very often quite struggling middle-class professional people and not rich toffs".
I entirely agree with that and will go further by adding that very many of our finest creators and performers have come from humble backgrounds: for instance, Sir Henry Moore, the sculptor; Sir Peter Maxwell-Davies, the composer; David Hockney, the painter; and Sir Robert Stephens, the actor who died last week. In fact, were I to do some thorough research into the subject I am sure I should find that far fewer figures in the arts world have come from the more affluent backgrounds. As the noble Lord, Lord Attenborough, said last year:
"The arts are not a perquisite of the privileged few; nor are they the playground of the intelligentsia. The arts are for everyone— and failure to include everyone diminishes us all".
I have been connected with business for more than 40 years and if, during this time, I have learnt one fact above all it is that we shall never have full employment in this country. I know that this is an unpalatable fact, but I think that to pretend otherwise is to delude and deceive our people. I also realise that for any party to say that would be politically suicidal, but, speaking from these Benches, I am free to say so. I suppose that we should at least draw some comfort from the fact that more people in Britain are now in work than in any comparable European country.
However, many young persons have been unable to find jobs and many more in middle age will be obliged to retire early. I believe that this situation will increasingly breed disillusionment, despair, disaffection and, ultimately, civil disobedience. I was appalled recently to read of a report published by the National Youth Agency entitled The Drop-Out Society which studied the lives of 250 young people living on three estates. It stated that many can utter disjointed words but not talk; do not know what a book is; leave school at 16 without qualifications; and have no training, no job and no hope. What a dreadful scenario this paints! I sometimes feel that under these conditions not only has law and order broken down but civilisation too. I ask myself, what can be done to ameliorate the day-to-day existence of so many of our citizens of all ages and to give them some degree of hope for and interest in the future?
I am sure that the pattern of work— indeed, how many of the 24 hours a day are spent on it— will have to undergo a fundamental change in the next century, if not before. More people will share jobs, work part-time and retire at an early age. The corollary to these changes is that there will be far more time for leisure. And it is in this respect that I envisage a place for the arts alongside education. I expect that many will consider such an idea preposterous, outrageous and well-nigh impracticable. But I am wholly opposed to the concept of a separate, totalitarian-sounding Ministry of Culture, as has sometimes been suggested. I do not want culture thought of as an entity on its own like some commodity. I think of culture as a combination of education; that is,
200
learning, and artistic pursuits— the arts. I regret the fact that the Department for Education and Employment has largely renounced any obligation to nurture art appreciation in state schools. The late Jennie Lee, then Arts Minister— what an inspired appointment that was— said:
"If children at an early age became accustomed to the arts as a part of everyday life, they are more likely in maturity first to accept them and then to demand them".
If this policy were carried out how much more would life become tolerable, possibly pleasurable, for those with time on their hands?
However, so much needs to be done. How does one interest the bored yobbos who congregate in the centre of towns and villages up and down the country on Saturday nights, drinking excessively and, more often than not, causing mayhem for the local inhabitants? By the time they reach that age probably most of them will have thought of any form of art as being the province of effeminate "sissies" to be got through reluctantly on a wet Wednesday afternoon.
I read the other day what John Tusa, the recently-appointed director of the Barbican, had to say:
"What I do find really worrying is that there's a real generation gap, and that young people are often taught nothing about the arts and are subjected to the huge weight of the pop world. pop music and pop values which have no roots in history".
I find it worrying too that the new national curriculum relieves children from the age of 14 onwards of the necessity of studying any humanities or any arts. This bodes ill for their future participation and enjoyment. The future of the performing arts is dependent upon our young receiving training; training in music, ballet and drama. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out in April, the discretionary grants for those courses have been cut because of the Government's squeeze on local authority expenditure. Where, for instance, are the fine musicians of the future to come from? I also deplore the recent cuts in the funding of our libraries, which have led to many libraries being unable to afford to buy adult fiction as well as being obliged to reduce the purchase of children's books and non-fiction.
With all these regrettable actions, we are not doing much to assist those out of work in the future to enjoy a worthwhile and meaningful existence. I believe that if the accountants and the mandarins of the Treasury have their way we shall enter the new millennium with a mass of malignant morons among our citizens, leading in turn to more crime and greater demands on our health services.
I shall conclude with the words of yet another redoubtable lady of the Labour Party, Ellen Wilkinson, who, for a time until her untimely death, was the Secretary of State for Education in the first post-war government. She once said:
"Unless we can put standards of value into the minds of youth we cannot have a great civilisation or a great country".
7.49 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the gracious Speech mentions that there is to he a new Bill on community care which is to be called the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, the object of which is:

201
"to enable local authorities to make payments to particular groups of people who want to purchase their own community care".
The purpose of my few words this evening is to explore with my noble friend on the Front Bench whether it might be to the great advantage of those eligible for community care and to their families, and indeed to the taxpayer, if the connected purposes of the Bill were to be somewhat wider than the Government may at present intend.
I should confirm that I speak, as most of your Lordships will know, as the father of a mentally handicapped teenage daughter whose eligibility for community care is therefore starting to loom and also as the honorary president of Rescare— the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care.
I shall not take much of your Lordships' time this evening by repeating all the arguments in favour of village communities for the mentally handicapped. Most of the arguments are set out in a booklet entitled Made to Care which was written last April, largely by my noble friend Lady Cox, with myself very much as second fiddle and with a foreword by my noble friend Lord Renton. I shall put a copy in the Library so that your Lordships can see what our position really is and not what it is constantly held out to be by those who favour integration into the so-called community at any price and who, despite all the evidence, remain implacably opposed to village communities.
Very briefly, village communities appear to be preferred by a majority of families for their mentally handicapped relatives, especially for those whose handicap is more severe. One reason for this may be that community care, or the policy of housing mentally handicapped people in an ordinary or specially adapted house in an ordinary street, does not always result in them being well cared for or happy, particularly when their handicap is more severe.
Some 16,000 more severely handicapped people are to be moved into community care from long-stay hospitals by the end of next year, 1996, with, I would have thought, predictably disastrous results. I say this because resources are already overstretched, both financially and in the quality and the intensity of care which can be offered under our community care policy.
High quality care and variety of life-style are far easier to provide in village communities, where they go hand in hand with economy of scale. No one is suggesting that policy in this area should be driven by considerations of cost but when the best can be the cheapest, it seems silly to avoid it. Village communities save about £ 20,000 of capital cost against community care per person moved from a long-stay institution and then at least £ 50,000 per annum per person thereafter. I would have thought that these are figures which the Audit Commission and the Treasury should examine carefully because we could be looking at saving very large sums of money if we merely do what families want and what often works best for our mentally handicapped. In this respect, I was very grateful for what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said this afternoon about the Citizen's Charter being brought to bear on our community care services.
202
I trust that nothing that I have said can be understood as an attack on community care, which often offers a much improved life to those who have been in residential institutions, especially when they are less severely handicapped. However, opposition to village communities is rather virulent and appears to be based more on ideology than upon any dispassionate examination of the facts. I suppose that there is also the fear that jobs would be lost among those who work in local social and health services if they encourage placements in village communities rather than doing all they can to frustrate them. That fear is understandable, but it should not be allowed to take precedence over the best interests of our mentally handicapped.
Alas, I have to say that the Government themselves are seen as opposing village communities because they still refuse to put them on the list of provision which local authorities are encouraged to support. So I must ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government could not remove this impediment and thus facilitate the happiness of thousands of mentally handicapped people and their families.
When she comes to reply, could I be so impertinent as to ask her please not to repeat what my noble friends on the Front Bench have always said in the past when I posed this question, to the effect that there is nothing to stop local authorities supporting village communities if that is what local people want. The fact is that local authorities are not responding to massive local pressure to support village communities and much of their justification comes from the Government's refusal to give our communities even a level playing field with other forms of care.
One chink of light in all this is that during the summer we did persuade the Government at least to examine the merits of village communities in a study which the Department of Health then predictably thought should last at least three years. I believe we have now persuaded the Department of Health that the first part of this study should look at all the existing research and practical experience which already exists; that it should also examine real comparative costings; and that these first steps should take no more than six months. I would also be most grateful if my noble friend could tell me how this first part of the study is progressing because we have heard no more about it. Of course, if it is sufficiently objective, one rather doubts whether there would be any need for part 2 at all.
The case for village communities for the mentally handicapped seems to me to be irrefutable, but I also cannot help feeling that such communities, separate of course but on similar lines, would also be of benefit to some of our more mentally ill and even perhaps to some of our elderly disabled. Be that as it may, there does seem a more general problem between the Government's laudable intentions and what local authorities and social services are actually doing at local level for many of our care services.
They appear to be flouting, or at any rate to he putting up a very stout resistance to, the Government's requirements in this regard. I understand that under the community care legislation it is the intention that 85 per

203
cent. of public spending on care referrals should be ring-fenced for the non-council sector. Under a policy apparently agreed by the Association of Directors of Social Services, much of the money destined for the non-council sector is going to housing associations and trusts, quite often run by former employees of social services, which increasingly constitute a kind of pseudo-private sector. I have just heard of a case in Scotland, for instance, where a housing association run by former social services personnel has been given capital grants to build residential care accommodation at £ 60,000 per bed space plus a booking guaranteeing it residents for six years. I understand that this may he going on all over the country.
In case some of your Lordships may think that I exaggerate, I think I should quote from an internal memorandum of the City of Birmingham Social Services Department dated 28th September of this year to all its community care team managers. It states:
"I have just been passed an instruction from the Director that no placements in independent sector residential homes are to be arranged until further notice (I know, I know!) Anybody for whom residential care is absolutely necessary is to be told that we can only offer places in Birmingham Local Authority homes. (Please let me know of any problems this causes as I know that some houses are blocking admissions). The budget can still be used for nursing home placements for which there are no alternatives.
"This has all been passed on by word of mouth and I am hoping that we shall be given some written guidelines as to what social workers are expected to tell disgruntled service users. No doubt this will be an agenda item for Monday afternoon".
That seems a pretty clear indication of what is going on in Birmingham, so it is not surprising that 25 private homes have recently closed down there.
Council homes often seem to cost much more than private homes, despite the costs incurred by the latter in meeting higher standards. So I would have thought that these homes are another area which the Audit Commission and the Treasury would do well to look at to the advantage of most of us.
And so I come back to where I started: to ask whether the connected purposes of the proposed community care Bill could not be widened to give consumers, including where appropriate the families of mentally handicapped people, genuine choices as to the kind of care they really want rather than the kind of care that local services decide they will have whether they want it or not.
I am sure that this will be fiercely resisted by our local government lobby and by all the other interested parties, but I feel sure that it would be to the immense benefit of growing numbers of our most unfortunate people. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said this afternoon, it would also accord with the Citizen's Charter, and I very much hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.
8 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as the gracious Speech allows us to debate affairs across the board, I should like to pick out health from today's list of topics. Of course, it spans across most parts of government and most activities are coloured in some way or other by health factors. If we are not trying to treat something, we are trying to cure or prevent it.
204
I am especially glad to see that the gracious Speech includes a continuing commitment to quality in public services. Already many measures have been taken to bring the National Health Service in line with state of the art medical practice, particularly by addressing the management issues and, at the same time, taking on board the disciplines of quality assurance.
In declaring my interest in breast cancer and in the radiotherapy treatment field, as my wife is the president of RAGE (that is to say, the Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure), the House knows that I have raised the issue of quality before. It is a discipline which is now accepted in most professional circles. Among doctors, though, quality assurance is still rather a forbidding term, but I should like to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Health for his commitment to quality about which he has spoken many times. I hope that the British Standards Institution will be able to work more closely with the Department of Health in providing interpretations of the ISO— the International Standards Organisation— 9000 Code which are aligned to medical practice. As I have said before in debate, the British Standards Institution has already been approached by many units working in the healthcare field which want to acquire quality assurance approval. I hope that it can play a bigger role in the process.
The rapid advance of surgical and medical technology has produced several orders of importance in productivity or patient throughput, just by shortening treatment times. Therefore, it is not really surprising that we are looking for better management to get better value for money. With the policy to devolve management outwards and downwards in the NHS, this means in my view that much more attention must be devoted to quality assurance to ensure that it is based on national standards. In fact, I believe that there is mounting evidence to show that, if the NHS is to build upon its new-found framework, then the purchaser-provider mechanisms must be governed by nationally-based standards. For example, the Select Committee on Health in another place in its report on breast cancer services said that it believes it is vital for quality assurance teams in the National Breast Cancer Screening Programme to remain accountable to the national QA programme rather than to the new purchasers.
The Science and Technology Committee in another place said unequivocally that there should he a national quality assurance programme for genetic screening, similar to that of the breast screening programme. The Department of Health's own initiatives in publishing the manual of quality assurance in radiotherapy based on the standards currently in place at the Bristol Oncology Centre and the Christie Hospital, Manchester, demonstrate its will to pave the way for quality assurance to be available on a national basis at all 53 radiotherapy treatment centres.
The important issue is that, although a QA system is not an implicit guarantee of clinical, scientific or technical excellence, it is a powerful tool in ensuring that management standards are met and, where necessary, are improved upon. That means that errors are much less likely to be made. I believe that. then, in

205
the case of radiotherapy treatment, women will have the assurance and confidence that it carries minimal risk, which I believe cannot be said at the moment.
As the House may know, the audit commissioned last year by the Chief Medical Officer to find out why so many women who are members of RAGE came to be so disastrously injured by radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer is now complete and will shortly be published and released. I believe that that will reinforce the case for putting QA into place against a national standard in all 53 treatment centres. I hope that the resources are available to take the BS 5750 approach route and to follow the Bristol and Manchester lead on standards.
The adverse effects of breast cancer radiotherapy treatment have been recognised by the Department of Health and the further treatment needs have been assessed expertly by Dr. Jane Maher in the report which was commissioned by the Department of Health and published by the Royal College of Radiologists a week or two ago. I believe that that extra burden on the NHS could have been avoided, but I think that the injuries have triggered my thoughts on how genetic therapeutics may become the competitor to radiation therapeutics. I want to make the point that the dangers of gene therapy are being appreciated before practice really gets under way, whereas the practice of radiotherapy got under way long before the dangers were really appreciated. In fact, alarm bells have been constantly ringing on X-ray dosages and on nuclear power exposures and fallouts— and on all the radioactive debris knocking around on the seabed from Russian submarines and from everything else— ever since Rontgen discovered the X-ray 100 years ago this year.
I believe that the recent events involving injuries to women in radiotherapy treatment weaken the case for assuming that there is an implied duty in respect of care and safety in the charter of the Royal College of Radiologists. In view of the grave public concern about ionising radiation in all its forms, I believe that there should be an express duty of care and safety and, perhaps, qualification of practice in the charter of the Royal College.
Therefore, I believe that an amendment to the Royal Charter is justified and should be considered. Clearly the right time for me to propose this is in today's debate on the gracious Speech. I hope that the new president of the Royal College, Dr. Michael Brindle, will be able to consider my points. I have already written to him along those lines to outline what I was going to talk about this evening. I believe that I have his support. I would ask my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to encourage him to do so. The duty of the Royal College is already to be the authoritative body for the purpose of consultation in matters of public interest. I believe that there is a strong case for it to come forward and show that, in dealing with the destruction and preservation of living human cells, there is a duty of care and safety. The lesson in genetics should have been applied to radiology.
Moreover, if the Royal College wants to see robust QA standards introduced, coupled with consent, it should ensure that it has the powers to intervene in the
206
purchaser-provider mechanisms and, perhaps, get prior agreement with the expert advisory group on cancer. That is the way forward. If the Royal College sees the necessity for sharpening up QA and for having powers to intervene in the provision and auditing of treatment, then, perhaps, the charter should also be amended to reflect that, particularly in view of the grave public concern over nuclear safety.
I have a final point to make. I believe that the initiative of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in introducing the Framework Policy for Commissioning Cancer Treatment Services is a significant step forward towards improving treatment, particularly of breast cancer, where it has been shown that prompt and properly co-ordinated treatment based on the one-stop shop is the way forward.
While cure remains elusive and prevention is like climbing up a slippery pole— as soon as you make progress you slip back again— there is always a call for research funds to feed the appetite of laboratories. But I believe that, first, there must be a strong effort to improve the management of treatment and then efforts must be devoted to getting research translated more rapidly into practice.
In the United States, Congress has called the President's cancer panel to account. I believe that the US Cancer Act 1971 provides a funding bridge at which we should look more closely to see how our joint efforts towards beating cancer can be stepped up. If there is a comparison to be made with the expert advisory group on cancer in the Department of Health (which is the motive force here), I hope that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who is not present tonight, can raise its profile so that it can take more credit for what it is doing to reduce a mortality in breast cancer which is said to be the worst in the world.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, first I join those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Cuckney. His credentials speak for themselves. There can be few areas of business in your Lordships' House that he does not cover. I am sure his expertise will prove invaluable to us all.
Until my noble friend Lord Ironside spoke I was beginning to think I would be the only Member of your Lordships' House who would speak on health. One of the great success stories of the past decade and a half has been the National Health Service and it is a success that has been accelerating in the past five years. As your Lordships know, the 1990 Act set in place a totally new structure for the NHS; a structure that acknowledged the huge amount of talent available throughout the country at the point of delivery. It has taken away dependence on the centre and placed decision-making where it better belongs and where it can respond fastest to requirements. In itself it was a bold leap forward. The benefits are self-evident and, in my opinion, will continue to accrue for many years yet. The service has been placed on the very firmest of foundations for the next century.

207
I have to confess that when the removal of the regional health authority tier of administration was first mooted I had serious misgivings about the timing. It seemed to me that the removal of so important a pillar in the structure should not be made until the remaining heavily-reorganised parts had had time to settle in— I thought perhaps not within the lifetime of this Parliament. How wrong I was. The RHAs soon go. As from 1st April next year that tier of management falls away like booster rockets that have done their job. It is a tremendous tribute to the Government that such a move could take place so early, and a sure sign of the strength of the reorganised structure.
But perhaps the most creditable job of all was the reorganisation of health services in London. That was a job that so many administrations have shied away from for far too long. It took significant political courage to grasp that nettle and a high degree of skill in the implementation of the recommendations in the Tomlinson Report. They were bound to be difficult and they were bound to unsettle well understood working routines. I have nothing but admiration for my noble friend the Minister, my right honourable friend our previous Secretary of State and all those involved for the way in which this complex and difficult task was handled. It took a true knowledge of personalities and of the London health service to achieve what I believe to be a change that just had to take place— a change which has already happened in many cases in the provinces where, not least because of the availability of appropriate sites, it was easier to bring about. New, modern health centres have sprung up. They are central to the Government's strategy for change.
We are now moving into the final lap. GPs in increasing numbers are joining the enthusiastic pioneers of fundholding practices. Again, who would be so bold as to suggest that GPs are not more than capable of running their own affairs without some centre breathing down their necks? For the patient the benefits which are already plain where fundholding practices have been set up will become widespread. The NHS will have what such a massive organisation should have had years ago; that is, a structure which is wholly flexible and therefore totally responsive to whatever may be thrown at it. I hope the parrot cries of, "Give us more money— the problem is we do not have enough", will largely become a thing of the past.
In all of this the financial strength of the NHS must surely be better than it has ever been before. I hope that my noble friend Lord Prentice, when he reads this, will take heart from that. In the old days, when more money was claimed to be the only answer to every single problem, however small or however great— and how unresponsive to that money the service was— the centre had an unanswerable question. Good hospitals and other centres annually said, "Give us more money and we will do better"; others would say, "We are not doing well because we do not have enough money. Give us more money and we will do better". What could the centre do? Those days are gone. Local managers, be they administrators pure, or medical practitioners who manage, are now exposed to the true test of their own capabilities. How capable they are turning out to be!
208
Over 3 million more treatments have been carried out a year since 1979 and over 1 million more patients are being treated a year since 1991.
I hardly dare mention it but there were faint hearts even in your Lordships' House at the beginning of this decade. There were some who hardly dared, after the first 56 trusts were formed, to put a second toe in the water before the temperature of the first had fully registered. I hope now that those fears have been wholly laid to rest.
I welcome proposals to empower the Parliamentary Health Service Commissioner to take complaints relating to clinical judgment. He himself described such a change in the law as the most significant in the 22 years his office has existed. I look forward to learning of the details that this change will trigger, of the reallocation of roles in his direction and away from the present in-house clinical complaints procedure. If the outcome is to lessen expensive resort to the courts, so much the better.
The new financial strength of the NHS, cemented by responsive local decision-making, has made the massive leaps of the past few years not only possible but a reality. No visitor to a hospital these days can fail to be impressed by the mass of technological equipment that the Government's skilful husbandry of the NHS has made possible. The NHS has assumed a shape which will serve it well, well into the next century.
8.16 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, there are good procedural reasons why it is out of order for us, from behind the privileges of the House, to attack individual Members of another. For that reason I shall not attempt to follow what happened in the previous Session to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. I would, however, like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the tenacity, determination and patience with which he has attempted to bring the Bill hack. I will not, however, express enthusiasm about the amendments. All I will say about them at this stage is that I will listen extremely carefully to my noble friend Lord Meston, who was on the committee of the previous Bill and who will be leading on this one. I will take what he says about them very seriously.
I will not go into the ramifications of the divorce Bill, which is in any case a free vote Bill and there is no need to state a party view. I will say, though, that I cannot help doubting whether, if Parliament were deliberately to set out to destroy marriage, it could possibly succeed. There are limits to the power of Parliament and I believe that to be beyond it.
I would like to ask a few technical questions. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord say today that there would be legal aid available for mediation. It is my understanding— and I hope this can he confirmed— that there will also be legal aid available for those who do not think mediation is suitable for them. I take the point about the need for a preliminary information session, but I hope that in those cases where those concerned have been victims of domestic violence and may have a real fear of meeting the other party they

209
will at the very least be able to discuss the matter with the mediators without the other party being present. That, I think, may be vital to making the machinery work. In general, on that Bill, the person who came nearest to expressing my sentiments was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
I was delighted to hear what the noble and learned Lord had to say about the Law Commission. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord has also heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, had to say on that subject, to which I am sure he will pay attention.
It was a great pleasure to listen to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I can think of few better speeches that I have heard in this House, and I would be gilding the lily if I attempted to say any more about it.
The biggest measure that we have before us is the measure on asylum. With it there is a collection of regulations to withdraw income support from asylum seekers pending appeal. We have a rather curious timetable for that measure. I understand that it is expected that the regulations will be tabled on 18th December and will come into force on 8th January. That means that there are two sitting days between the tabling of the regulations and their coming into force. It appears to many who are interested in that issue that those regulations may do considerable harm from day one.
I wrote to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to ask the reasons for the haste. He replied that he was afraid of a rush of applications— in effect, a "closing down sale", as he put it. In the first place, that rather mistakes the nature of an asylum application. An asylum application frequently arises from an emergency, for example from an armed and murderous assault upon one's house which one did not foresee even up to the minute before it happened. Therefore, assuming that it is all a matter of long-term calculation prejudges the genuineness of the applications before they arise. That is a fallacy that logicians call petitio principii.
The other point which puzzles me about that argument is that it was not necessary for the Secretary of State to trail the regulations at the party conference some time ago. Having done so, if he believed that it was a matter of such great haste why did he not table the regulations in the overspill? Alternatively, if they were not ready to be tabled in the overspill why did he trail them at the party conference?
The coincidence of the few sitting days with Christmas in the period before the regulations come into force reminds me of a complaint made by a 17th century parish against a litigious vicar:
"And he commonly served these citations at Easter and other times of general communion which he might conveniently have done upon a weekday with less breach of charity".
Another time when there are urgent regulations I hope that they will not be laid over Christmas.
It has already been pointed out that the Bill comes immediately after the 1993 Bill. This Government— as they did over education, trade unions or local
210
government— seems to be developing a legislative stammer. They never seem to be able to get everything done in one go.
We shall be concerned about whether the regulations are consistent with our international legal obligations. I know that the Government believe that the answer to that question is yes, but this Government's fortunes with international courts have not been so universally successful that we can let that claim pass without further examination. Nor will we on these Benches accept that anyone who does not pass the 1993 criteria is necessarily a bogus applicant. The 1993 Bill was the only Bill since I came to this House on which I was not leading in which I voted in every single Division. I am proud of that record.
We are told that people should make their claim for asylum on entry. With respect, that shows a lack of imagination. When we have debated this subject previously I have mentioned a friend of mine who got out of Germany in 1939 who to this day cannot pass through Aachen station without being physically sick. When you are in that state you wait to make your claim until you are certain that you are on safe territory. That is a very natural and inevitable human reaction. If you go through Heathrow that is not a particularly friendly place. It is not even a particularly friendly place for those of us whose country it is. And what is it like for someone who is a stranger, who has no access to a lawyer and no access to friends, being taken behind a glass case with no chance to plead their case? It is a real loss of imagination to expect such people to plead their case only at the point of entry.
Under the UN convention of 1951 we are bound to treat each application individually on its merits. That seems to me to imply a proper individual hearing, not just a fast-track procedure, and a proper right of appeal. I certainly do not see how it is compatible with the list of safe countries.
We have been assured many times that Nigeria is not being treated as a safe country. However, I have the figures for applications from Nigeria in 1994: accepted as refugees, 0; given exceptional leave to remain, 5; refused, 1,485. If that is not treating Nigeria as a safe country it is an offence against the law of averages.
I heard the Prime Minister on television describe the hanging of Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa, at the fifth attempt, as judicial murder. I agree with the Prime Minister. I ask the noble Baroness, who is uniquely well placed to do so, to convey the Prime Minister's opinion of Nigerian justice to the Home Secretary and to ensure that her department's treatment of applicants from Nigeria falls into line with the Prime Minister's assessment of the situation in which they find themselves.
I am extremely dismayed to hear that the proposals to rely on employers to make checks are going ahead. I thought that what the Secretary of State for Education had to say on that subject was entire good sense, and I am extremely sorry that her view has not prevailed inside the Government. A world in which we all spend all our time snooping on each other will be an extremely unpleasant world. I note that the Home Secretary said this afternoon that ways of checking will he found that

211
are not racially discriminatory. I cannot understand how any way of checking people born in another country, and necessarily therefore discriminating them from people who are born in this country, can possibly be other than discriminatory. I think that I am right in saying that, save for the Welsh, every one of us in this Chamber is descended from immigrants. We really cannot afford to be this superior.
In my own field of social security we have no Bills in front of us at present. I hope that that will remain the case. However, that seems to me in part, if we may believe in a certain letter, to be because the Secretary of State prefers to do things by regulations. That letter underlines why this Chamber must improve its ways of dealing with regulations. If there were any further measures against either single parents or people under 25, some people outside this Chamber might be tempted to regard them as a vendetta. That would not he conducive to the general peace.
I think that we shall have further trouble with the habitual residence test. I shall ask tonight whether anything can be done to allow income support under the urgent cases provisions. People are being left destitute, and this is proving a severe burden on the social services departments of a limited number of boroughs. It is putting them— Camden and Tower Hamlets, to mention two— under acute pressure. I also want to raise a point on the decision of the 16th of last month about guidelines, which said that a person, to be found habitually resident, had to have been here for a period of time. In the first place, that seems to threaten anybody who loses a job while on holiday on the Costa Brava. In the second place, it contradicts the judgment of the House of Lords in 1983 in R v. Barnet ex parte Shah, where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, ruled that a settled purpose was enough to establish habitual residence. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who was the successful advocate in that case, can, I am sure, say a good deal more about it. However, I will ask the Minister if he will consider revising the guidelines to bring them into line with ex parte Shah.
The Minister has often said— on 20th October last year when the regulations came in, among other times— that British subjects excluded under these regulations mostly have a very tenuous connection with this country. He knows that one of those who have been refused benefit under these regulations is the niece of our former Leader in this House, my late noble friend Lord Byers, north Oxford born and bred and as British as you or me. I hope this was not the intention of the regulations, but it has been their effect. If the niece had been from another country within the European Union and had she taken Belgian citizenship while nursing a sick mother in Brussels, she would have had automatic right of entry as a European Union migrant worker. It would cause me a certain mischievous amusement were we to be condemned in the European Court for discrimination against our own nationals. It would give the writers of the Daily Mail editorials a good deal of exercise, and I would be interested to see what they would do with it.
212
I will not now say what I was going to say about the Transport Act. The Minister knows, and he knows that he will hear more of it. I will take up very briefly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, about the costs of social security. When we look at them against those of our competitors the figures suggest that we are not out of line. In terms of social protection, which I know is not the same index but there is an area of similarity, we come fifth out of the 12 as regards the proportion of GNP that we devote to it. It is not particularly remarkable. We need to consider whether we can genuinely reduce the social security budget by measures whose impact is confined to the Department of Social Security. When I was parachuted into that brief in 1989 I applied the traditional discipline of working out the objectives. I decided that the basic objective of social security was that people should not have to starve and that the need to save money, while it was already apparent to me in 1989 that it was considerable, must be secondary to that objective.
If you allow that, you cannot produce substantial savings by lowering benefit levels, as the Secretary of State himself argued in The Times last August. I believe that you cannot do it by disentitling people to benefit either. There is a Treasury guideline which says that any department considering policy changes must consider the resource implications for other departments. I know the Minister has assured me in a Written Answer of 7th November that the Department of Social Security does consider the resource implications for other departments when disentitling people to benefit. What I do not understand is how, if it does not know what those effects are, it can set about considering the implications for other departments.
I believe there are savings which can be made in social security. I believe a minimum wage, involving less pressure on means-tested benefits for subsidised low wages would be one of the best. I believe that childcare would be another. I will not elaborate now, but I think the Minister understands and I hope the House understands that there are no serious savings to be made out of social security until we have got people back to work. That is something to which, as far as I can see, the measures listed in the gracious Speech make no contribution whatever.
8.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these debates are always very difficult to attempt to summarise because the range of subjects is so great. Most noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today have chosen to speak mainly about law and home affairs, although there have been notable exceptions in other aspects of social policy; so your Lordships will forgive me if I fail to cover the range of subjects which have been properly raised in debate today.
I am glad to have the opportunity— I am allowed to do it— to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney, on his maiden speech. I think I am the only person to be able to do so from these Benches. It was an elegant and a well-informed speech. He chose rightly to speak

213
about his own experience, but we know from the range of his experience that he will have much to contribute to the House in future.
I want to make special reference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He struck terror into my heart at the opening of his speech by saying that he did not plan to speak any more in this Session or in subsequent Sessions. He then proceeded to make a very substantial speech, if he will allow me to say so; but if he means that threat seriously— and I take it as a threat and not as a promise— I think he ought to know in what high regard we hold him. The noble and learned Lord is sometimes spectacularly wrong. He was spectacularly wrong about the Child Support Bill; he was spectacularly wrong about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill. I believe that he is spectacularly wrong about the Family Law Bill, about which he spoke today, but what he—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Lord has been most generous. When he says I was spectacularly wrong about the Child Support Bill he has forgotten that he and I were in agreement over that; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, as well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought rather that the noble and learned Lord was in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who was certainly spectacularly wrong about the Child Support Bill. However, if I am wrong I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I was going on to refer to the number of occasions on which he has been spectacularly right, and that is the most important thing one has to say about the noble and learned Lord. He has been spectacularly right in particular about delegated legislation. He has taught us about Henry VIII clauses, and in many respects the Business of this House can never be the same again because of the contribution he has made.
There are many aspects of the debate today which do not in fact refer to the Queen's Speech but to social policy in the wider sense. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in opening the debate, referred to a number of aspects of policy which, although they are important because he referred to them, do not actually feature in the gracious Speech at all. He referred to the creation of a crime prevention agency. It sounds a good idea except that here we have another quango where Opposition pleas for crime prevention to be a basic task of the police and to be carried out successfully in collaboration with local authorities— as we know it can be— were turned down by the Government when we considered matters two years ago.
The noble and learned Lord spoke at some length about organised crime and related it to the security services. I rather agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, when he described it as being more the danger of a secret police. If the security services have much to contribute to dealing with organised crime, let them do it within the context and the constraints of the police services as we already have them, rather than as a separate body, confusing the issue and providing powers
214
for non-uniformed services which would be difficult to control. I find the idea deeply offensive of security services personnel having, for example, the right to burgle, as they would have.
There was little reference to the provisions of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill apart from one from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am glad that he welcomes it; we too welcome it and look forward to it succeeding.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the training of probation officers. I hope that their warnings will be listened to and that we shall hear no more of the offensive and damaging proposal which was comprehensively rubbished by your Lordships when the matter was debated earlier this year. I should not refer to the noble Lord, Lord Prentice, since he is not in his seat, but he mentioned the need for a Royal Commission on social security and argued for a non-partisan approach. The noble Lord has peculiar experience of his own version of a bi-partisan approach, having been in both parties. I do not think that many of us would agree that it is possible to take such matters out of party politics.
The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, who looked for a consensus on pensions. That comes rather strangely from a member of the party which destroyed the Crossman pension Bill of 1970, when it won that election and proceeded, after agreeing with the Castle pension Bill, with SERPS, then to reduce its value substantially on the unilateral one-party basis. If there is any argument for a non-party, above-party policy on pensions, then it is the Conservative Party that has attempted to destroy it.
My noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, rightly referred to the problems of prison policy and in particular to the manifesto of the Prison Governors' Association, for which I add my words of thanks and appreciation. It does not seem that the Government have learnt any of the lessons available to them from the debacles in present policy. I am not talking particularly about escapes but about much more fundamental matters. Despite the evidence available, they have not learnt that their so-called policy of secure training centres— which has resulted in not a single place since the legislation was passed— is vastly inferior to the promises they made in 1991 for increased local authority secure places. Not a single new place has been provided as a result of that promise. So by changing the policy and an insistence on a centralising policy as always, nothing has been done on either policy.
Again, I do not believe there is much evidence that the Government have learnt the lessons of next-steps status for the prison service. The degree of interference with the day-to-day running of the prison service will perhaps be revealed in the report which will come out early next year, but in view of the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly made, perhaps it will not come out.
I do not have time to refer to the valuable contributions on health policy from the noble Lords, Lord Ironside and Lord Harmsworth. and on Northern

215
Ireland from my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I rather think that they would not agree with each other about much of the Northern Ireland policy.
I suppose what we ought to be glad about is how much is not in the gracious Speech, how much in particular of the conclusions from the Conservative Party conference this year is not there. I shall pass rapidly over the horrible speeches of Dr. Mawhinney arid Mr Portillo and refer only to the speech of the Home Secretary. Noble Lords may recall that he said that there would be new policies about release from prison: those serving less than 12 months would have no earned early release, there would be no supervision after release. Those serving 12 months or more would have a small period of earned early release, but clearly there would be a severe restriction on the amount of early release that there would be. The Home Secretary then went on, even more controversially, to talk about sentences. In his speech he proposed mandatory life sentences for serious, violent and sexual offenders on second conviction. He proposed stiff minimum sentences for burglars and dealers in hard drugs who offend again and again.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, eloquently denounced those proposed measures which do not appear— thank goodness!— in the legislation. He talked about the comparison with Turkey and reference was also made to the effective letter from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who compared the Home Secretary's proposals with the disaster which has occurred from similar proposals, similar enactments in California.
If the Home Secretary means what he said at Blackpool in early October, then he is in for a great shock when he comes to this House. Those measures would not only be wrong in themselves but would be wildly expensive, would increase the prison population from the present 50,000 to at least 70,000 and probably more than that. I do not believe that such measures could get through this House. Even if a whipped majority in another place insisted on them, I do not believe that they would survive the considered view of your Lordships.
On all those issues of penal policy, the Home Secretary chooses to use the Conservative Party conference to say things that he dare not say in Parliament. He does so, to my mind— I shall choose my words carefully— for less than admirable reasons.
I turn now to the two major Bills on home policy which appear in the gracious Speech and which have been debated at considerable length, rightly, today. I shall not dare to refer to the Family Law Bill; my noble friend Lord Irvine has covered it comprehensively and extremely effectively. At least what has happened today is that the extent of the opposition has been smoked out. I do not believe it is enough to deter the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope it is not and that he will persist with the Bills as he originally proposed them, rather than as modified during the past week.
I wish to say something about the Asylum and Immigration Bill, although my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis effectively demolished the intellectual,
216
statistical and moral base of the proposals. I was involved in the 1993 Bill, after all, which was supposed to be the solution to all those problems. We were told that if the 1993 Bill were passed, with all the reductions in civil liberties which it involved, we would not have to hear from the Government again, because the problems would be solved. What actually happened after the 1993 Bill? We are now told that the backlog of appeals outstanding is 70,000 or 75,000, but a year or two ago it was only 55,000. What happened to all the speeding up procedures that were included in the 1993 Act? Why is it that, despite increases in staff, the number of outstanding appeals is so great? It is a very serious matter. Those who receive benefits while appealing against a judgment cost, according to the Government's figures, £ 200 million a year. It is not acceptable for the Government to turn their back on promises they made only two years ago.
In reference to the numbers of decisions that have taken place, in the Commons this afternoon the Home Secretary boasted about the fact that 25,000 decisions are now taken in a year as compared to 15,000 in the previous 12 months. But the fact is that in 1992, before the Bill, there were 35,000 decisions. In 1994 there were 21,000 and the figure is going up again slightly. But the number of decisions is not what it was before the 1993 Bill was passed.
Reference was rightly made to the "white list". I accept the Home Secretary's assurance that Nigeria is not on the proposed white list— although I wonder whether Nigeria was included in the pilot list prepared in May this year. The idea that employers should be deemed guilty of a criminal offence if they fail to report the employment of illegal immigrants is a little remarkable. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made effective reference to that and to the disagreement expressed by Mrs. Shephard. I wonder whether the Government have thought through the implications in relation to benefits. If benefits, including child benefits, are indeed to be cut, what will happen? Are these four-and-a-half thousand children to be taken into care? What will the cost be?
Returning to the speech of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, what about the claim that the 1951 convention is being observed in the proposed legislation? I did not read it that way. I understood the Home Secretary to say this afternoon that the rights of "those who presently qualify" are being preserved. I understand that to mean only 4 per cent. of applicants. That appears to me to mean that for 96 per cent. of applicants the 1951 convention is not being observed. At the end of this, the Home Secretary has the nerve to say that he invites the Opposition to take this issue out of party politics, in almost the very same breath as he refuses the special Public Bill procedure in another place. It beggars belief.
Seeing the time, I turn very briefly to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, which we can debate at length only a week from now. However, I remind the Government that in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994 and in the context of the right to silence we proposed amendments that would enforce defence disclosures, and we spoke about pre-trial reviews. So

217
many of the ideas in this Bill are ideas that follow from the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and indeed unfortunately go beyond it.
In so far as the Bill— and it is very difficult to read— follows Runciman, then it will receive our support. We want to support this Bill. But in so far as it goes beyond, and in particular when we examine issues such as the limits on police disclosure to the prosecution, on the lack of a schedule of unused material, on the details that the defence would have to provide, including the identification of witnesses, and above all on the ability of the prosecution to decide what is relevant to the defence, I have no doubt that there will be hard argued amendments in Committee and at later stages.
There are other aspects of the Bill, such as preliminary hearings, the judge's ruling on admissibility of evidence, the plea before decision on a mode of trial, jury nobbling and the collection of fines where we shall probably, subject to certain amendments, agree with much of what is in the Bill.
I added a last little page headed "social policy" because I thought that that was what this was supposed to be about. But when I look carefully at the Queen's Speech and try to parse it as generously as I can, I do not find much reference to social policy either in the Queen's Speech or in government policy as a whole. Despite isolated, thoughtful speeches such as that of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I find very little reference to social policy in its broader sense and the necessity for us in this House and in politics generally to recognise the differences in our society and how they can avoid being destructive. In a recent essay in the Observer, John Kenneth Galbraith returned to the theme that he had followed for a long time about the danger of the selfishness of the comfortable majority in the United States but also in this country. He said:
"The comfortable may well be a majority now. Those who depend on support from the State … and those who share compassionately in their needs"—
I hope that that includes all of us"—
"are now a minority".
It is essential for us to understand the need for the minority of those who are themselves in need or who understand the damaging effects of differences in our society to let that understanding and compassion permeate our politics. I do not see that in the thinking of this Government.
8.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, today's debate has been interesting and, not surprisingly, wide-ranging. Many noble Lords have spoken on a large number of subjects. As always, I was impressed by the knowledge and understanding demonstrated by those who spoke of the subjects raised.
I wish to add my congratulations to those already expressed around the Chamber to my noble friend Lord Cuckney on his maiden speech. It was a strong and important speech. It brought to bear his great experience on his chosen subject. I wish my noble friend well for
218
future debates in this House. On the evidence of his contribution today, I know that he will prove a great asset.
There is no way in which I can cover all the points raised during this debate; nor will it be possible to do justice to so wide-ranging a debate. Therefore, topics not covered in my response I shall follow up by writing to the relevant noble Lords, and I shall place copies of all my letters in the Library for all to see. I shall race through what I can in the time allotted.
Much was said today about the Asylum and Immigration Bill. As some noble Lords will doubtless be aware, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a Statement today in another place about the detail of the Bill's provisions. Your Lordships chose not to request that Statement to be repeated. I shall therefore respond to the points made this afternoon. But before doing so I should like to reiterate some of the remarks made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in opening this debate.
The United Kingdom has a long and honourable tradition of aiding those who are being persecuted or who need protection. It cannot be over-stated though that our procedures for providing that assistance and protection are being abused by people who have no genuine need of them. This cannot go on in view of the damage that is done by such abuse to immigration control and to the interests of genuine refugees, as well as the cost to taxpayers and the burden on public services. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary today announced measures to deal with that abuse.
Much disquiet was expressed during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referred to the so-called white list and thought that it would lead to conflict with United Nations obligations. Designation powers would be fully consistent with our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. We will not refuse to consider applications from certain countries. All claims will still be considered. But there will be a rebuttable assumption against claims from designated countries. Similar arrangements already apply in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The noble Lord also referred to the possible reference of the Bill to a Standing Committee. I just wish to repeat the comment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition when he wrote:
"the purpose of Special Standing Committees is to consider Bills that are uncontroversial— indeed that is what the mechanism was designed for. This was set out by the Leader of the House in 1980 and repeated again most clearly in 1993 when he made it clear that the procedure was appropriate, 'only for relatively non-controversial measures with a degree of cross-Party support'".
The letter goes on to say,
"This Bill does not seem to the Government to fall into that category since many controversial observations have already been made about it."
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised a number of points. Our obligation under the 1951 United Nations Convention is not to remove people who have a well-founded fear of persecution. We will honour that. Claims from designated countries will still be

219
considered. There is no question of blanket bans and I cannot say at this stage whether Turkey will be included on the so-called "white list".
The noble Lord asked whether the Home Secretary would declare Nigeria as a country in upheaval. We are monitoring the position in Nigeria. On visa regulations I can say that the European Union common visa list will require us to impose a number of additional visa regimes when it comes into force next April. There are no other plans for further visa regimes but we will keep the position under review.
The noble Lord asked whether most, if not all, claims will have to be made at the ports. We are not removing the right to apply for asylum after entry to the United Kingdom, but those who apply will do so on the basis that they will not normally be eligible for benefit. On confidentiality, I can say that claims are treated in confidence unless it is necessary for the Home Office to confirm asylum seeker status for the purpose of benefit.
In relation to the right of oral appeal, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will issue proposals as soon as possible for consultation on the matter. Finally, it is true that the overwhelming majority of asylum claims are bogus. Only 4 per cent. of claims are granted and only 4 per cent. of appeals are allowed. All applications and subsequent appeals are considered independently and fully in accordance with our international obligations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through those points, which I shall look at with interest. But what about the situation affecting Nigeria? Does the noble Baroness say that 3,500 claims for asylum are bogus?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am saying that they were all dealt with independently by the system and I cannot pre-empt what was decided either on application or appeal. However, I can say to my noble friend Lord Brentford, who referred to Nigeria, that all claims continue to be considered fully and substantively in accordance with the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 convention. That applies to claims from Nigeria as it does to claims from all other countries.
My noble friend Lord Brentford raised other points. He understood my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor correctly when he said that there are over 70,000 applications in the system. There has been a sharp rise in applications. There were over 4,500 last month, which means that further action is required. Our proposals should be seen in that context. All those who applied for asylum before 11 th October, when the announcement was made, will continue to be eligible for benefit after 8th January, until a decision is made on their claims. Most in-country applicants enter the United Kingdom as visitors, tourists or students on the basis that they can support themselves. They should not be able to evade those requirements by later applying for asylum. Equally, those who enter illegally or overstay should not be able to evade benefit restrictions by claiming asylum. We must ensure that the benefit system does not provide an incentive to unfounded claims. Genuine refugees will gain from reduced exploitation of the system.
220
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the benefit restrictions and asked whether there would be a provision for the most vulnerable asylum seekers with dependants. There will be no special provision for asylum seekers with dependants. Genuine refugees should claim on arrival. If they do so, they will be entitled to benefit. Those who gain entry on the basis that they will support themselves should be held to that, whether or not they claim asylum. Asylum applicants cannot expect the taxpayer to support them while they appeal.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether husbands and wives would be required to attend compulsory information sessions together under the provisions of the Family Law Bill. The precise nature of such information sessions will be consulted upon further and a number of models will be piloted before implementation. I can confirm that legal aid will be available for those for whom mediation is unsuitable.
The noble Earl asked also why regulations to withdraw income support from asylum seekers pending appeal were to be laid on 18th December, there being no opportunity for parliamentary debate before they come into force on 8th January. Again, I repeat what was said by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The urgency stems from the danger that the proposed curtailment may provoke a behavioural response which would have serious consequences for the Home Office and the DSS. Essentially, we cannot risk a closing-down sale.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a number of points in relation to proposed measures on the prevention of illegal working. In particular they mentioned the burdens on business, implications for race relations and the size of the problem. I appreciate the anxieties expressed about the dangers of racial discrimination. In developing our proposals we were most concerned that employers should not pick out any specific group for discriminating treatment on the basis of their colour or race. We will listen carefully to anxieties expressed in response to our consultation document. In any event my right honourable friend will ensure that employers are provided with advice and guidance on how to carry out checks on applicants in ways which will not discriminate against any group. We shall be consulting the Commission for Racial Equality to ensure that there can be no confusion.
The Family Law Bill was the subject of many speeches in the course of the afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, covered the matter comprehensively and referred to the protection of the weak. Mediators are trained to hold the balance between the weaker and the more powerful parties. If one party does not disclose assets, mediation will cease and the parties will be referred to lawyers. During negotiations legal advice rather than representation is what is needed. Legal advice will be available.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford welcomed provisions on divorce but emphasised the need for government support for marriage. The Government have set up an inter-departmental group to

221
look at the current support for marriage and to see how it may be improved and strengthened. We have already funded marriage guidance and research organisations to the tune of £ 2.3 million this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked whether we will make further changes to the Family Law Bill as a result of minority views. The Bill will follow the usual procedure in both Houses of Parliament. That will provide an opportunity for full debate. It would not be appropriate to say what changes may be made in advance of the debate but my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has expressed his willingness to consider any points that are raised during the course of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine, in a moving speech, raised a number of points that were also raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Ashbourne. Divorce will not be possible until parties have made all arrangements relating to children, finance and the home. The court will be able to bar divorce where one party can show grave financial or grave other hardship. Parties cannot start proceedings within the first year of marriage. Divorce would take a minimum of 13 months and so divorce would not be possible within the first 25 months of marriage. That would stop parties rushing in and out of marriage. The reality of the present system is that parties can divorce very quickly and against the will and wishes of the other party. The bar on divorce only applies in five-year separation cases. In the new system the bar on divorce would be available in all cases.
The Government support the institution of marriage and would do nothing which would undermine marriage. But I note the feelings with which points were made by noble Lords who spoke against the Bill. The requirement to make allegations of fault does nothing to support marriage. Fault ensures a quick divorce without reflection and without facing the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood before divorce is final. All experience to date has shown that it is impossible to determine which party is to blame for the breakdown of a marriage. Allegations of fault serve to worsen the relationship between the parties to the detriment of children. Research shows that conflict between parents does indeed damage children.
Not too many noble Lords spoke about the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill but I hope the House will accept that the detailed points can be left to the Second Reading debate, which will be held very soon. However, I shall address the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord Irvine of Lairg.
In the context of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked whether we would place in the Library of the House the responses we received to the consultation paper on disclosure. The consultation paper invited views on the Government's proposals. It gave no indication that those views would be published. Some of those who responded made it clear that their views were given in confidence; others did not do so but gave no indication that they expected their views to be
222
published. In the circumstances, I do not believe that it would be proper for the Government to place the responses in the Library of the House. But what I shall do is place in the Library a list of the names of persons and organisations who responded to the consultation paper so that those who wish to obtain the views of any particular person or organisation may approach them direct.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also gave notice that he would like me to explain during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill how its provisions differed from those in the consultation paper on disclosure. I shall do so. I shall also, if I may, respond on that occasion to his comments on the Government's attitude to the proposals on disclosure made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, explained that his party would wish to scrutinise the Bill very carefully in the context of miscarriages of justice, from which arose the current disclosure requirements. I understand the point he makes, and if your Lordships will allow me, I shall address those points at Second Reading.
Perhaps I may refer to other Bills. The Security Service Bill was referred to in the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Cuckney. In opening the debate, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to the Bill which is shortly to be introduced in another place and which will enable the Security Service to support the law enforcement agencies in their work against serious crime. I am grateful for the warm welcome the Bill has received from my noble friend Lord Cuckney. The Bill will be a small but significant one. It will ensure that the valuable skills and expertise that the Security Service possesses can be deployed in the fight against organised crime. It is one of a series of measures that the Government will be introducing over the coming months, all of which are designed to make certain that the resources being directed against organised crime are used to maximum effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the peace process in Northern Ireland. I can assure him that the peace process remains at the top of the Government's agenda and that we shall continue in our efforts to find a just and lasting settlement, based on consent, to which all the people of Northern Ireland can lend their allegiance. The noble Lord also raised the question of the transfer of prisoners. It is open to any prisoner to apply for transfer to another UK jurisdiction. Each request is considered individually, on its merits, in accordance with criteria announced in Parliament in 1992. Requests for transfer to the Republic of Ireland will also be considered on their merits.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough pointed out— I believe, with considerable perception— that it remains incumbent on Sinn Fein to take the necessary steps to move the peace process onwards. These must include an end to the beatings, kidnappings and arson attacks and progress must be made on the decommissioning of illegal weaponry. No political party committed to peaceful means needs to have Semtex or Armalites behind it. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend that all the responses that the Government have made to the changed circumstances of the cease-fire have been made

223
on firm security advice from the Chief Constable of the RUC and from the General Officer commanding Northern Ireland. They can be reversed if necessary, but the Government hope that Sinn Fein and the loyalist terrorists will soon begin decommissioning the illegal weaponry that they hold and move the peace process on.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, referred to law reform matters and the omission of an arbitration Bill. He felt that they should be brought forward as soon as possible. I welcome his comments on the progress made on the Law Commission reports. I also noted that he reminded the House that there is considerable scope for more progress to be made. He gave examples of Bills which he thought can be brought forward. He suggested a rolling programme of legislation. I shall take the points made by the noble and learned Lord back to my right honourable friend and ministerial colleagues in the department.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the Education (Scotland) Bill. I listened carefully to the points made by the noble Earl about that Bill. As regards nursery education vouchers, we believe that over time they will stimulate provision. Full coverage in rural and urban areas may take some time, but we expect parents' desires for places to be fulfilled so that choice is put in the hands of parents. We recognise the importance of clarity over the status of education awards and the Bill will make a significant contribution to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the housing Bill including measures to meet the needs of young people leaving care. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has received representations on this matter, which he is at present reflecting on.
My noble friend Lord Pearson pressed the Government to develop village communities for people with learning disabilities rather than the Government policy of community care. He also asked for the results of the research study undertaken by the Department of Health. Guidance to local authorities on the development of services for people with learning disabilities already gives considerable flexibility as regards the provision of residential services. The evaluation is intended to help authorities to make best use of resources in implementing current policy. There is no reason why authorities should not proceed with plans for the development of individually-based services. My noble friend with ministerial responsibility will write to my noble friend with information about the research study on village communities to which he referred.
Perhaps I may now race through some of the other points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank referred to the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service. He referred specifically to Kate Jenkins, who was one of the three authors of the report to the then Prime Minister which led to the establishment of executive agencies.
224
The work that she has been asked to carry out as an independent consultant will not be looking at the merits or otherwise of agencies, but at the relationship between the Home Office and the Prison Service. Miss Jenkins's knowledge and experience in this field are to be welcomed rather than criticised. It is in accordance with General Sir John Learmont's recommendation that the work should be done by someone with wide experience of agency status.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull, referred to changes in probation training. Probation work is highly skilled and probation officers should be properly trained. But the training that they receive should be geared to defined competences and should take account of the skills and experience of applicants. I believe that the result will be better training and not worse, for probation officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also referred to the crime prevention agency. The creation of such an agency will not require primary legislation and that is why it was not included in the gracious Speech. All I can say to the noble Lord at this stage is that the aims of the agency are to initiate, develop and promote innovative ideas to help prevent crime and to reduce the fear of crime. The aims are also to work with the police, local authorities, business, industry and the voluntary sector, the community and others, to target specific types of crime. We want Britain to be a world leader in crime prevention. We believe that the agency will provide the impetus for achieving that.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to having had some correspondence with my department and the Prison Service. I made inquiries during the course of the afternoon after the noble Lord raised the matter. I understand that a letter was sent to him on Friday. The delay in dealing with this correspondence is completely unacceptable and I shall do what I can. I apologise profusely to the noble Lord for the delay. I hope that he will accept my assurance that I shall look into the delay over this matter. In parenthesis, perhaps I may also say that I have read the letter that went to the noble Lord and it does not justify the months of delay that he suffered before receiving it.
There is much more to which I could refer in this debate, but, as I said at the outset, I should prefer to write in greater detail to all noble Lords who have raised specific points that require an answer. I shall place copies in the Library so that other noble Lords may read them. With that comment, I conclude my remarks.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate he now adjourned until tomorrow.— (Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.