Sitting of 5 February 1997

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

Ford (Halewood)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
9.34 am
Mr. Edward O'Hara: This debate, which I am grateful to have been granted, is about Government assistance to the Ford plant at Halewood. I welcome the impressive support of colleagues from Merseyside and beyond. I note the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), and that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I understand that others may be coming later to support me. I must also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is here but subjected to enforced silence. Such support is indicative of the severity of the crisis now facing the Ford plant at Halewood.
Everyone knows Ford, but not everyone knows Halewood. Halewood is at the extreme south of Knowsley, abutting Liverpool to the west and Widnes to the east. It is situated conveniently on the motorway network—the M62 goes to east Lancashire and across the Pennines to the east coast ports, the M56 links it to Greater Manchester, Manchester airport and north Wales, and the M6 leads to the far north and the south.
Halewood is home to Ford (UK), which is by far the biggest employer on Merseyside. On Thursday 23 January 1997, Ford made an announcement that cast a shadow over the future of this important factory. I intend to spend a few minutes tracing the history of the factory and describing the detail of the announcement, the background to it and its severe implications for Merseyside and beyond. I shall question Ford's decision, draw some conclusions as to why it should be resisted, and seek Government support to persuade Ford to change its mind.
The plant was founded in 1960. Ford was attracted to the 346-acre site by the excellent communications that I have just described. Between 1960 and 1963, Ford spent £30 million on building what was then the world's biggest car factory under one roof. The official opening was on 8 March 1963. The first car off the
920
assembly line was a 997 cc Ford Anglia, which is still in the Liverpool transport museum as part of the industrial heritage of Merseyside.
In 1968, another important event took place—the unveiling of the Escort Mark I, 1.1 litre. Six generations of this car have since been built at Halewood. The plant has also produced the Cortina, the Capri, the Corsair and the Orion, which are variants of the Escort. In 1969, the millionth car came off the production line.
In 1981, the Escort received the European Car of the Year award, and was the world's best-selling car. It retained the latter record in 1982 and 1983. Between 1986 and 1996, the Escort topped United Kingdom car sales for all but three years, and 129,000 Escorts were sold in the UK in 1996. Total world sales since 1968 have been nearly 18 million. Of course, the Escort is now made in Saarlouis in Germany and Valencia in Spain—names that will crop up numerous times in my speech.
Such sales owe much to excellent design and marketing, but they also owe much to the work force. Continuous improvements in productivity have been achieved not only through capital investment by the company, but through changing work practices and successive tranches of job losses at Halewood, from a peak of employing 14,500 people to its present level of 4,500 in the vehicle assembly plant. The company admits that the production costs per unit are better than those of the nearest comparable plant, in Saarlouis. Continuous improvements in quality have led to the award of Ford's Q1 standard in 1995—the cordon bleu in-house quality mark.
In addition to those 4,500 workers in the vehicle assembly plant are the 1,000 in the transmission factory on the same site, which makes transmission units for the Escort, the Fiesta, the Scorpio and the new Ka—those for the Scorpio and the Ka are for export—making Ford Halewood a key component in the industrial infrastructure of Merseyside and the wider region. High-volume family car production makes it by far the largest manufacturing employer in Merseyside, with a footprint of employment covering the whole of the Merseyside area—north, south, east and west—as well as Greater Manchester, Lancashire, Cheshire and north Wales.
In addition to those directly employed by Ford, the number of jobs provided in the supply of goods and services to the factory is unquantifiable but massive. Then there are the jobs provided in the local economy by the spending power of all those employees, from the local shops, large and small, to Halewood Labour club.
Mr. John Evans: My hon. Friend touches on the important issue of the wider spread of jobs in Merseyside. Is he aware that much of the glass installed in Escorts is produced at the Triplex factory in St. Helens, which has also struggled over the past few years? The potential loss of that valuable order could have a major impact on the employment prospects at Triplex in St, Helens.
Mr. O'Hara: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that practical example. The effects that he describes could be repeated many times elsewhere.

921
On Thursday 23 January 1997, the announcement hit Mersey side like a bomb. In round figures, 1,300 jobs were to go on the Escort production line at Halewood, reducing the work force from 4,500 to 3,200. The new Escort would not be made in Halewood, but would be produced solely at the German and Spanish plants. Production of the old Escort would continue at a scaled-down rate until the end of the century. Thereafter, a new multi-activity vehicle, which I shall refer to as MAV, would be built on the platform of the Escort, supplying the European niche market of people carriers—cars such as the Renault Megane Scenic. At the moment, the MAV is little more than a computer-generated schema.
The announcement had been extensively trailed against the background of declining sales of the Escort in this country and worldwide, and losses suffered by Ford across its European operation. The company announced a loss of $291 million on its European operations in 1996. However, it should be noted that those losses cover the whole European operation, not just production of the Escort, and were certainly not down to Halewood alone. The figures for any losses that may have been incurred at Halewood are not, as far as I am aware, available.
Within a fortnight of announcing 1,300 job losses at Halewood, Ford announced a profit of $39 million for the final quarter of published figures. The company claims that that is reduced to losses of $88 million after a one-off payment is taken into account. I wonder whether that one-off payment is the cost of writing down Halewood.
The declining sales of the Escort must be a factor. Halewood is currently dedicated to Escort production. However, the sales performance of the Escort must be taken in context. First, the United Kingdom sales figure of 129,000 is a serious decline from the 1990 peak, but all car sales declined during the recession. Those 129,000 sales still made the Escort the second best seller in the UK market in 1996.
Secondly, the UK is the Escort's best market. Comparisons with sales in Germany and Spain make interesting reading. United Kingdom sales between 1990 and 1995—remember that our recession was deeper than that in the rest of Europe—went down by 27 per cent. In Germany, sales went down by 37 per cent., and in Spain they went down by 24 per cent. The company's figures for sales in Germany are different, but they fail to make the adjustment for West German sales only in 1990 and sales in the unified Germany thereafter.
Even more interesting comparisons can be made between national production and national sales of the Escort in the three countries. United Kingdom sales are 85 per cent. of domestic production, according to figures that I have been given. That means that we are a net exporter. The figure for Germany is 132 per cent., and that for Spain is even higher. Germany and Spain are net importers of Escorts.
Thirdly—this is a crucial point—the new model Escort is designed to arrest the recent decline in sales across its markets. It is timed to ride the upsurge in the market as we emerge from recession.
922
In spite of all this, production of the new model has been assigned to Saarlouis and Valencia, not to Halewood. The implications are serious. The loss of the new model Escort takes Halewood out of high-volume, two-shift family car production—the big stuff in the automotive industry. The concession that the old model Escort will be produced until 2000, concurrently with the new model coming off continental production lines, is meaningless. Old models do not sell when the new model is available. The only car that ever bucked that trend was the Fiesta. That was in the context of rising sales. The Escort would have to do so in the context of depressed sales.
The promise of the MAV as the basis of the future survival of the Halewood plant is to be treated with the utmost reservation. It is still at the earliest stage of development—little more than a gleam in the designer's eye. As of last Monday, when we met management, it had not been put to the board for approval of development costs. It appears that development may be dependent on a large grant from the UK Government. Even if it gets off the drawing board and into production, there are further reservations about the MAV, because it serves a niche market, with low-volume production and sales in comparison with those of family saloons such as the Escort.
Putting all that together, the prognosis for Halewood is difficult. It must struggle to buck the market trend, with the old Escort competing against the new, followed by dependency on the MAV in low-volume production. Make no mistake: we want the MAV and we want it to be a winner in its niche market, but we also want and need the high-volume production of the new Ford Escort. The two are not incompatible. If the MAV is based on the Escort platform, there is no reason why the two could not come off the production line.
Mr. Frank Field: On behalf of the hon. Members from the Wirral area, one of whom has had to take a trappist vow for the debate, may I draw to the attention of those following our proceedings the fact that there are more hon. Members present in the Chamber than there often are for debates subject to a three-line Whip? We could obviously take up the whole day debating the issue if that were possible. That is how seriously we take the problem.
We in Wirral have suffered from huge job losses—not just any jobs, but jobs paying decent wages. I want to stress the link between wage levels and families. Much emphasis in public debate is put on the desire for stable families. It is difficult to have stable families without decent family wages. For many of us, my hon. Friend's speech has another dimension. Jobs are important, but people usually require them so that they can nurture children, so it is also a blow for them.
Mr. O'Hara: I shall make some observations about the point my hon. Friend has raised later in my speech, when I turn to the direct financial costs of supporting an additional 1,300 unemployed people. I am sure that my hon. Friend and all hon. Members are aware of the indirect costs of unemployment and its associated deprivation.

923
The prognosis for Halewood is difficult. We want the MAV to be a winner in its niche market, but we also want the new Escort. The MAV represents only half the future that we would expect if Halewood were to produce the new Escort. Virgil's expression,
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes"
is apposite in respect of the MAV. It means, "I fear the Greeks when they bear gifts,"' and refers to the Trojan horse. Arguably, the Trojan horse was the first ever people carrier.
Why then was Halewood singled out for an uncertain future? What can be the reason for effectively exporting 1,300 jobs from my constituency to Spain and Germany in order to manufacture the new model Escort for import into the United Kingdom, the market where the Escort is the second best seller, where it sells in greater volume than any other market, and where, in a declining trend, its sales have held up better than elsewhere? The United Kingdom is the only country that exports more Escorts than it produces.
Can the reason be productivity levels at Halewood? I have referred to the heroic achievements of the Halewood work force in improving productivity to the point at which the Escort is cheaper to produce per unit than in Saarlouis. I am advised that production costs per unit are cheaper in Valencia. That depends on how one calculates the statistics, and one would expect that of such a relatively modern factory.
It should also be remembered that current assessments of productivity at Halewood are based on a long period of single-shift working during the depressed car market, when Halewood had to carry the costs of down-time payments and the other diseconomies of scale when a production line designed for double-shift working is reduced to a single shift. The factories at Valencia and Saarlouis did not suffer the same disadvantage when productivity assessments were made.
If Escort production capacity has to go—I shall qualify that "if—there is a strong case in terms of productivity for consolidating production at Halewood instead of cutting it there.
If the problem is not productivity, can it be quality? Again, there have been heroic achievements by the work force at Halewood, leading to the award of Q1 status in 1995. That was also against a background of single-shift working and interrupted production runs which can affect quality, as the management told us last week. Despite that disadvantage, the work force achieved Q1.
Thus, in terms of commitment, productivity, quality and sales, the work force at Halewood are not agents of their own misfortune as has been suggested in some misguided sections of the press; they are innocent victims.
Can the reason be over-capacity across the three plants at Halewood, Saarlouis and Valencia? Some journalists have suggested that Ford has half a plant too many producing the Escort, that the company needed to amputate one plant, and that Halewood was the weakest. My evidence on productivity, quality and market performance of Halewood Escorts gives the lie to that. In any case, the argument about over-capacity is open to question. If the new Escort is as successful as Ford intends it to be, the capacity of the plants at Saarlouis and Valencia will probably be inadequate to meet the expected demand.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend mentioned over-capacity. Did he hear the
924
reported comments of Mr. Jac Nasser on Radio 4 today, when he said that Ford Halewood has to compete not only with southern Europe, but with eastern Europe? Is there not an argument to be made about the fact that Ford is increasing its capacity in areas that do not have the same employment and working conditions that are expected in western Europe?
Mr. O'Hara: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point that I hope the Government will bear in mind in discussions with Mr. Nasser, when considering their commitment to production in Britain.
I return to over-capacity, and the inadequacy of the Saarlouis and Valencia plants to meet expected sales of the new model by possibly 100,000. If Halewood were to lose the new Escort, the 1,300 jobs would be exported to provide expanded production—possibly a third shift in the factories in Spain and Germany—to produce cars for import into the United Kingdom.
If over-capacity can be ruled out, why did Ford single out Halewood and not share the pain across all three plants? There are several possibilities. An article in The Observer on 19 January compared the difficulty and cost of making people redundant in Britain, Spain and Germany. It showed that it is easier to make people redundant in the United Kingdom because there are fewer legal hurdles and binding agreements to overcome. It is also cheaper to make people redundant in Britain, because redundancy terms are more generous in Spain and Germany, where all employees are entitled to redundancy payments, not just those who qualify under the two-year rule.
The company argues, with some justification, that the severances will be voluntary and the terms generous, but leaving aside the economic abstractions, every redundancy is a personal tragedy for a family—1,300 tragedies in this case. The pill has to be sugared, because the age profile of the Halewood work force is such that, after all the successive job losses, it is a difficult life decision for a worker to take the money knowing that he is most unlikely to have a comparable job ever again. Finally, once the redundancies have been made, the jobs will no longer be available to the local and national economy.
A further argument is that greater financial inducements have been provided by the Governments of Spain and Germany to the company to keep production there. I have no hard evidence for saying that, but I would not be at all surprised if there were evidence to support it. I simply ask the Minister to bear that in mind in his discussions with Ford.
I shall not make political points about the cost and the ease of making people redundant in Britain. Others may wish to do that. I confine my remarks to the effects of the announcement about Halewood on my constituency in Knowsley and the surrounding region.
In conclusion, the announcement that the new Escort will not be produced at Halewood is catastrophic to the economy in my constituency, and those of many of my hon. Friends who are here today. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is now in his place.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend drew attention to the effect on the local and

925
regional economy. The people of Ellesmere Port where the Vauxhall Astra is made are deeply worried by the announcement. There is no glee in Ellesmere Port. My constituents recognise that it is a serious blow to the regional economy following the job losses at Gallaghers, H. H. Robertson Ltd. and Prestige. Manufacturing jobs are being lost throughout the north-west, and, whatever the product, they are creating serious crises for many thousands of families in the region.
Mr. O'Hara: Absolutely. There could not be a better demonstration of the objectivity of the case that I am presenting than the fact that car workers in a factory just across the Mersey are supporting their opposition in the market. I note that my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Bootle (Mr. Benton) have joined the debate.
We are talking not only about 1,300 jobs but about the knock-on effects of job losses in a myriad of suppliers—great and small—of components and services to the Halewood factory. There is a further knock-on effect of such wages and salaries across the retail economy of my area, and a social cost in an area where unemployment is far higher than the national average.
There are hard financial costs as well. There is the cost to the Treasury of sustaining with benefits those who lose their jobs and the indirect and wider cost of the consequences of unemployment, and the attendant social deprivation. Such arguments are, of course, of general application when unemployment occurs, but I ask the Minister to take particular note of this incidence.
Merseyside is an unemployment black spot. It has suffered more than its fair share of job losses in the two recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. It is the only industrial region of mainland Britain that has objective 1 status. This is not a scouse whinge; our heads are not down on Merseyside. Indeed, we are energetically regenerating Merseyside. A blow such as the Ford decision, however, is a severe setback.
Moreover, Ford is the sort of flagship multinational inward investor whose investments do two things in an area such as ours. It not only gives a big boost to the local economy with its own jobs and the piggy-back jobs that it brings with it: it punches a hole through which lesser investors follow, on the principle that, if Merseyside is good enough for Ford, it is good enough for them. There is a confidence factor, and if Ford disinvests, that is damaged. We scousers have plenty of pride and confidence in ourselves, but we need others to have confidence in us, too—notably Ford.
The argument that I present to the Minister is for selective regional assistance and affirmative action for Merseyside. Some might call that special pleading, but it is an argument for the balance of trade in the automotive industry.
It is predicted that the four best sellers in the UK family car market will be the Fiesta, the Escort, the Mondeo and the new Ka. If Escort production is taken from Halewood, all those but the Fiesta will be produced abroad and imported into this country. A conservative estimate is that that will involve 360,000 units, or £2.8 billion, on the debit side of the balance of payments. The social costs,
926
the regeneration of Merseyside and the balance of trade are hard financial reasons for keeping the Ford Escort and the 1,300 jobs at Halewood.
I know that the Minister is seriously interested in the issues that I have put before him: the impact of the announcement on Merseyside and the danger of the domino effect on the Halewood plant, the Merseyside economy, and other Ford plants about which I could have said much—I could have mentioned Iveco in Langley or Bridgend.
I know that there is on-going dialogue between Ford and the DTI at the highest ministerial level and through officials, and I urge the Minister to pursue those discussions with vigour and commitment. I suspect that they will touch on support for investment in the MAV. I encourage him in such discussion. We want the MAV, and if any work force can make it succeed, Halewood can. Compared with production of the Escort, however, the MAV offers Halewood only half a future. I urge the Minister to explore any and every avenue with the company that could lead to the award of the production of the new model Escort at Halewood.
I end by quoting the motto of Liverpool: Deus nobis haec otia fecit—God gave us all these leisure pursuits. It refers to the parks and gardens of Victorian Liverpool. We in Knowsley, South, we in Liverpool and on Merseyside have had enough of enforced leisure. We want jobs—specifically the 1,300 at Halewood.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Understandably, many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. May I therefore make an appeal for short speeches?
10.4 am
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on securing the debate. I am conscious of time, and shall not detain the House.
I am slightly disappointed that none of our Conservative colleagues who represent Merseyside has been able to be present, but I welcome the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who has responsibility for Merseyside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South described the effect of the decision on confidence on Merseyside. I do not believe that that can be overstated. The decision comes at a quite critical time for us on Merseyside. We have been living with objective 1 status for three or four years. It is a double-edged sword. It provides very much needed European aid, which is essential in the region if we are to regenerate the local economy and improve economic activity, but its downside is that it is a recognition of just how bad things have become.
We on Merseyside are making many improvements. A new city centre is emerging from the ashes of the 1970s and 1980s, when manufacturing fled the region, and hopes for the future of the region have been growing. There has been some success in the campaign to attract new jobs in my constituency, which borders with the

927
constituency of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The Wavertree technology park is one of many examples of success in attracting new businesses and generating new jobs on Merseyside.
Just as we were hoping to come to the end of objective 1 status, Ford's decision has been a huge blow to the confidence of Merseyside people and their work in partnership with local authorities—and in many respects with the Government—in lifting the region and pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, demonstrating the skills, ingenuity and resilience of the people, who have had to face and grapple with such economic difficulties.
Ford's decision has had a major impact on the image that people have of Merseyside. I criticise the company for the way in which it handled the decision and remained silent about the reasons why it had arrived at it. That left commentators, the press and others around Britain and in Europe to draw their own conclusions based on images—often the wrong images—of Merseyside. The way in which the decision was taken did not allow for any clear analysis. Everything was privately indicated in meetings with Members of Parliament, the unions and the Government.
It is clear that Ford has been facing serious problems. There is no question but that the Escort has been losing its position in the car market. It has made its case to Members, the Government and the unions, and explained how it has been losing money hand over fist with that product. Hon. Members understand the difficult competitive world facing car manufacturers; we appreciate that, when people buy their cars, they base their decision on different judgments than those they made in the past; we understand the problems facing volume car producers such as Ford when they are deciding what new products to bring on stream.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: The hon. Lady referred to Conservative Members from her region. I represent an area further south that makes motor cars. Rover and Land Rover are virtually within spitting distance of my constituency, although not in it. She does her own region proud in her defence of it.
I do not feel that the decision is so much a reflection on Merseyside itself, as the hon. Lady seemed to be saying. It is, as she is now beginning to say, more of a reflection on Ford, which has had problems in attracting buyers of certain designs of car over the past five years or so. That has been a problem for Ford Europe, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will go on to say that that problem is not reflected in some of its competitors, such as Rover and Land Rover. The decision is therefore to some degree a reflection on the company, rather than on the area or the work force of Merseyside.
Mrs. Kennedy: That is my point precisely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South has explained, the workers at Ford Halewood have demonstrated their capacity to grapple with the problems that the company faces and to work in partnership with it. There has been an unprecedented period of freedom from all kinds of industrial problems at the plant. The workers have demonstrated their commitment to the company, and shown that they are prepared to work with it to rise above the challenges that it is telling us about.
I believe that Ford's decision was based on reasons other than those about which it is prepared to come clean. As a country, we must face up to the fact that Ford has
928
three plants in three European countries, that it has taken that decision, and that, in doing so, one factor that it has taken into account is the difference between the employment requirements in the three countries. There is a strong belief on Merseyside that we have suffered because it has been easier and cheaper for Ford to make 1,300 people redundant at Halewood than it would have been at either of the other two plants.
My hon. Friend has talked about those 1,300 jobs, and I want to talk about the consequences for the 1,300 workers. Every week at my surgeries, I see the consequences for the health of men who stop working at 50 with no prospect of further work. There are also important consequences for the job opportunities of young people on Merseyside, who hoped to find employment and develop their skills at the plant.
We are aware of the problems that Ford has faced, and of the changing car market. Why does the Department of Trade and Industry appear to have been taken so much by surprise by Ford's decision? Given the major impact that it will have on our trade deficit, why was the Department caught on the back foot? It seems to me that the German and Spanish Governments had been working more closely with the company in trying to prevent the decision from going against workers and businesses in their countries. I greatly regret that.
A view is developing on Merseyside that objective I funding should be used to support Ford's decision to bring new manufacturing to Merseyside, but I believe that that would be a mistake, and that other funding should be used instead. We should use DTI funding rather than European money, because clearly most of that has already been earmarked for other projects, and we are coming to the end of it.
I am conscious of the number of people who want to speak, so on that point I shall finish.
10.12 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I too shall be brief, because I realise that so many people want to make contributions.
In 1982 there was a similar problem, which had largely been caused by bad management-labour relations. I shall not say who was to blame, because that would be futile. I was the chair of economic development at Merseyside county council at the time, and we had four hours of discussions with Bill Hayden, who was then the chief of Ford Europe.
As a result, agreements were made within the company between the work force and the management, and the workers agreed to co-operate in the changes in productivity and works practice. This time, however, Ford has not consulted anybody. I presume that it did not even consult the Government before making its statement.
Since 1982, the labour force has carried out all its promises to improve productivity—so much so that, on 17 January, Ford News, the house magazine of the Ford company, said that Halewood workers had reached their productivity objectives under the company's total productivity maintenance scheme in record time.
What was the reward for that? It was the notices sent out to the effect that 1,300 workers are to be made redundant. What message is the Ford Motor Company sending to other workers in this country who may also

929
be asked by management to agree productivity deals and changes in works practice? My hon. Friends suggest that the company chose Halewood for the cut—
Mr. George Howarth rose—
Mr. Wareing: I shall give way in a minute.
I think that Ford chose Halewood because it believes that, unlike other Governments in Europe, the British Government are a soft touch. That comes across in all their actions in connection with Europe. They are not at the heart of Europe. Ford and other companies—a recent example is Toyota—have shown that they want to be at the heart of Europe.
Mr. Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work force at Ford are not asking for special treatment? However, there is something that the workers do expect—this is something that the Minister will have to address when he sums up.
They expect not to be put at a disadvantage compared with those in Spain or Germany simply because it is cheaper for the company to get rid of them than to get rid of workers in other parts of Europe. If that is what lies behind the decision, all the Government's claims to be friendly towards industry and employment go out of the window. If work protection in this country is so weak that it makes us vulnerable, it is time that the Government thought again about their approach to the social chapter and other such issues.
Mr. Wareing: I am fully in accord with that. Not only is it cheaper to lay off workers in this country: there is also the whole body of employment law in Germany.
Mr. Hargreaves: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wareing: No, I shall continue, because I want other hon. Members to be able to make their speeches.
There are works councils in Germany. In Saarlouis, one can see the management and the workers constantly discussing the problems of the company. Firms can also be taken before labour courts in Germany; in Spain, public inquiries have to be held, and there are local and regional labour authority controls.
I am not asking the Government to pick up the bill, because they will have to do that anyway. However, they have an option about the way in which they pick it up. One way would be to help the Ford workers by investing and giving encouragement to ensure that production of the Escort continues at Halewood. Otherwise, they can pick up the bill in another way—by paying out an estimated £50 million in redundancy payments, unemployment pay and other social benefits.
If the Government choose the second option, they will blow a huge hole in this country's foreign and gold currency reserves. The price, on top of the social costs, could be £2.8 billion. I ask the Government to weigh those options, and to ensure that they take into account the fact that a failure to support Ford will mean that about 10 per cent. of the economic activity on Merseyside will be affected. Not only the Ford company and its workers, but workers elsewhere on Merseyside, will suffer.
10.18 am
Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has rendered the House a service in so ably painting the depressing picture of what will happen as a result of the job losses at Halewood. It is for the rest of us to put some brush strokes on that canvas, to try to support the points that he has made.
During the 25 years that I have been representing the people of Liverpool—first as a councillor, followed by 18 years in this House—there has been a depressing litany of job losses. I have stood alongside the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and others on many occasions when we have been to see Ministers and employers to plead for jobs.
All of us know that, for the past quarter of a century—almost since it was founded—a sword of Damocles has been hanging precariously and threateningly over the Halewood plant. In turn, that has sapped morale and led to a loss of confidence. Despite the corrosive effect of such prolonged uncertainty, the employees have delivered substantial improvements in output and quality. Their reward has been the loss of 1,300 jobs. It is no wonder that, not unreasonably, they want to know what they had to do to secure their long-term futures.
My late father, having left the Eighth Army at the end of the war, went to work on the Ford shop floor for the whole of his life. For that personal reason, and because I know that many Liverpool families depend on Ford, I am completely aware of how devastating the effect of this announcement will be—as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and others have said—on those families who depend on employment at Ford for their homes, their futures and their livelihoods.
Ford is a giant employer in an area which has always had a weak manufacturing base. The knock-on effect into the local Merseyside economy on suppliers and retailers is incalculable. What a mockery this makes of myriad job creation initiatives and the conferring of objective 1 status if jobs such as these continue to haemorrhage and flow away. I had assumed that objective 1 meant inward European investment. Instead, this haemorrhage in employment represents disinvestment and the export of jobs to much more affluent parts of Europe. There is no logic—and no sustainable or coherent strategy—to this, let alone any sign of social responsibility towards the people involved.
Even the most ardent European would be hard put to explain why—despite being specially designated as objective 1—Merseyside should end up exporting jobs rattier than cars. It also makes a mockery of the Government's claims that the lack of employment protection through the non-application of the social chapter has made the United Kingdom a mecca or a honeypot for inward investment.
We have the worst of all worlds. We have a lack of minimum standards for employees, and when employers are choosing whether to make German or British workers redundant, they inevitably go for the cheaper British option. That doubly fails British working men.
Mr. Hargreaves: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alton: I have literally five minutes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I know that other hon. Members want to get in.

931
It is no good the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely shrugging his shoulders and saying, "You win some, you lose some." Losing one's job is not like the roll of a dice—it is not like losing a bet. Unemployment means having nothing to do, and that very rapidly ends up meaning nothing to do with the rest of us. Unemployment leads to alienation, depression, isolation and suicide. These are the consequences that one sees in communities riddled and racked with high unemployment.
In the 18 years that I have been in the House, I have seen all too many job losses without commensurate job gains, and that has had a devastating effect on family and community life. It saps the lifeblood of the community. We have been promised—as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South has said, by "Greeks bearing gifts"—the prospect of a new model at Ford. That is all well and good, and the work record of the people at Halewood more than warrants the bringing of that new model to Ford. But what about the 1,300 jobs on which the hon. Member concentrated our minds this morning? What about the continued production of the Ford Escort on Merseyside?
There is no reason why those two things should not go hand in hand, or why the burden of job losses should not be shared across all the plants mentioned by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South. The Government must do whatever needs to be done to secure that opportunity. The workers undoubtedly feel anger, and one can understand their sense of frustration. What the Government and the House must do is to give them the opportunity they are looking for to use their talents, their energies and their dynamism to build cars—something that they are good at.
Merseyside's biggest problem has been its industrial image. Sometimes that has been unfair, but it has undoubtedly turned away some investment. The last thing we need now is a long-term crippling industrial dispute, and we must do all we can to prevent it. Leadership is needed from this House, the Government and all parts of the Merseyside community to ensure that a constructive solution comes out of this. We must harness and channel the energies and dynamism of the community, not negative and destructive purposes.
10.25 am
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest, in that many of my friends and those with whom I work in St. Helens are shop stewards and employees at Halewood. One can actually see the Halewood plant from St. Helens, South, as it is only just down the road, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). People who live in St. Helens and Knowsley know what unemployment means, and it is not just the loss of a job.
In the 14 years that I have represented St. Helens, South, I have watched the Government wipe out the mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) knows about this, as his constituency has suffered in the same way. We have watched the glass industry shrink, and we have watched friends lose their jobs at 40, with no jobs to follow. They are on the scrap heap at 40—can one imagine it?
Now we are watching it all happen again at Halewood. It is more than a tragedy—it is almost the final act of desecration. It need not happen. In the north-west, the workers provide skill, hard work and a commitment to
932
jobs. Many thousands of men will be sitting at home this morning watching television because they have nowhere to go and nothing to do. Those men are skilled in glass work, engineering and mining, and they have talents and training. All they want is an opportunity to use their skills. "Get on your bike," said Lord Tebbit many years ago, but if one rides out of Merseyside, one either goes into Greater Manchester or into the sea. But one will not find a job, because beyond us lies more unemployment.
What do we have on Merseyside? We have communications, and a road structure that is second to none. Funnily enough, we have the money. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) knows the saga of Vauxhall and about getting the company's money out of the Government. The DTI nearly blew the whole scheme because of its incompetence.
The Government do not give a toss about Merseyside—let us be truthful. Where has the objective 1 money gone? There are buckets of it—an ocean of it—left. Where has the RECHAR money gone? It has not been used. It is all there. I have spoken to local European Members of Parliament on the matter. All we want is a change in the rules so we can rely not on a Government who will not give us anything, but on third-party funding. Those discussions have now begun.
This is not just a tragedy: it is a disaster. We could re-tool and reinvest—the money is there. All we need is willpower on the part of the Government of the day—please God, the present Government will not remain "the Government of the day" for long. We need them to show willpower and to get in there, to do something about an area whose skills are undoubted.
I leave the Government with one interesting thought. They tell us that we live in a world of increasing prosperity, and that the British public are better off. I suggest to them that they read The Independent this morning, which shows that—contrary to all their comments—the average weekly wage has fallen from £228 to £225 a week. But on Merseyside and in the north-west, our prosperity has fallen by 12.7 per cent. Now this has come upon us, and it is yet more disaster. We have the money, but we do not have prosperity—we are not given a chance or a fair deal. It is time that the Government began to realise that millions people in the north-west of England deserve a chance.
10.29 am
Mr. Donald Anderson: I make two points. First, the Government appear to have been caught on the starting blocks by this decision, yet they have key responsibilities, not only because of the effect on the balance of payments and regional employment levels, but because their decisions on employment policies have made the United Kingdom a soft touch as opposed to Spain and Germany, when multinationals make difficult decisions about which plants to close.
This morning, I spoke to Andy Richards, the district secretary for the Transport and General Workers Union for Ford workers in south Wales. He told me of the sense of betrayal in the plants at Bridgend and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is on the Opposition Front Bench and who would have liked to speak in the debate—his constituency adjoins mine. As he knows, the workers in

933
south Wales have done everything that the Ford company has asked. Delegations have been brought from the United States and elsewhere to marvel at the efficiency of the plant. The workers feel let down.
Secondly, the decision does not affect only Halewood. We feel sorrow and anger on behalf of those at Halewood, but the decision will have consequences for the plants in south Wales. At Bridgend, the new Escort engine—the 14, 15 investment—is in question. If Halewood production is transferred to Saarlouis, engine production for the Escort at Bridgend will almost certainly transfer to the German engine plant at Cologne, and 700 jobs could be lost at Bridgend. There is no other product at Bridgend, the overheads would remain constant, and there is a real danger to the plant as a whole.
The Swansea plant produces drums and discs for the Escort and engine parts for Bridgend, and it has lost the air conditioner investment through the Ford decision. We are now seeking to produce the worldwide fuel pump for the Escort, and the scenario that is relevant for Bridgend also applies to Swansea. When production of the Transit axle finishes in 1998–99, or possibly a year later, there will be no programme at that plant, which could have disastrous consequences for south Wales.
The Bridgend plant employs 1,500 men, and the Swansea plant 1,200. Both plants are effectively tied to the Escort. Those jobs are high-wage, high-quality, London-wage jobs, and it will be disastrous for south Wales and for Halewood if the decision goes ahead and the Government do not fight it, even at this late stage.
The air-conditioning production plant that was promised to Swansea and Neath was lost to Portugal in the same announcement, because the Welsh Development Agency could offer only £6 million, whereas the Portuguese Government offered £49 million. That gives some indication of the auction that is taking place among European Union Governments and of the fact that multinationals can blackmail national Governments. I hope that that lesson will not be lost on the Government.
We need some agreement at European Union level—just as there is with export credits—to ensure that national Governments are not picked off in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and I share the concern about the dire consequences for south Wales if the decision goes ahead.
10.33 am
Mr. Joe Benton: Much of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I will confine my remarks on behalf of the people of Bootle and the Ford workers to supporting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We are talking about the loss of 1,300 jobs in Merseyside—a loss that we can ill afford. My constituency will share that loss.
I had occasion to meet some of the Ford principals with other hon. Members at a meeting in the House. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the implications of the social contract, which figured highly at the meeting. I asked the Ford management a question about it, and it seems strange that there has been no reference to this in their written response to us. In my opinion, there is no
934
question but that the non-existence of the social contract has worked to the detriment of the Ford workers at Halewood. I am convinced of that.
Another matter that has not been mentioned is the Ford company's moral obligation. I urge Ford to consider that obligation. The record of the work force has been mentioned, but Ford also has a strong moral obligation to the Merseyside community at large. As has been said, the decision will have a devastating effect across that community.
Ford has an obligation because the records will show that the work force, the local authorities and the community have supported the company on Merseyside and have made it a highly successful operator, despite the current profit and loss indications. It is time for Ford to say that it will reconsider the matter and come back with something better to support the people to whom it owes a debt of honour.
I take this opportunity—it is probably the last one I shall have—to ask Ford to reconsider. There must be a way around this. Life is not all about profit. I would advise Ford to read a little booklet called "The Common Good"—the recent statement by all the Churches on what profit and loss is all about. That is the key. Profit is fine and Ford is entitled to expect it, but we are entitled to expect from Ford fair and just treatment for its workers, particularly those who have worked so hard and long, and have co-operated with all the adaptations in working practices that the company has suggested. The company owes a debt to those people.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South that the severance terms are generous—they are certainly far better than what the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is offering the dockers, but that is another argument—but severance is not everything. The company has another duty—to secure the common good, and the good of the Merseyside community.
10.38 am
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I have only a few minutes to make my case, and the issue that I want to raise is as important as the Ford decision. Merseyside Members of Parliament will know that the economy of the area has been based for the past century and beyond on the port. Think of the factories along the dock road in the last century—Tate and Lyle, Silcocks, the British American Tobacco company—and the host of ship repair yards on both sides of the Mersey. All that has gone.
When Ford and other parts of the car industry first came to Merseyside, it was hailed as a new dawn for the area: we were moving from a port-oriented to a broader industrial economy. In the 1970s, there was a similar situation to today's, when two plants in my constituency left Merseyside, along with other industry.
The Government must consider the alternatives. The fact that Liverpool happens to be on the wrong side of the country and is therefore affected by the European Economic Community means that the Government have a responsibility to consider areas such as Merseyside, and the north-west as a whole, and to ensure that industry goes where it is needed. They have failed absolutely in that responsibility.
The work force at Ford have been as good as any set of workers in the Ford companies here and abroad, and there is no reason whatever for the decision.

935
The uncertainty will be devastating for Merseyside's future. Ford's decision is a blow to the area, a blow to Merseyside and a blow to the north-west. We hope that the Government will turn their attention to the problems facing areas such as Merseyside.
The economy of the port has changed dramatically. At one time, 20,000 people were employed on the docks, but today there are fewer than 500. There are no companies left along the dock road. The whole economy has to change, and the Government's influence should be seen on a daily basis. They should not leave the place to rot. Government intervention is of prime importance. The Ford workers have done all that was required of them, and it is a scandal that they should be left in this situation.
10.41 am
Mr. Adam Ingram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) on securing this debate. He has done us all a service. All who spoke in the debate did so passionately and constructively about the immediate and long-term effects for Merseyside and other places in the United Kingdom of Ford's plan for Halewood. They were right to record the dismay and anger of those directly affected by the announcement of the 1,300 job losses, and the added uncertainty about the remaining jobs. They were also right to spell out the impact of such job losses on the already fragile manufacturing base of Merseyside.
If the decision remains and the worst scenario comes to pass, it will eat into the very heart of the community, and undermine attempts to regenerate Merseyside's regional economy. The redundancies have not been brought about by a lazy, unco-operative and unproductive work force; on the contrary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South and others so graphically showed, the workers responded positively to every new idea and work practice introduced by the company.
Indeed, there is evidence that the unions and the work force have been ahead of the local management in accepting and promoting new manufacturing techniques. The productivity increases and the high quality of product at Halewood bear witness to that. Cars are being produced to the highest standard set by the company.
It is significant that not one Conservative Member spoke in this debate other than by way of intervention I suspect that that is because they were, and are, embarrassed about the policies that they advocated through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Those policies were predicated on the belief that manufacturing industry was of secondary importance to this country. They clung to the view that Britain had a great future based on the service sector alone.
Over the past 17 years, Conservative Members have argued that we need a low-wage, no-skill economy, with minimal protection for those in work and reduced support for the millions who have been thrown out of work with no hope for the future.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ingram: No. The hon. Gentleman was not here for the whole debate, and as a local Member of Parliament he should have been.
936
In case Conservative Members have forgotten, I want to remind the House of what has happened to manufacturing jobs. When the Government took office in 1979, there were 6.6 million jobs in the manufacturing sector in Britain; by December 1995, that had fallen to fewer than 4 million. Each year, 172,000 people were thrown on the scrap heap in pursuit of a failed and destructive policy.
What happened in the United Kingdom generally was visited on Merseyside with a vengeance. In 1983, more than 650,000 people were employed in manufacturing on Merseyside; nearly 200,000 of those jobs were lost by 1996. Today, there are 10 people chasing every job on Merseyside. There is little hope of finding alternative employment for those thrown out of work, no matter how skilled or talented they may be. Long-term unemployment is, sadly, a fact of life on Merseyside. It scars the community and damages its social fabric.
We need a united approach to Ford's closure announcement for Halewood and its proposals for the long-term future of its other operations in the UK. We all recognise that Ford is important to the UK, but set against that is the fact that the UK has been important to Ford, which has done well out of us in terms of grant aid over the years, and has been provided with a strong home market for its products and a base for its export activities.
We all want the relationship to continue, so we must look for ways in which to preserve Ford's presence in the UK at a higher and more definite level than the company currently projects. That is why the Labour party should be kept fully informed of the Government's discussions with Ford. After all, the Labour party may be in government in a few weeks' time.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Greg Knight)indicated dissent.
Mr. Ingram: It is no good the Minister dismissing that by claiming that discussions with the company are confidential. We all know that, but the problem can be got round on Privy Council terms. If it was good enough for the Deputy Prime Minister to beat a path to the door of the Leader of the Opposition about the Greenwich millennium project, surely the current negotiations with Ford should be given at least the same priority.
The negotiations will cross over a general election period; the Government may fall, and the responsibility would then pass to an incoming Labour Government. Thousands of jobs are at stake and the car manufacturing base on Merseyside is at long-term risk. It is therefore important for the Government to get it right, which they could do by showing willingness to be inclusive and to put the country's interests before their political survival.
There can be no question about the fact that Ford has been planning its global strategy for some time. The moves it is making are born not of panic and short-termism but of what it considers its strategic need to respond to new markets and new competitors. There is strong evidence that the German and Spanish Governments have been closely involved with Ford in looking for ways of meeting that need. The same cannot he said for the UK Government.
It would clearly be wrong to overstate the power of Governments to influence corporate decisions or investment strategies, but they can have an effect if they

937
try hard enough and early enough. The Spanish and the Germans have been doing that. We need to know when the Department of Trade and Industry first became involved with Ford, and what efforts it made to retain the new Escort model for the production facility at Halewood. The Minister should tell us today.
This debate will be studied not only on Merseyside but elsewhere; it will be examined by others who work in the automotive and manufacturing industries. They will want answers about why the Prime Minister claimed to be surprised by Ford's announcement, when anyone with half an inkling about the company's global strategy could have told him that such a decision was a possibility; they will want to know who did not tell him about Ford's likely strategy for its European car operations and the possible effect on the UK; they will want to know when, if ever, DTI Ministers first engaged with the company to consider ways in which to keep production of the new Escort model in the UK; they will want to know what is on offer to the company, how many jobs it will bring, and over what term; and they will want to know why the Prime Minister is prepared to put his trust in a Chancellor of the Exchequer who, when told of the 1,300 job losses at Halewood, shrugged his shoulders and said, "You can't win them all." They will want answers from the Minister today on why the country should put up any longer with a Prime Minister who does not know what is going on and a Chancellor of the Exchequer who does not care. Their actions and indifference have hurt Merseyside. The tragedy is that fewer people are likely to be working as a direct result of their mismanagement of the country and the economy.
10.49 am
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Greg Knight): I place on record my appreciation of the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), the sponsor Minister for Merseyside. I also appreciated the restrained and constructive way in which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) opened the debate. Clearly, he is concerned about the matter, as I am. He wants to ensure that there is a satisfactory outcome, as do other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton).
On the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), I have received an explanation and an apology from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who cannot be with us today because he has a long-standing prior engagement. My right hon. Friend took part with the hon. Lady in the delegation that visited me at the DTI, and he is clearly concerned. I have no doubt that, had death not intervened, Barry Porter, the former Member for Wirral, South would also have attended the debate.
I regret Ford's decision and the impact that it will have on Merseyside. However, the House should recognise that Ford has made it clear that its decision was commercial, and that it will allow it to put in place measures to improve the plant's competitiveness, and, I hope, to secure its long-term future.
With the hon. Member for Knowsley, South and other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for East Kilbride
938
(Mr. Ingram), I pay tribute to Halewood's good progress in improving productivity and quality. However, the House should appreciate that the continental plants with which Halewood is competing have not been standing still. The battle for productivity, like the battle for inflation, is never over. One must always re-examine work practices to stay ahead of the competition.
We should take encouragement from the fact that Ford has not, despite some comments to the contrary, been talking about closure. It has made it clear that it considers that the plant could become the home, and sole European source, for a new sort of vehicle at the turn of the century.
Irrespective of any grant application that might be received by the Government—we have not yet received an application—we are working with the company in assisting the plant to achieve levels of performance that would help it to compete both in the marketplace and for new investment. As the hon. Member for Knowsley, South—and, I hope, other hon. Members—know, impressive efforts are being made by the local agencies, co-ordinated by the Government office for Merseyside, to support the plant. The work on a proposed supplier park is a good example.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I was interested in what the Minister said about productivity. Does he agree with figures that show that it is £600 cheaper to produce the vehicle in Britain than it is in Germany?
Mr. Knight: The information that we have from Ford is that those figures are incorrect. Ford says that Halewood is more expensive than Valencia and only marginally cheaper than Germany. If transport costs are considered, as has been said, Halewood is not cheaper. According to Ford, measured by man hours per car, Halewood is 10 to 20 per cent. more expensive than Ford's continental plants. We must address that, not brush it aside.
The Government are firmly committed to supporting and developing the competitiveness of the automotive sector in the United Kingdom, at Ford and elsewhere. We are working with companies at local, regional and national level. Only last year, I officially opened the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders industry forum, which is designed to help companies based in Britain compete with other companies based in Europe and the rest of the world.
We are already listening to Ford's concerns. The House probably already knows, but I place it on record, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I recently met Jacques Nasser, the president of Ford Europe. My officials are discussing the possibility of financial assistance to support future investment at Halewood. Those discussions are continuing, but they are at an early stage, and I can make no promise about their outcome. We have an open mind, and are listening to what Ford says. I hope that the House will welcome that.
One of the most fundamental contributions that a Government can make is the provision of a sound macro-economic climate, with low inflation, low taxation, sound public finances and a flexible work force. When I met a delegation of hon. Members last week, I made it clear that the matter involved two issues. The first was the 1,300 job losses announced and the second was the long-term future of Halewood. I expressed the hope that

939
the 1,300 job losses could be addressed in some way by Ford. That is the basis upon which we have been proceeding in our discussions.
I regret to tell the House that, at present, all discussions with the company suggest that it is unlikely to revisit the 1,300 job losses. To date, no proposals for reducing the number of job losses has been put to me or my officials by Ford.
Mr. O'Hara: Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the multi-activity vehicle is based on the platform of the Escort? It is likely that there will be under-capacity for Escort production for the market beyond the millennium. Will he investigate with the company the possibility of investment not only to bring the MAV to Merseyside but to retain the Ford Escort? There is a case for having both.
Mr. Knight: I do not rule that out. Yesterday, I met Tony Woodley, whom many hon. Members will know. I was impressed by his constructive position. I understand that he is having further discussions with Ford tomorrow. We intend to have further discussions with Ford next week. We will bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind. However, he must appreciate that it is ultimately a matter on which Ford must make a commercial decision.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Knight: This must be the last time, because the debate must finish at 11 am.
Sir Malcolm Thornton: My hon. Friend knows that there have been all-party discussions on this. With the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), we have been able to meet Ford and the unions. Will my hon.
940
Friend ensure that the information we get is thoroughly checked, because there is a huge dispute between what Ford says about productivity and cost and what Mr. Woodley and his colleagues presented in our discussions. That is fundamental to any discussions that the Government might have.
Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some hon. Members have said that they have evidence that disputes Ford's figures. If that evidence is available, I would like to see it. I shall consider it. To date, such evidence has not been supplied to me.
Many hon. Members mentioned our employment laws. In making a product, what matters is the productivity of the plant. One does not close down, or reduce output at, the most productive plant. That is the position that Liverpool has to address. Ford has also suffered a setback in the markets, as some hon. Members rightly acknowledged. That has added to the problems that have had to be grappled with.
I cannot deal with all the points raised in the debate, owing to lack of time, but I shall answer the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) who commented on objective 1 status. Only last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, who is with us today, met the council leaders of Merseyside, and they all agreed that matters were progressing much faster. There seemed to be no dispute about that, so the hon. Gentleman's comments were out of date.
Many fine cars and memorable names have rolled off the production line at Halewood since the first 997 cc Anglia. I have owned two cars built at Halewood: a Ford Anglia and a Ford Capri—they were among the best cars that I have owned. I hope that, for many years to come, others will be able to say the same of new models that have yet to be made at Halewood.

Revenue Support Grant (Kent)
10.59 am
Mr. Bob Dunn: I am grateful to have secured today's Adjournment debate on revenue support grant for Kent county council. Such a debate is timely, and I welcome my parliamentary colleagues from across the county here today. Among those whom I welcome are my right hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) and for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Medway (Dame P. Fenner).
We also have a message of support from ministerial colleagues—the Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew) and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who cannot be here today owing to ministerial duties.
No Government cuts have been forced on Kent county council's budget. That fact must be clearly identified as a thread that will run through the debate. Kent received a fair settlement in recent announcements on local government finance—Kent county council will receive a £22 million increase for the year 1997–98. That increase allows it to spend a massive £1,029 million and makes it one of the highest spending authorities in the country but, controlled by a Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition, it is imposing more severe service cuts than any other county in England while refusing to implement efficiency savings or embark on a restructuring programme, as it has been advised to do by professional financial commentators, Price Waterhouse.
The council's failure to acknowledge the fair Government settlement, and its failure to slim down bureaucracy, leads it, allows it and enables it to attack services for the most needy and most vulnerable people in our county. To exercise a different philosophy and different policies from the Conservative party is one thing, but to fail to take action in any one of the past four years to reduce bureaucracy and administration is incompetence. It is nothing less than a declaration of war by the county council majority on the people of Kent.
The socialist alliance at Maidstone cannot say that it did not see the problem coming. The problem was as evident to us as it was to the alliance: it was as clear as the appearance of a juggernaut on a straight country lane. If not negligent or incompetent, the behaviour of the Labour and Liberal Democrat members on Kent county council is wilful and malicious, and the people of Kent will have none of it.
Mr. James Couchman: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that the Liberal and Labour regime's adoption at county hall last autumn of the old highwayman's call to stand and deliver was most appropriate? Does he further agree that the county council was dishonest to pursue a campaign demanding an outrageous 10 per cent. increase in grant while knowing that it would receive only an inflation-rate
942
increase, then to brand that increase as a cut? Does he agree that the behaviour is akin to Saddam Hussein's human shield in terms of using the elderly and vulnerable—those who use adult centres, the youth service, libraries, the fire service and the Kent music school—as a human shield to create as much mayhem as possible across the county?
Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right, and he will know that Conservative representatives on the local education authority voted against cuts to Kent music school. That is on record and can be seen by those of our constituents who support the music school. I shall refer to other matters raised by my hon. Friend in a few minutes.
I take this opportunity to welcome into the Chamber my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). The intellectual power on this side of the Chamber is increasing massively by the hour.
The political majority on Kent county council has signally failed to act responsibly. That is no surprise to Conservative members, as the political leadership of the council is clearly well beyond its second best.
I was asked by Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the excellent leader of the Conservative group on Kent county council, to make something crystal clear. When the Conservative party retakes control of Kent county council on 1 May—and restores a political pattern that has served our county well for more than a century—the Conservative-controlled Kent county council will, first, reinstate any fire stations that have been closed; secondly, reverse any cuts in the adult education service; thirdly, reverse cuts in the youth service; fourthly, restore full library opening hours. Those are absolute commitments from the leader of our group on Kent county council.
Dame Peggy Fenner: I am heartened by the pledge my hon. Friend has just made on behalf of the Conservative members of Kent county council. The area that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and I represent is about to become a unitary authority. That is a sign that the area is the largest conurbation in Kent and its most industrial part. It unwittingly contributed to the peace dividend when it lost its major employer in the dockyard in the early 1980s. Adult education is essential—I am sure that all hon. Members know that it is vital to have a centre where the young can go to develop their education and their skills, where those who took early redundancy from the dockyard can go to develop new skills and where our considerable elderly population can go for exciting recreational and educational facilities. I am sure that people of all political persuasions agree with that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This intervention is becoming a speech.
Mr. Dunn: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose record of service to our county is distinguished. Conservative Members would like to pay tribute to her for the battling way in which she has fought for her constituents, whom she has represented so well and over so many years. I should particularly like to pay tribute to her on her contribution to the future of the adult education service.

943
The commitment that has been given by the Kent county council Conservative leadership is so good that I must repeat it. We will reinstate any fire stations that are closed, reverse any cuts to the adult education service and to the youth service and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair rather than the Doors at the end of the Chamber.
Mr. Dunn: Your glow is so strong that I dare not look at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but I shall from now on.
The announcement that I have just made will be welcome news for Kent residents.
I shall now revert to Kent's budgetary position. I have a copy of a confidential memorandum—
Ms Hilary Armstrong: From Conservative central office.
Mr. Dunn: It was sent to all Liberal Democrat members. The hereditary Member should keep her mouth shut and learn to listen.
I have a copy of the confidential memorandum sent to Liberal Democrat members which contains what is, for them, an honest statement. It states:
"Nevertheless a large part of the budget pressures are as a result of our own policy decisions."
Mr. Couchman: I shall not take long, because my hon. Friend has much to say. That interesting document, of which we have copies, also makes it clear that the current state of Kent's roads maintenance is due to the present regime's neglect. The council wants to spend money on other things, such as twinning with Hungary or trips for the councillor who represents Dover.
Mr. Dunn: Exactly so—my hon. Friend anticipates a later part of my speech. The realism that suddenly swept through the Liberal Democrat group was a bursting of new flame. It recognised that it has, by its decisions, contributed to the present financial situation of Kent county council. Given that rare burst of political honesty, why are the Liberal Democrats so committed to cutting front-line services, instead of reducing bureaucracy and administration? Why are they frenetic in their desire to establish new committees, new forums and new talking shops, and why do they indulge in a wide range of non-core activities?
In an excellent article in Kent Today by Paul Francis, we are told that Kent county councillors are considering awarding themselves extra expenses to pay for babysitters. I am informed that the Labour co-chairman of the economic development sub-committee went on 14 trips overseas between 20 April 1994 and 6 to 7 June 1996. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I gather that his name is Mr. Prosser, and that he is the parliamentary Labour candidate for Dover.
What were those trips for? The answer that is usually given is that they were in pursuit of European Community grants. My geography was learned a long time ago, but as I recall, Philadelphia is not in the European Union and, at the time when the trips were made, neither was Hungary. Constituents who run voluntary organisations to help the handicapped tell me that they have lost £1,000 in grant,
944
which was the only grant that they received from Kent county council. How can those trips be justified, when any one of them was worth at least £1,000 in grant to a voluntary organisation in my constituency?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?
Mr. Dunn: I shall not give way.
The money for those trips—however important they may turn out to be—could have been given to voluntary organisations in Dartford, Swanscombe or any other community in Kent, and would have been warmly welcomed by voluntary workers and carers.
The main thrust of Kent's socialist coalition's argument is that the council faces a £79 million Government cut in funding. The House knows that Kent's funding was not cut; it received a 2 per cent. increase of £22 million. That is hardly a cut, yet the council comes up with the figure of £79 million as the amount that has allegedly been cut. How come? It is simply explained, though deceitful in origin.
The county council wants to spend an extra £101 million. It announced that it needs an extra £101 million to fund its wish list.
Mr. Roger Gale: More foreign trips.
Mr. Dunn: That may well be. The Government announced an increase of £22 million—which everyone recognises is a fair settlement—thus leaving Kent county council to claim a shortfall of £79 million. By black art spin-doctoring, it converted its wish list into Government cuts. How deceitful, dishonest and cruel.
Mr. Couchman: I believe that my hon. Friend has done some research into what other counties propose for the forthcoming year. Can he name another county that has proposed such deep cuts as Kent is proposing?
Mr. Dunn: On the evidence available to me, Kent's behaviour is worse, in that it has failed to cut bureaucracy and administration and to honour its commitment to maintaining front-line services.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my hon. Friend recall that, just two years ago, we had the spectacle of £4.5 million being taken out of the schools budget when some schools, such as my children's primary school in Kent, were short of chairs? In that very same year, the council spent £3.5 million on fixtures and fittings for education administration offices.
Mr. Dunn: The list is endless. One of my favourite items of Kent county council expenditure is the £700,000 it spends each year on magazines and periodicals for the use of administrative officers.
I shall return to my point about the alleged £79 million cut. The House will appreciate that the council cannot cut what it never had: it was always speculation and deception. Kent county council's plan to spend 10 per cent. more flies in the face of political reality. No Government in the western world, local or national, are planning a 10 per cent. spending increase.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: It is my perception that, of all the counties in the country, Kent has the largest

945
percentage of grant-maintained schools—schools taken out of the local education authority. Can my hon. Friend assure me that county council administration has been cut pro rata to take account of that extraordinary devolution?
Mr. Dunn: No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, because it is not there to give. The council has lost control of many services, but it has failed to cut bureaucracy. Administration has increased in the past four years, rather than reduced to reflect the position to which my hon. Friend referred.
Sir Roger Moate: In my constituency, we are faced with the prospect of the closure of fire stations, dramatic cuts in library services, cuts in desperately important youth services and a dramatic cut in adult education. Severe pain is being inflicted on the people who need those services, whereas administration is not being cut. The county council has lost control of administration of the police and further education colleges, and secondary schools administration has been reduced by 50 per cent. Why should my constituents be faced with cuts when no comparable effort has been made by the county council to cut bureaucracy and administration?
Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, and he is right.
What I find most disconcerting about this sorry episode in the history of our county is the failure of the parties that control Kent's destiny to be honest. I dislike the deception that is being practised. In recent weeks, we have seen the use of the county's propaganda machine for party political purposes.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: What does that cost?
Mr. Dunn: I dare say we shall find that out in the fulness of time.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Dunn: What the authority's officials are doing is quite wrong. I have a letter from a constituent: he is a resident of Dartford, to whom I wrote on 23 January. He says:
"I am still confused as to why KCC has had to reduce its services to those who need and depend on them. On the evening of the 27 January 1997, I attended a meeting of a local charity. A Spokesperson from Social Services outlined how the cuts in KCC's budget will affect the many services used in the local area. Again Central Government is blamed! I informed the meeting that you had informed me that Central Government had not cut the funding to KCC but had given a 2.2 per cent. increase on the previous year. The Spokesperson told the meeting that this is not correct and the cuts that KCC had to make are as a direct result of Central Government spending targets."
Mr. Gale: Is it not a fact that the lie machine at county hall has been so misrepresenting the facts that Mr. Keith Ferrin, one of our Conservative colleagues on the county council, found it necessary to write to Conservative candidates and sitting Members to ask whether they could please try to explain to the press that the situation is
946
actually a result of the county council's mismanagement rather than a Government cut—something that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) will, I suspect, try to produce like a rabbit out of a hat later today? Is it not also a fact that the same team sought to rig the Kent Today opinion poll? Is not that yet another example of its members trying to rig the facts?
Mr. Dunn: My experience as a long-serving Member of Parliament has shown me that the Labour party and the truth have long been strangers.
I am very grateful to Keith Ferrin, who is a well-respected member of the county council, for the information that every household's share of Kent county council's debt has risen by £216.89, to the massive sum of £762.83. We should get that message across.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his splendid recitation of the high economic crimes and misdemeanours that the Lib-Lab county council leadership have inflicted on the people of Kent.
My hon. Friend has mentioned borrowing. May I point out, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that there has been mismanagement not only by Lib-Lab councillors but by Lib-Lab financial alcoholics. They have increased Kent's borrowing by 40 per cent.—£140 million—up to a record-breaking £496 million. That means that a debt burden of £9 million or £10 million per year has been inflicted on the people of Kent in the form of extra interest charges.
Perhaps the most bitter drink of all in this financial alcoholism is the way in which salaries have risen. Is my hon. Friend aware that Kent's director of education, who is presiding over the unkindest and harshest cuts of all, is now drawing a salary of £99,000 a year? That is more than many permanent secretaries receive for much bigger responsibilities. Surely it is time to halt this wicked mismanagement at all levels.
Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend has put his point effectively and well. That is the point of this debate. All Conservative Members are conscious of the massive disinformation campaign that has taken place by means of Kent county council's publicity and propaganda machine, aided and abetted—indeed pushed—by the Labour and Liberal Democrat leadership at county hall.
What I find so inexcusable is the use of fear in the campaign. Residents are told that their fire cover may not be guaranteed, and that retraining and adult education services may be curbed.
Dame Peggy Fenner: It is an indescribable insult to Medway residents that the list of proposed cuts includes two retained fire stations and another fairly large station in Stroud—three fire stations in one area. We are talking about the largest conurbation and, indeed, the largest industrial area in Kent, which is about to become a unitary authority. It is disgraceful to do that to three fire stations.
Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am sure that she will waste no time in telling her constituents of the commitment given by the Conservative leadership in Maidstone. Indeed, the message that emerges from this debate is that those who wish to guarantee their services must vote Conservative on 1 May.

947
It was suggested at one stage that fire cover at Dartford fire station might be reduced by one pump, and that the retained fire station at Horton Kirby might disappear entirely, but those proposals have been withdrawn—for the time being. Given the huge development that is taking place in north Dartford, in the Thames gateway area, is it not extreme lunacy to speculate for a moment about reducing fire cover when the population is set to increase by thousands, and many millions of people will be coming into our county at Bluewater and Ebbsfleet—an interest that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham?
This is lunacy of the knee-jerk kind, but it is not actually a knee jerk. Four years ago, when the county council passed into the hands of the evil empire. I predicted that, come the county elections, it would do precisely what it is doing now: attack the elderly, the young, the disabled, voluntary groups and those who enjoy cultural and leisure pursuits through our library services. Why? Because that is the only way in which the council can hang on to its administration at county hall—by the use of fear.
Mr. Brazier: My hon. Friend is making his points about a matter on which we all feel strongly with characteristic understatement. Will he emphasise the extraordinary divide between Labour and Liberal politicians at local level, and the Opposition Front Bench? We have heard from the shadow Chancellor that no extra money from the centre will be provided in the form of revenue support grant. Indeed, if the Labour party phases out the area cost adjustment, as it proposes to do, Kent will have £10 million or £15 million a year less. Is there not a certain discrepancy here?
Mr. Dunn: I entirely agree. The loss of the area cost adjustment would affect Kent to the tune of at least £10 million. That may please members of the Opposition parties, who never understand such matters.
Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dunn: No, no, no, a thousand times no.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was exactly what I was waiting for. You will be aware that 10 Conservative Members representing Kent have either spoken or intervened in the debate, and you will have heard that denial of the right of a Labour Member to intervene. Would you say that that—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that it is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide to whom he does, or does not, give way. I call the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), and ask him to address the Chair.
Mr. Dunn: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member—the hereditary Member—for North-West Durham; I have no desire to stop her from speaking. Would that I could. I believe that, when she is put in her coffin, she will still be talking when they nail the lid on.
During the past four years of socialist rule at Maidstone, there has been a ballooning of staff. Staff numbers have risen by more than 1,000. That is profligacy
948
in the extreme, and takes no account of the auditor's recommendation that the council should restructure itself and redress the staffing imbalance to reflect the moving out of the county of the police service, further education colleges and the career service, and the fact that many primary and secondary schools are to become grant-maintained.
Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend rightly referred to the direct connection between the maintenance of good-quality services in Kent and the Conservatives' winning back control of the county council. Only yesterday, I received a copy of a letter from the chairman of the governors of the outstanding Judd grammar school in my constituency—one of many outstanding grammar schools in our county—to those who style themselves the "co-chairpersons" of the education committee.
The letter complains bitterly about the draconian cuts that the Labour and Liberal-controlled county council is seeking to impose on the school. In his letter, the chairman of the governors describes the cuts as "nothing less than scandalous" and "totally irresponsible." Does my hon. Friend agree that everyone in Kent with a child at a grammar school, and every person who has the prospect of having his child at a grammar school, knows that, as long as Kent county council remains in Labour and Liberal Democrat control, he can have no confidence in his child's future grammar school education?
Mr. Dunn: I agree with my right hon. Friend and declare an interest, because my son is a pupil at the Judd school, as is the son of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gravesham. My right hon. Friend's point applies not just to grammar schools, but to high schools, the city technology colleges and all primary and secondary schools that become grant-maintained. They would lose all the freedoms that they currently enjoy as a result of Conservative legislation, because Labour and the Stalinists at county hall wish to take back into local authority control all the schools that dared, as a result of parental ballots, to go outside local education authority control.
Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend has spoken about the wasteful use of staff in Kent. At a recent constituency surgery, I met two parents and their disabled son. They were almost in tears because they were being asked by Kent county council to pay higher social services charges. The council plans to increase staffing in social services by 80 people, but it is hitting disabled people and their parents.
Mr. Dunn: That is a wicked example of precisely what is taking place. I use the word "wicked" in the old sense and not in the fashionable modern sense. It is also unforgivable that senior county council officers—well-respected professional men and women—are being forced to act politically in the public domain because of the inadequacy and incompetence of the Lib-Lab regime at county hall.
In the past four years, there has been tremendous dereliction of duty. A left-wing, old Labour party has been trying to work alongside a weak Liberal Democrat party, and they want to be all things to all persons—I think that that is the politically correct way to say it. Instead, there

949
is chaos, anarchy and incompetence. I might be accused of using strong words, but they express what my constituents feel.
The Opposition parties have misjudged the mood of Kent people, who better understand the problems and the debates than they are given allowance for. They know that the county council has pulled the roof upon its own head by failing to deal with the rising damp in the foundations. That is a lovely metaphor which I might use again in another speech. We are debating the future of our county. The present administration has lost police, further education colleges and the careers service, and many schools have become grant-maintained.
Mr. Gale: Will my hon. Friend add to his list the fact that the Labour-Liberal coalition is targeting the most vulnerable people in Kent—the elderly and the disabled?
Mr. Dunn: As I have said in the context of all the other services that I have mentioned, it is cruel and wicked to focus on people who are least able to defend themselves and who need essential services to preserve their quality of life. For us, that is unforgivable.
Sir Roger Moate: It is not just that such measures are wrong, but that there is a hopeless distortion of priorities. It is extraordinary that the council proposes to close some fire stations, not on the justification that fire cover can be reduced, but simply to save about £200,000 to £300,000. The saving is less than the council is spending on conferences for its officers and leaders at county hall. It is a muddled approach to administration. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a taste of what the country might get if a Labour Government were ever inflicted upon us?
Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. If people want to see the Labour party and its minor allies, the Liberal Democrats, in action, and anticipate what they may be like in government if they get the chance—which they will not—they are welcome to come to Kent county council, where we shall give them individually guided tours around the philosophy of the present administration. In Kent, we see Lambeth below the Thames. It holds not to responsibility and decency and the application of services in the name of the people; rather to narrow, petty, political garnering of points. That could have been avoided, and in the name of the people whom we represent it must be avoided.
For some years, the Conservative group on Kent county council has pointed out the error of the ways of the present administration and offered ideas, programmes and solutions for restructuring and slimming bureaucracy in the light of the services that have left the county. Have those Conservative been listened to? No, they have been ignored, and the problem faced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in Kent is now our problem—but there is a solution; the election of a majority of Conservative county council candidates across the county on 1 May. That will bring back responsibility, decency and honest application in the name of the people. That is why I felt it right to initiate this debate.
11.35 am
Mr. David Shaw: Kent has had 100 years of relative stability under the Conservatives. Incredibly, Kent survived one economic crisis after another under Labour Governments and services were maintained. In the past four years, as a result of a Labour-Liberal pact, there has been ever-increasing disaster and chaos. A budgeting system that needs an increase of £101 million has been based on a pie-in-the-sky figure. On expenditure of £1,000 million, Kent is demanding an increase of 10 per cent. What Government in Europe or what county council or shire council in this country plans an increase of that size? I have looked at the statistics, but I cannot find any shire county that is planning an increase in expenditure at the level that Kent county council under Labour-Liberal control claims to need.
Kent council has introduced a political budget and is trying to put the blame on the Government. Its priority is not to look after the disabled, those who need adult education or those who need the fire services, but to have a political budget in election year. I hope that it reaps the reward for that, which is to be thrown out of office on 1 May.
Under a Conservative Government, the council has had an increase of £22 million. It is interesting that all the councils of the Opposition spokesmen who are present for the debate have had less of an increase than Kent. The Opposition have shot themselves in the foot by offering spokesmen from areas that have had lower increases than Kent. Kent has had allocated to it one of the largest increases in resources of any county in the United Kingdom, but still the Lib-Lab coalition on the council has got itself into a mess and bleats its complaints.
The council needs to get going with some decent budgeting procedures. I say as an accountant that it could have used zero-based budgeting. It could have returned to core essentials and asked itself, "Do we need to spend at the current level on some services or could we increase our efficiency and look at overheads?" It dismissed zero-based budgeting.
It could have opted for priority-based budgeting by looking at priority expenditure. It could have examined the way in which it looks after the elderly and cares for those who need education and for disabled people, but it dismissed that. It went for an Alice-in-Wonderland budgeting system—a politically based system—instead of looking at the priorities, concerns and needs of real people. No wonder Price Waterhouse and Co., the independent auditor, has said that the county council must increase its efficiency, do better, get something out of the £20 million a year that it spends on information technology, and cut central overheads.
A constituent came to see me who works within the Kent county council orbit. That constituent, who obviously does not want his name to be mentioned, complained that, a few years back, when the county council was under Conservative control, he had only two tiers of management to go through before he could report to the director. Now he has five. That is what four years of Lib-Lab control have done. They have converted two tiers of management into five.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My hon. Friend has considerable experience in this sector. Is it usual to introduce a major capital investment in technology with the aim of increasing staff?
Mr. Shaw: As my hon. Friend points out, it is incredible that, after all the new technology investment,

951
Kent has failed to reduce its central overheads significantly. That is why I am delighted that we have had pledges from Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, the Conservative leader, that any cuts in libraries, adult education or the fire service will be reinstated and that efficiency savings will be found elsewhere in the budgetary system.
May I turn to something of great interest to me and to my constituents? Last Friday, I visited St. Margaret' s-at-Cliffe fire station. I am delighted that today there are seven retained firemen here from my constituency, who are concerned about the fire station's future. They are not full time, but give their services in their spare time. They have other jobs, but, in their spare time, they look after my constituents and people in the village where I live. I know that many colleagues have the same situation in their constituencies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has asked me to say that he would like to be associated with these comments, as two retained fire stations in his constituency are also threatened with closure.
It is a disgrace that the county council could contemplate cutting a fire service when the cost of individual retained fire stations is so minor in relation to the total budget. We are talking about individual fire stations that perhaps cost £40,000 a year and a total Kent budget of £1,000 million a year. It is simply not necessary to go for cuts in that sector.
Mr. Brazier: Is there not something truly sad about the idea that these absurd cuts in the fire service should be proposed only a few weeks after the county council set up yet another expensive bureaucratic committee to consider public safety?
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There are far too many committees in Kent county council. There is far too much bureaucracy and far too much paperwork moving around, and there is not enough action or service delivery. That is what we are interested in as Conservatives: action, service delivery and increased efficiency. That is why there are threats of cuts in Kent's fire service. It is ludicrous.
Sir Roger Moate: With my hon. Friend's usual delicacy, he has refrained from commenting on the point made earlier about one county councillor—I have forgotten his name—who has made a large number of trips abroad. I cannot remember the precise number—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen."] I cannot believe that one member could make 14 trips in such a short time, but is it not likely that even a small part of the expenditure on those trips—that, presumably, is just the tip of the iceberg—would keep all our fire stations open?
Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes a point. As that councillor is my Labour opponent, I am slightly embarrassed to have to refer to his 14 trips. My hon. Friend may feel that, in due course, the electorate in Dover and Deal will be interested in those 14 trips abroad, including to Hungary and Philadelphia in the United States of America, and in their relevance to the needs of Dover and of fire stations in our region.
When the channel tunnel fire occurred recently, people at St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe fire station had to give extra cover. I understand that London and Sussex fire services
952
were on alert to give support if necessary. We have major transport operations in Kent and we must maintain the ability to have a retained fire service as well as a full-time fire service. Many arguments support the retention of the St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe fire station.
Sir John Stanley: Is my hon. Friend aware that a letter that I have received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration shows that the Government's local government settlement provides for
"a £50 million or 4.2 per cent. increase in provision for the fire service"?
Against that background of an increase that is well in excess of inflation, is it not intolerable that the Liberal and Labour-controlled county council should be contemplating any reduction in fire service cover?
Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend makes the valid point that, if anyone needs adult education in Kent, it is the Liberal-Labour county councillors, because they cannot tell when a positive figure—an increase in expenditure—is an increase and not a reduction. At public meetings, they cannot tell the truth—that an increase in expenditure is extra money that is available. They insist that it is a reduction. That shows the fraudulent nature of their mathematics, accounting and budgeting.
The St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe fire service is called out some 100 times a year. In a busy year, it has been called out 170 times. That is what Kent county council under Liberal-Labour control wants to take away from us in St. Margaret's-at-Cliffe and Dover: a service that is regularly used and regularly needed by the community, and an emergency back-up service for the wider Kent community. The service is necessary. It shows the hypocrisy of setting up safety committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has said, when they do nothing but talk and produce paper. What we are talking about is real action to save people's lives.
There is a clear message from the budgetary exercise that Kent county council is undertaking: the Labour and Liberal parties in Kent have done a repeat of the Labour-Liberal pact in the 1974 to 1979 period. They have brought Kent to the point of chaos, to the point where there are demonstrations at Maidstone and to a winter of discontent, just like there was under the Labour Government in 1978–79; but we have pledges from the Conservative group leader that, if the Conservatives are elected to control Kent county council on 1 May, those cuts will not take place. There is therefore a clear message: "Vote Conservative if you want services, a sensible council and sensible budgeting."
11.47 am
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When I hear Conservative Members attacking Kent councillors for visiting countries, I am minded to say only that those Members should be careful because people in glasshouses should not throw stones. The people of Kent should know that the great majority of Members of Parliament for Kent, all of whom are Conservative, have on many occasions over the years been abroad at public expense, on travel paid for by the British taxpayer.
I rise on behalf of the many hundreds of thousands of people in Kent who are denied a Labour voice in the House of Commons. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker,

953
that all 16 Members of Parliament for Kent are Conservative. The voice of Kent Labour has not been heard in the House of Commons for 18 years. Conservative misrepresentations in Kent's affairs have repeatedly gone unchallenged. Their endless stream of untruths, party propaganda and distortion of facts is a travesty of justice. [Interruption.] I seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In terms of its Members of Parliament, Kent is a one-party state—it has no Labour Members—in which there is no place for the truth.
It has become increasingly clear to my hon. Friends that there is a co-ordinated attempt by Kent Conservative Members of Parliament to orchestrate a campaign of disinformation in the media. Those same Members use the Chamber of the House of Commons to launch their—thus far unchallenged—attacks. Today, Parliament will hear the truth—the other side of the story: the counter-case. It is the story of a council valiantly striving to defend its ratepayers from cuts in public services. It is the story of a council desperately trying to avoid imposing hardship—
Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in the House for 14 years and I have always been under the impression that it is not customary for Members to read out speeches—particularly speeches prepared for them by other people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct about the custom. The copious use of notes, however, is unfortunately allowed.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am using notes for reasons of clinical accuracy. It is important that the people of Kent know the truth—as opposed to the statistics bandied about the Chamber for the past few years. My accurate figures were produced for me, at my request, by Kent county council. I asked for the figures so that I could use them in this debate.
Sir Roger Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although the hon. Gentleman claims to be using notes for clinical accuracy, he has in effect just admitted that he is reading his closely typed speech. Surely that is contrary to the rules of order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall see how we go. References to facts are entirely in order, but reading a speech would be wrong.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hon. Members from most other counties, including many Conservative Members, have in recent years spoken for the people they represent, and have even joined in deputations to Ministers. Not one of Kent's 16 Conservative Members of Parliament, however, has stood up for local services or represented the county authority.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am afraid that I cannot give way. There have been 16 Conservative interventions in this debate. I am the first to put the other side of the argument.
954
Most Conservative Members from Kent have taken every opportunity to make cheap political capital out of the problems that the county council faces—problems that result from policies for which they themselves have voted in the House of Commons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to give way. There have now been 17 Conservative interventions.
These Conservative Members have misrepresented the financial settlement year after year; and this year is no exception.
Mr. Rowe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Rowe: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is of course entirely for you to judge whether, in the interests of clinical accuracy, the hon. Gentleman should read his speech; but it seems to me that reading a speech that makes assertions about things that, when the speech was written, could not have been known is stretching the rules rather far.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair makes no comment on the contents of speeches—although this morning I have already had to stress that it is the occupant of the Chair who must be addressed. Meanwhile, I shall make my judgment as the speech progresses.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Two years ago, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) tried to claim on local radio that Kent had received a spending increase of £26 million, when the real figure was £6 million. He did so by misrepresenting the money for community care that had been ring-fenced to cover responsibilities transferred from central Government—
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: This year on 23 January, at column 1077 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) accused Kent county council of demanding a real-terms 10 per cent. increase just to stand still. He repeated his accusations during Prime Minister's Questions yesterday. In fact, the council has stated that it needed that sum in cash terms to meet its pay and price commitments and to finance extra commitments imposed on it by demography and new legislation.
Both those allegations reveal that neither hon. Member understands the interests—
Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is making inaccurate claims about what I have said. Should he not give way to allow me to correct those claims?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is technically in

955
order, but it is a custom of the House, when an hon. Member refers to another by name, that the former should give way to the latter at a suitable point. I am sure that that custom will be observed this morning.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As I was saying, what both contributions reveal is that the intricacies of local government are not understood by the two hon. Members to whom I have referred. The more they protest, the more they demonstrate either their ignorance or perhaps their malevolence.
Let us examine the facts. Kent is effectively capped at 1 per cent. above standard spending assessment. That compares with the shire county average of 1.8 per cent., and with some counties that are capped at more than 5 per cent. Over the four years to 1997–98, Kent will have been allowed to increase its spending by only 8.7 per cent.—a figure that may surprise the House. That is far less than was needed to cover pay and price increases, let alone increased demand for services.
Between 1993–94 and 1997–98, Kent's capital financing costs—its debt charges—rose by £14 million, and its allocation of SSA for that element fell by £2 million, leaving a gap of £16 million. That is almost entirely attributable to capital projects, especially road projects embarked on by the former Conservative administration.
In 1997–98, the county council will face a superannuation payments bill of £3 million more than the bill three years ago. That will result from the decision of the former Conservative administration to cut its contribution, and from new Government regulations forcing higher contributions on the council.
Next year, the county council will have to spend £7.8 million more than SSA allocation to provide fire cover in line with Home Office standards. For the same period, its fire services SSA element will rise by £1.6 million. Despite savings of £500,000—the figure given earlier in the debate was wrong—involving the closure of some retained stations, the county council will need to increase spending by £2 million to cover pay and prices and service pressures. Those three items alone are costing the council a total of £37 million.
Representatives of the local authority have made representations on the three items to the Minister of State concerned. Perhaps today the Under-Secretary will give Kent some response to the representations which it has made and which I repeat here today. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham is trying to shout me down. For five years, we have heard the case put by Kent Tories. When, finally, a Labour Member finds a slot to raise these issues in the House, the Tories shout me down because they do not want the truth to come out.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate my hon. Friend on rattling the cage of Conservative Members from Kent. Facing defeat, rather like a hanging, concentrates the mind. They come here protesting their innocence, but they have presided over real cuts in services in Kent and throughout the south-east of England.
956
I am the only Labour Member of Parliament outside Greater London representing a seat in the south-east: I represent 13 million people today.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend puts his point most forcefully, as ever.
Mr. David Shaw rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not prepared to give way. The hon. Gentleman's party has had more than its share of the debate.
The £100 million figure to which several hon. Members have referred, and which has been much trumpeted in the press in Kent, has been portrayed by Conservative Members as the "demand" of the county council—but it is no such thing at all. The leaders of Kent county council are realists. They would not expect such a sum to be made available, especially from the Government—[Interruption.] Do I need to repeat that for the benefit of Conservative Members, in case they have had trouble hearing what I said?
Mr. Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned about whether the relevant papers are available in the Vote Office showing that Kent has had the largest SSA increase of any shire county in the United Kingdom. It is important that those papers should be available in the Vote Office, so that Opposition Members can talk about the truth.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I am quite sure that the papers are available.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let us return to the famous £100 million, which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent was on about yesterday. For Kent county council, that sum is an honest and, so far, unchallenged estimate of what would be required to protect all existing services, to meet inescapable financial commitments, to meet pay and price increases and to provide for demographic changes and the cost of new responsibilities placed on local authorities by central Government. That is the explanation for which Conservative Members have been waiting.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that I have received figures from the co-chairperson of the social services committee in Kent, showing that extra statutory duties imposed on Kent—but not properly funded—by the Government amount to more than £4 million? That figure takes into account the extra costs incurred because of a 2.5 per cent. increase in the number of people aged over 75 and because of disabled access, asylum and criminal justice legislation, which have not been properly reflected in grant levels.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Those matters do not surprise me. What does surprise me is that, over the past few years, they have never been drawn to Parliament's attention by Conservative Members. At no stage have they raised those issues.
If there is one body that is unrealistic, it is the Government—who continually impose additional responsibilities on local authorities without providing

957
funding, and then demand cuts. In the famous £100 million, Kent is simply flagging up, in plain language, the implications of Government cuts.
Briefly, Kent's £100 million estimate is composed of £40 million of financing pressures; a £25 million estimate of pay and price increases, which makes provision only for unavoidable price increases; £30 million for service pressures, which is led by demographic and legislative demand; and £5 million for redundancy costs forced on it by the financial settlement and by local government reorganisation. None of those costs is within the control of the county council. Most of the sum results from Government action and from decisions of the previous Conservative county council. To try to meet those pressures and remain within the £22 million capping limit increase, the county council is being forced to make extremely painful choices between services.
Initially, the council's policy and resources committee asked committees to consider savings of 10.7 per cent. in all budgets. To protect the most vulnerable, special educational needs were exempted, and increases made. Unfortunately, however, to balance the budget, that meant that extra cuts—more than 10.7 per cent.—were necessary in adult education and youth and community services.
Current figures are likely to be 1 per cent. for fire services and 9.5 per cent. for social services—[Interruption.] Those are matters of which Conservative Members should be aware. It may well be that, today, I bring them news from Kent. They have not been following developments in their own local authority.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The likely figures are 9.5 per cent. for social services and 7.2 per cent. for the non-delegated education budget. Those figures should enable the council to avoid closure of its adult education service, its youth and community service and its residential homes. They would also avoid reducing fire cover below minimum standards, although the budget will still require the closure of five retained fire stations and the removal of four retained engines from other stations. However, even that has been made possible only by not fully protecting school budgets from the effects of higher numbers and increased costs. Schools will face a real-terms reduction of 4 per cent.
Kent's services still face horrendous cuts, and all the councillors know it. However, they know who to blame: they blame the Government. Conservative Members from Kent try to pretend that the cuts are the fault of the county council, yet none of the pressures that the council faces is of its own making. They are the result of Government decisions or, in some cases, the legacy of Conservative control.
Many of the decisions stem from legislation pushed through Parliament by Conservative Whips. Kent's Conservative Members have never rebelled. They have always supported piling on the pressure. Those poodles have lain on their backs and obediently allowed their constituents to take the punishment meted out by an insensitive Government.
Dame Peggy Fenner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the hon. Member for Workington
958
(Mr. Campbell-Savours) would not wish to malign me. I am a Kent Member, and have been, with a very short break, since 1970. Would the hon. Gentleman care to repeat the point that Kent Members have never rebelled? Was he in the House when the Government of the day—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. However, the hon. Lady has made her point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: As you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not a point of order. It was also not an accepted intervention, or I would have produced material showing that, on many hundreds of occasions in recent years, the hon. Lady has obediently trooped into Conservative Lobbies to support legislation and financial measures that have damaged the interests of the people of Kent.
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman and I are adding a Cumbrian element—from the other end of the country—to this debate, and are perhaps adding a degree of realism. Does he agree that it is unfortunate when the Government prevent a local authority from innovating? Are not community care direct payments a case in which local authorities have been prevented from extending benefits to those over 65? Has not the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) strongly advanced that case? I am sure that he would share the disappointment of Opposition Members that the Government have prevented such an excellent measure from being used by Kent council and others to provide benefits to over-65s.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I defer to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge in those matters, as he is an expert in many issues of community care. It may well be that some Conservative Members from Kent have on occasion raised those issues in the House; but the critical question is how they have voted when Parliament has allocated money for those types of expenditure. The truth is that the people of Kent are being taken for granted by those who are supposed to be representing their interests in Westminster.
Claims that Kent county council is inefficient and badly run—which we have heard before, from the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—are ludicrous. Price Waterhouse, the independent auditor whom the hon. Gentleman quoted, said exactly the opposite. It said in its report:
"The truth is the County Council has reduced its management and administration costs by"—
hold your breath—
"£23m … over 3 years and cut budgets of its central departments by 13.5 per cent. It is continuing such savings in 97/98 but these cannot cover the shortfall."
Local Conservatives say that no cuts are necessary, so why have they ducked Labour county councillors' challenge to submit an alternative budget? Perhaps the Minister will tell us why today.
Conservative Members of Parliament have attacked the county council for failing to increase education spending by the increase in the SSA. The House knows that the Government's claim to be providing extra money for education was a fraud. It was described in the Local Government Chronicle as a budget scam, because the resources were not made available.

959
In Kent, the education SSA increased by £20.4 million. If the whole SSA increase had been passported to education, the effect on other services would have been devastating. To meet its share of financing commitments, pay rises and unavoidable service pressures, the council would have had to make savings of 16 per cent. If social services had been exempted, cuts would have been 27 per cent., which would have meant the end of effective services in many areas.
Since taking over the administration of the council, the present controlling groups have increased resources for education, social services and other vital services by far more than the increases in the SSA. They have done so in spite of tight budgets and the appalling backlog of neglect that they inherited in, for example, school building repairs. Throughout this time, they have been subject to sniping attacks from Conservative Members who are more concerned with making cheap political capital than with defending the services on which their constituents depend.
While other local authorities have seen their Members of Parliament fighting for them, Kent has seen its Conservative Members of Parliament campaign against the county council and encourage the Government to inflict still harsher treatment on local services. It is interesting to note that these Members of Parliament never attacked the extravagance of the former Conservative administration in Kent—not a single Conservative Member uttered a word of protest when the former Conservative-controlled county council decided in 1991 to spend £7 million on the county hall. There was a wall of silence at Westminster. Perhaps we shall have an explanation of that when the Under-Secretary winds up the debate.
If Kent county council this year faces bigger cuts than some other authorities, it is for one reason alone—it refused to cut services and jobs last year as the Conservatives urged. The council used every resource at its disposal to protect public services for as long as possible, and it should be congratulated, not condemned I certainly congratulate it.
The people of Kent are not deceived by the propaganda campaign of their Conservative Members of Parliament In a recent telephone poll, readers of the Kent Messenger voted four to one on the statement that Kent's cuts were the fault of central Government. No amount of propaganda or misleading attacks on Labour and Liberal councillors for alleged extravagant spending can disguise the simple truth Conservative Members of Parliaments are prepared to use Kent county council as a political football to be kicked around the Chamber in a squalid attempt to pick up votes. As a Member of Parliament I have always rejected that approach—[Interruption.] Let me be tested by my words. I have always operated by the simple maxim that knocking one's local council is cheap and easy copy.
My constituency is in Cumbria. During my 17 years at Westminster, both my district and my county council have for periods been Conservative-controlled, but I have never attacked them at Westminster. For me, that is forbidden fruit, because they cannot answer back Sadly, that is not the practice in Kent.
12.14 pm
Ms Hilary Armstrong: I shall be brief. In many senses, this has been a rather sad debate Every authority faces difficult choices I know that none
960
of the Conservatives here today was able to be present for Monday's debate, but everyone who spoke—including Ministers—acknowledged that this year's local government settlement is very tight. The Government acknowledge that the burden is being shifted on to local councils to the extent that they expect the average rise in council tax to be about 6 per cent. and that, in the next three years, some £4 billion is likely to be required from local government and the council tax.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady confirm that Kent received an increase in its grant and its SSA? Would a theoretical Labour Government increase the grant to Kent and allow it to spend more—yes or no?
Ms Armstrong: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman was not here for Monday's debate. Had he been here, he would have heard what we have to say on that. We recognise that this year's settlement is very difficult, but I pointed out on Monday that the level of public debt is completely out of control and that, as a consequence, the next Labour Government will not be able to promise more money to anyone. We did promise, and we shall continue to promise, a fairer distribution of the grant and a more open system for distributing the SSA.
Let us deal quickly with the SSA for education. Like many people, we are concerned to ensure that education is protected and that we give our children and young people the very best opportunities. What has been happening in Kent over the past six years? When the Conservatives were in charge of county hall in Kent in 1991–92, the council spent £53.2 million less than the SSA—that is £53.2 million less than the Government said was necessary for education. Last year, the present local authority spent £10 million more than the SSA allocation, or 0.9 per cent. above the SSA.
Rather than being spent on refurbishing county hall—Conservative Members were not bothered about that £7 million of expenditure—money has been used for front-line services, and it is because the authority tried to protect those services that there is a real problem this year. Obviously, Kent Conservative Members were not worried that the former Conservative administration in Kent was spending so many millions of pounds below the SSA, which is the Government's assessment of what is needed.
Mr. Thurnham: Although Kent's community care provision has been praised by both the county's health authorities, the Department of Health's figures show a 10 per cent. shortfall in community care funding for Kent. Should we not be debating those facts, rather than making political points as Conservative Members have done?
Ms Armstrong: I wish that we had had a proper debate this morning about the problems facing Kent and the way forward. The tragedy is that not one suggestion has come from the Conservative group at county hall, other than merging the posts of the chief officers. That has been the Conservatives' only suggestion for budget cuts for next

961
year. They have not produced figures on how to pay for retaining services without putting up council tax. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A debate seems to be going on from a sedentary position on both sides. That must cease. The hon. Lady must be allowed to make her case.
Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I read the letter from the Conservative chairman of finance, I wondered whether we were back in the 1980s. It pledged no cuts in services—we have heard that today—and no increase in council tax. It is reminiscent of Lambeth and Liverpool in the early 1980s.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Who ran those?
Ms Armstrong: They were run by the Labour party, and the Labour party tackled the problems and sorted them out. Today we have seen Conservative Members colluding with the Tory Trot tendency in Kent.
Mr. David Shaw: Labour cannot run local government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must control himself.
Ms Armstrong: Ministers acknowledge that the settlement is difficult for all authorities. Difficult choices are being made. Those choices will have to affect central administration as well as front-line services, but such cuts will not be sufficient. The authority is already spending substantially above the standard spending assessment on the fire service. It is in difficulty because the Government do not acknowledge what hon. Members have said today about the needs of the fire service. The money needed to meet the commitments is not there. Incredibly difficult choices have to be made. It is our responsibility to work with all the councillors in Kent to ensure that they are able both to protect as much of the service provision as possible and to come within the spending limits.
Efficiency savings of £23 million a year have been made. The Government have admitted that the situation is difficult. It is difficult for Kent; it is difficult for all authorities. I wish that many more Members present today were prepared to get down to sorting out the problem instead of making desperate pleas to keep their marginal seats. As the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) knows, I visited his area last week and had discussions with councillors about the problems that they face. They are trying to address those problems honestly. I wish that that were true of some of Conservative Members.
12.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and every Conservative Member from Kent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: And me.
Sir Paul Beresford: Interestingly, one or two strays from Lancashire and Cumbria have also been present.
962
An authority has to be really bad to get such a united reaction from the local Members of Parliament. Kent had 100 years of relative calm and stability under the Conservatives. It was a good authority, judging the quality of service by its outputs rather than, as the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) suggested, by the amount of other people's money spent on it. We should also recognise that this is a matter of private grief for the people of Kent. That is why hon. Members from Kent constituencies are here, pushing the point solidly.
I am astonished that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is here. He wished to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but could not because of the time. I remember some of his past statements on similar issues. Supporting the unsupportable behaviour of the Liberal Democrats in the Lib-Lab pact in Kent would contradict many of those statements.
The hon. Member for North-West Durham talked about finding a different method of distribution. One is tempted to suggest that it would be a distribution favouring friends rather than an objective approach. Independent experts accept that the standard spending assessment is an objective approach.
Ms Armstrong: What about Westminster?
Sir Paul Beresford: Including Westminster, although the hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate that.
It is worth noting that Kent's difficulties have been recognised. It has the highest standard spending assessment of all shire counties. Its SSA for 1997–98 is more than £1 billion. Admittedly, it also has one of the highest populations. Even so, its SSA per head is still the second highest of all shire counties. The overall SSA has increased by 2.2 per cent. on the 1996–97 figure. Within that, the education element has gone up by 3.5 per cent. and the fire service element by 5 per cent.—twice the rate of inflation.
The Lib-Lab pact councillors presented their case on a piece of paper last month to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). Their technique was fascinating. They should learn from some of the contributors to today's debate about how to approach budgeting. The normal procedure for setting a budget is to look a year ahead. They are looking at the last minute.
On their piece of paper, they rolled forward everything that they had spent in 1996–97 and then added a long list of all the expenditure that they would like for the coming year. They compared the result with their provisional cap limit. The difference, they explained, was a shortfall. They then said that they wanted to list certain items as service cuts to meet their wish list or shortfall. Nowhere in any of the documents was there any mention of how priorities might be reordered. Nowhere was there mention of efficiency savings in a budget of more than £1 billion. They could not find savings in that—they could only produce a wish list.
It is not for me to tell Kent county council how to find savings, although I am tempted to do so on occasions, but it is worth reminding hon. Members that the Audit Commission has given it ample scope for considerable savings. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—Workington is in Cumbria,

963
400 miles from Kent—mentioned the district auditor's comments. Every district auditor's report is a curate's egg, and the hon. Gentleman has been selective. The auditor has pointed out opportunities for savings. For example, it is possible for authorities to recognise the millions of pounds being wasted on maintaining surplus places in schools. Kent's record on that is far from perfect. In 1994–95, the most recent year for which audited figures are available, more than one fifth of the secondary school places in Kent were unfilled.
That might sound depressingly familiar. Kent's council tax payers have a right to expect a little more imagination from their elected representatives on the council. I was not allowed to interrupt when my hon. Friends from Kent were criticised and I must defend them, because they are well known for placing considerable pressure on the Government on behalf of the people of Kent. They are successful because they put a good case. That is shown by the size of the SSA, the amount of funding that has been provided, and the efforts made on the single regeneration budget and on some of the roads. They continually make their case to the Government through letters, questions, general meetings and specific meetings. Time and again, they have put the case for Kent, but they recognise that times are difficult, money is tight and savings need to be made. Conservative councillors have made it quite clear that they intend to do that.
Members on both sides of the House will agree that a 10 per cent. increase in Kent's budget is not the only solution. It is high time that some people involved in Kent local government learned to face up to their responsibilities. There is a saying that under Labour it will all end in tears. That may happen if we allow Kent to remain under Labour control.

Poverty (Scotland)
12.29 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I begin by saying something about the title of the debate. I have chosen to debate Scottish poverty simply because I am a Scot and I represent a Scottish constituency. I am only too well aware that poverty has no respect for national origins; nor does one nationality inflict it on another.
Last year I attended the national poverty hearings in London, where I heard poor people from Liverpool, Belfast, Preston, Glasgow, Coventry, Dundee and many other places testifying that poverty is endemic across national and ethnic lines. It was made painfully clear that, for far too many millions of people, whatever their origins, poverty is a shared experience that has been inflicted on them by a combination of market forces operating on a global scale and Government policies of deregulation and privatisation which have taken from the poor and given to the rich. Someone once famously said that there is no such thing as the poverty gene. The poor are not born to be poor; they are made poor by the unjust actions of others.
Let me now address the poverty in my own country. The statistics of Scottish poverty are stark enough. The latest unemployment figures show that Scotland's official rate of unemployment is 10 per cent. above the United Kingdom average and more than 50 per cent. above the rate in the south-east of England. In 1996, official unemployment fell far more slowly in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
The official unemployment figures are only the tip of the iceberg. The Government claim that there are 1.8 million unemployed people. In reality, 4 million people are out of work. That point was raised by one of my hon. Friends at Question Time yesterday. The Prime Minister and the Conservative party showed by their dismissive attitude that they could not care less; they showed why the Tories are rightly seen by most people as the party of mass unemployment.
Other relevant statistics reveal that more than 217,000 Scots earn less than £3 an hour—a top line well below £120 for a 40-hour week, when the average income in the rest of the country is £282 a week. Let us be absolutely clear. Those poverty wages have been imposed by the Government's drive for deregulation and what they cynically describe as a flexible labour market. At one end of the scale are the fat cats raking in huge astronomical earnings. The chairman of privatised BT earns £644,000 a year. At the other end of the scale, casualised and de-unionised workers are forced to survive on less than £2 an hour.
A recent article in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy showed that wage inequality in the United Kingdom is now greater than it was 100 years ago. It really is forward to the past under the Tory Government.
The latest Convention of Scottish Local Authority figures highlight our poor health record in Scotland, where there are 30 per cent. more deaths among working people than in England and Wales. In Scotland, more children are in lone-parent families, rented accommodation, families on income support and homeless families. We may have fewer very elderly people, but in general they are in poor health. They are more likely to live alone, to be on income support and to live in rented accommodation.

965
COSLA estimates that those facts of deprivation in Scotland require Scottish education and social work departments to spend between £160 million and £270 million more each year compared with their counterparts in England and Wales. Those facts of deprivation are ignored by Scottish Office Ministers, who repeatedly threaten to reduce council spending in Scotland to England and Welsh levels.
If this morning's debate descends into a barren exchange of contradictory statistics across the Floor of the House, it will have failed miserably. I want to try to put a human face on the statistics of Scottish poverty. If nothing else, at least the record will show that Parliament knew the nature of the suffering and chose to do nothing.
Let us take the example of David from Glasgow, who told his story to the national poverty hearings last year. He is 45 years old, with a grown-up family, and he lives in temporary accommodation with the Simon Community. He is officially classified as homeless.
David never had many breaks. His wife had a severe schizophrenic illness, and he had been left to raise three children on his own. Because he was on his own, he became isolated and turned to drink. Because he was in arrears, he lost his council house and eventually ended up in prison where he reformed; but when he came out, he could not get a council house because of his previous arrears. The homeless single persons unit placed him in the Simon Community, at a cost of £300 a week. One week's money would have cleared his previous arrears and allowed him to have a council house, but the rules did not allow for that. Nor did they allow him to apply for a course at the local college. If he did that, his place in the Simon Community could no longer be funded by the single persons unit, and he would be out on the street again.
In other words, David is in a poverty trap created by a social security system that ensnares the poor in its mean-minded, penny-pinching bureaucracy—which excludes the poor instead of accepting them into society.
I wonder whether the Minister really understands the deep hurt that is caused when Ministers and Tory Members denounce the poor as a disgrace and scum, accuse them of begging through choice and call for them to be hosed out of shop doorways and moved on. That is precisely what a Minister and a Tory Back Bencher said a few weeks ago.
David's story is not unique. Millions of people are trapped in poverty. One of my constituents had been on a training-for-work programme funded through benefit plus. He was getting £62 a week and was entitled to full housing benefit. He is single, lives alone and is 57 years old. He saw a course at the local college that would have given him a qualification that might have got him back to work. He applied and was accepted.
The course was for 22 weeks and was funded by a bursary of £64 a week. Because it was a bursary, he lost his entitlement to housing benefit. He could not afford his rent, and was forced to quit the course and sign on for income support. Like David, he was trapped by the Government's petty regulations.
The Government have plans for the likes of David, who is described as a single claimant under 60 years of age. They plan to deny him the right to a home of his own.
966
He will be allowed only housing benefit for what is described as a single, non-self-contained room in what is euphemistically described as a house of multiple occupation. Like all under-25s, single claimants under 60 will now not be allowed the exclusive use of a bathroom, a toilet or kitchen. In the Government's view, those basic decencies are too good for the likes of David and too good for the poor.
Recently I spoke to a senior council officer with 30 years' experience working in different communities in Dundee. He said that he was receiving reports from his field officers of levels of poverty that he had never encountered before. They described children being sent to school with no breakfast, families being unable to carpet or furnish their homes, and genuine hardship on a scale that those of us who came of age in the 1960s never dreamed could happen again in our society.
What was the Government's response? They chose to attack the poor. The jobseeker's allowance takes away entitlement to benefit. It puts the onus of proof on claimants, who have to prove their entitlement to benefit. If they cannot do so within a three-month period, their benefit is withdrawn.
Moves are afoot to privatise the entire social security system. Lone parent benefit, housing benefit and council tax benefit are being cut. Council services are being cut to the bone. The poor look to councils for housing, but the housing budget in Scotland is being slashed again this year by a staggering 30 per cent. The poor look to councils to school their youngsters, but across Scotland council schools are closing, and council teachers are being made redundant. The poor turn to council social work departments for help, but they too have all been cut by a Government who have turned their back on the poor in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
We all have to live with the consequences of the Government's abject failure to create a just and fair society. Crime and drug abuse are rising everywhere, crimes of violence are on the up, our prisons are filling up, suicides in prisons are on the up. The Government plan to build more privatised prisons across Scotland; this House passes ever more repressive laws and ever harsher sentences; the Government seek a law-and-order solution to the problems of injustice and inequality. There is no such solution, and it is a fraud on the people to claim that there is.
From time to time in Scotland, there are major conferences on poverty. Sometimes there are even debates in this place.
Mr. William McKelvey: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report by health visitors, which clearly shows that they have uncovered an increase in the incidence of rickets? As we know, rickets is a disease among children that is primarily caused by lack of vitamin B—through a lack of sunshine and especially a very poor diet that does not contain appropriate vitamins. When that was raised in the House, the former President of the Board of Trade admitted that he had read it but did not believe it. Such an attitude and response to a report by respectable and honest people is typical of Government Front Benchers.
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a very effective point. The right hon. Gentleman who made that insulting

967
remark about a very good report happens to be the Deputy Prime Minister, and speaks on behalf of all Conservative Members. All of them should be ashamed of what he said. The facts of poverty are well known to those in power, but just like the Deputy Prime Minister, they simply choose to ignore them. When they are confronted with the facts of poverty they refuse to take them on board or believe them, and look the other way.
For the most part, poverty is hidden from the majority, who continue to enjoy rising living standards. Poverty is mainly contained in particular areas in parts of vast housing schemes, well away from the more prosperous suburbs; but it is undeniably there. The poor may be cut off, not unlike the black townships in apartheid South Africa, but they still have a voice and it must be heard, even in this place.
The problem is not that the country cannot afford to end poverty. In the final four decades of this century, world economic activity has quintupled. There has never been more material wealth than there is now. In relative terms, Scotland and Britain may have less of a share of that wealth, but they are both undeniably more wealthy than they have ever been.
In 1948, the country was immeasurably poorer than it is today, yet in 1948 the country found the political will to build a national health service and a welfare state that guaranteed the eradication of poverty, ignorance and illness among all peoples. Yet now, when we are far wealthier than ever before, we hear in the House the repeated cry that we cannot afford the social security system, the NHS or to treat the poor as equal citizens in an equal society. I for one simply do not believe that.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1948 hot school dinners of good nutritional value were available everywhere? Today, local authorities are having to consider removing proper school meals from their spending plans.
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend directs my attention and that of other hon. Members present to today's reality. I understand that, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was confronted by demonstrators outside the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Selkirk on Monday, he said that there were no cuts in local government services. He was treated with the contempt that that sentence deserves by the demonstrators in Selkirk, and, indeed, by the vast majority of Scottish people. Those who depend on hot school dinners are the poor. Those with means have an alternative. The poor will suffer if hot school dinners are cut by councils across Scotland, which is what is happening.
The problem is not that there is not enough wealth—we have more than enough for everyone—but how we distribute it. For almost 20 years, the Government have been taking from the poor to give to the rich. It is time to reverse that process. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) laughs, but he should look at the latest analysis of households below average income, which says that, in 1979, the top 10 per cent. of earners took 20 per cent. of this country's wealth, but they now take 26 per cent. What has happened to the bottom 10 per cent. is the exact opposite. They have less of a share of the wealth than they did in 1979.
It is time that we reversed the Government's process of taking from the poor to give to the rich, through progressive and fair taxes linked to expanded programmes
968
of public expenditure and investment. No one can achieve such a breakthrough until we get rid of the Tory Government. The first step will be taken in the general election when they are removed. With a new Government, further steps will follow to help the poor. Only then will their day come.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on securing this debate. I have listened very carefully to all that he has said, and will attempt to deal with some of the points in the time remaining.
The Government's policies have always been directed towards promoting overall prosperity and economic growth, which have produced benefits for all of the people In a rapidly changing and increasingly competitive world economy, living standards in Scotland in terms of real gross domestic product a head rose by 28 per cent. between 1985 and 1995, and are higher than in all parts of northern England and Wales. The benefits of that have been spread across all sections of our population.
Our policies of promoting sustained growth have meant that the United Kingdom recovery since 1992 has been the strongest of any of our major European competitors. Our underlying inflation performance is the best for almost half a century. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen by more than 70,000 since its previous peak in 1992, and is below the European average.
We have secured record levels of inward investment. The companies that we have been able to attract are creating jobs, resulting in increased prosperity for Scotland and its people. Research has shown that the vast majority of people are better off as a result of the Government's policies. Average income has risen by more than a third—37 per cent.—between 1979 and 1993–94, and all family types have benefited, not just top earners.
Listening to the hon. Member for Dundee, East recite his catalogue of doom and gloom, one realises the Labour party's difficulties in Scotland. He and his colleagues cannot recognise the Government's remarkable success in bringing wealth to the nation.
We are nevertheless determined to ensure that specific groups who need it are supported through the social security benefits system, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has responsibility. The main aim of the social security system is to focus resources on specific vulnerable groups such as low-income families, poorer pensioners and sick and disabled people on low incomes.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: No, I shall not give way, because I want to try to get through as much as I can in this very short debate.
Following the implementation of key Department of Social Security reforms to the benefits system in 1988, extra help has been made available to low-income families, which is now worth approximately £1.5 billion a year The value of improvements to income-related benefits for pensioners since 1989 is now £1.2 billion a year.

969
The Government are committed to creating a better social security system that protects the most vulnerable, is adapted to modern needs and does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay. It is clear that changes to benefits can play a crucial role in helping people into work, which is the most effective way of raising their living standards.
Concentrating on attacking the causes of dependency and creating ladders of opportunity and incentives helps to increase individuals' chances to prosper. People are being helped to take up employment by ensuring that they are better off in work, and are not discouraged from increasing their earnings.
Those initiatives and incentives include the introduction and extension of family credit, which now averages £56 a week on top of family incomes in addition to child benefit, the introduction of disability working allowance, the fact that up to £60 a week in child care charges is ignored when calculating in-work benefits, and the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance.
However, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the benefit system should not be regarded as the mechanism for eliminating poverty. The Government have a range of policies and programmes with the aim of ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to benefit from economic prosperity. In addition to the help given to unemployed people, significant assistance is also given to those who have a job but require additional help.
I referred to the extensions to family credit and the other schemes aimed at ensuring that people find that they are better off with a job. Through its pilot earnings top-up scheme, which started last October, the Department of Social Security is now testing whether in-work benefit assistance is effective in getting the single and those without dependent children back to work. One of the eight pilot schemes is in Scotland, covering Perth, Dumbarton and Stirling, and it has the potential to increase the income of low-paid workers there by more than £50 a week. That is a practical measure, which will be especially beneficial for young people under 25.
As our economic measures continue to bear fruit, and unemployment in Scotland continues to fall, we remain alert to the needs of those who are still unemployed. In addition to our economic measures, we have put in place a wide range of programmes and services to combat unemployment and assist people back to work. They include programmes such as training for work, the main training programme for unemployed adults who have been out of work for longer than six months, Employment Service measures such as 1-2-1, worklink, and jobplan for the minority who remain unemployed for 12 months or longer, and restart courses and jobfinder grants for those still unemployed after two years.
The Government have also launched Project Work, an innovative programme offering job search help and practical work experience to people unemployed for two years or more. In response to encouraging results from two current pilots in Hull and in Medway and Maidstone, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced an extension. The four Scottish pilots, to be located in Lanarkshire, Edinburgh,
970
Dunfermline and Dundee—the hon. Gentleman's own area—will help 9,000 long-term unemployed people to find jobs.
Mr. Ernie Ross: No, they will not.
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman provides a classic illustration of the Labour party in Scotland, especially his wing of it, which is intent on selling Scotland down the river, and on refusing to recognise the significant improvements that the Government's policies have achieved in Scotland and the help given to those unfortunate enough not to be in employment. All he can do is carp. I suggest—I may have time to enlarge on this later—that his policies would do nothing to help the situation. In fact, they would have the reverse effect.
As I have said, we have a range of policies that have the effect of reducing poverty. Our housing policies have done much to improve living standards for all of Scotland's people. Since 1979, we have issued more than £8 billion in gross capital allocations to local housing authorities. Since it was established, Scottish Homes has invested more than £2.5 billion in housing. Those resources have led to real progress in addressing issues such as homelessness and housing that is below tolerable standard.
Another of the important successes of the Government's housing policies has been the dramatic shift in tenure. The proportion of housing accounted for by the public sector has fallen from more than 50 per cent. in 1979 to less than one third now. Levels of owner-occupation have risen from 35 per cent. in 1979 to almost 60 per cent. now. In the city of Dundee, between 1979 and 1995 the proportion of local authority stock was reduced from 53 to 32 per cent.
Private sector investment in housing has been crucial, especially when there are ever-increasing pressures on the finite public resources available. Scottish Homes has already attracted private investment of more than £900 million, and there is scope for the private sector to play an even greater role. Scottish Homes continues to have substantial resources at its disposal, and will invest more than £500 million in Scottish housing this year and next, which in turn will generate over £300 million of private sector funding. As a result, 10,000 people in Scotland will be better housed.
In the local authority housing sector, we have maintained the net provision for local authority capital expenditure at planned levels of £180 million each year for the next three years. That means more than £0.5 billion-worth of investment in council housing in the next three years, on top of the £2 billion that councils have been able to invest since 1992.
The total net allocations for 1997–98 amount to £171.9 million, slightly higher than those issued to authorities in 1996–97. In addition, next year councils will be expected to generate usable receipts of between £50 million and £60 million to augment their investment.
We firmly believe that considerable scope exists for authorities to increase investment levels by involving the private sector to a greater degree than at present. Authorities should be considering the potential for transferring stock to other landlords. Such transfers benefit tenants, by enabling investment to be made in their

971
homes earlier than would have been possible through conventional means, and gives them an assurance about future rent levels, along with improved services.
In some parts of Scotland, people face a combination of low incomes, poor housing and a degrading environment. Tackling either the economic or the social causes of deprivation in isolation cannot bring a sustainable renewal of such areas. We need to focus instead on developing a comprehensive approach, encompassing social, economic and physical regeneration, if we are to achieve a lasting solution for the most needy areas in our country.
In 1988, we published our ground-breaking urban regeneration policy statement, "New Life for Urban Scotland", which acknowledged the importance of taking a comprehensive, strategic approach, involving all partners with an interest in regenerating our deprived urban communities.
At the same time, we established four pilot Scottish Office-led urban partnerships at Castlemilk in Glasgow, Ferguslie Park in Paisley, Wester Hailes in Edinburgh and Whitfield in Dundee. Each of those partnerships has shown the way forward in urban regeneration, winning awards and admiration not only in Scotland but beyond. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) joined me when I recently visited the Whitfield partnership in Dundee, and the project under way there was most impressive.
On 11 November last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced the designation of 12 priority partnership areas and support for 11 regeneration programmes, with resources amounting to £60 million over the first three years. Included in the list of successful PPAs and regeneration programmes was Dundee, which will receive urban programme funding of £3.3 million for its PPA and £727,000 for the regeneration programme over the same period. Much has been done, and is still
972
being done, by the Government to help develop a prosperous and successful economy that is benefiting Scotland and all of our people.
The hon. Member for Dundee. East and his party believe firmly in introducing a national minimum wage and in signing up to the social chapter. Labour believes in the application of a tartan tax in Scotland, and a teenage tax. It believes in policies that will hit all Scotland, but particularly the poor. Rather than benefiting those on low incomes, the introduction of a national minimum wage and the social chapter would have quite the opposite effect.
In a market economy, wages reflect the productive contribution of employees, and a minimum wage would prevent some people from gaining productive employment. The Government believe in allowing the market to generate jobs, and a national minimum wage would not help families on low incomes—rather, it would cause many people to lose their jobs. The figures for the UK show that, if a national minimum wage was set at around £4 and if only 50 per cent. of the differentials were restored thereafter, 1 million jobs would go.
The attitude of the Labour party has been typical, as has that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. He, at least, is an honest member of the Labour party, who believes in saying what he thinks. He called for increased funding for local government, and I felt from his speech that perhaps he was seeking to justify that to his own party as much as to anyone else.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government's policies have been good for the people of Scotland, whatever their economic circumstances. We have created sustained economic growth, increased average incomes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We now move to the debate on the second Severn crossing.

Second Severn Crossing (Approach Roads)
1 pm
Sir John Cope: The second Severn crossing—in spite of having an uninspired name—is a wonderful engineering achievement that has rightly won prizes. It is also valuable to those of us to the east of the river, as well as to south Wales and west Gloucestershire. However, the gains have been at the expense of residents, particularly in the parish of Pilning and Severn Beach in my constituency. The villages have been cut in three by the new approach roads, with a large motorway junction in the middle.
We have known for some years that that would happen. The routes of the roads are determined by the siting of the bridge, which itself was dictated by engineering considerations and by the position of the rocks in this most difficult river. When the private Bill went through the House, it was recognised that there would be great damage to life in those quiet rural villages. This damage was recognised by colleagues who served on the Committee, and by the Government and their agencies.
An undertaking was given that, in making decisions, the spirit as well as the letter of the law would be followed in dealing with the residents. I am here to tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads that it is time to honour that undertaking. The motorway is built and has been opened. The road users are benefiting, and the impact on residents is now apparent.
I asked for this debate because too many detailed matters are still outstanding, which affect residents of the area. There was a tremendous push to get the road open, but since it opened last summer, I have had the impression that the Highways Agency has rather pushed the remaining work to the back of the shelf and told its people to concede as little as possible, as slowly as possible.
There are a variety of detailed matters that I could mention, but I want to illustrate my point with three. They are separate issues, but what they have in common is that they were all left over from the end of the building process. The first issue is noise mitigation. We all know that we cannot have a motorway without noise, but where—as in this case—the road inevitably passes close to the houses because of considerations such as the siting of the bridge, we should do the maximum to mitigate that noise.
To give one example—it is the best, but there are others—the residents of New Passage are insufficiently protected from the noise of the new motorway and the M4-M49 junction, which is near them. New Passage is a hamlet with a number of houses, mainly dating from the days of the railway ferry before the Great Western railway tunnel was built under the river 120 years ago. They are downwind of the prevailing winds off the river and some houses are less than 100 yd from the motorway, which at that point is raised level with the eaves of the houses.
Some protection was supposed to have been provided by an earth bund, which was to be constructed opposite the eastbound entry and exit slip roads of the interchange. I discussed the proposals with the Highways Agency after the motorway opened in July, and I was eventually told in November that the bund is to be continuous instead of having a gap in the middle and is to be 2 m higher than the original proposal. I welcome those improvements.
974
However, I must point out that I was told in November that the bund was supposed to be completed by the spring or summer of this year. It will take some months to build, including a three-month pause in the middle of building to allow for settlement. So far, nothing has been done, so it will be late spring—if not late summer—when we can expect even that, by which time the motorway will have been open for more than a year.
In any case, the bund will do nothing at all to shield the houses at the eastern end of New Passage road, which are near the exit from the motorway and the interchange, and where there is nothing between them and the motorway and the interchange. An acoustic fence along the motorway has been refused on value-for-money grounds. Many of the houses are solid Victorian buildings, but the noise inside them—even with double glazing—is continuous. The residents used to live in a peaceful rural backwater, but they are now supposed to live with their windows shut. One needs to shout to hold a conversation in the garden when the wind is blowing. That is a big change in the residents' life style.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take a personal interest in the matter, and not just in New Passage. He must ensure that the Highways Agency, which is responsible to him, acts with sympathy towards local citizens. They did not oppose the road, nor did they dig tunnels where it was to be built—as we have seen in other recent cases. They relied upon the promises given to the Committee by the Government and the agency, and they are entitled to fair treatment.
There is also the wider question of why low-noise porous asphalt is not used where motorways are close to residents. Information from the Refined Bitumen Association suggests that modern porous asphalt—at an extra cost of about 2 per cent. for a new road—will reduce noise by about 50 per cent. I am told that some of it has been laid on the M4 near Cardiff and has been successfully used on the continent for a number of years. I am concerned that it was not used near Pilning and Severn Beach, as it would have been a great help. I am told locally that a top dressing of that type, Safepave, has been laid on the A38 between the M5 and Filton, and—although I cannot be sure whether it is responsible—noise seems to be at a lower level there than before.
I realise that the Treasury—one of my old Departments—will be looking over the Minister's shoulder as he replies, ever present, like Long John Silver's parrot, except, of course, the parrot said, "Pieces of eight, pieces of eight," whereas the Treasury—not being a parrot—says, "Pieces of eight, pieces of seven, pieces of six," and so on. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), is the parrot because he gives an official "Hear, hear" to everything that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer says. But that is another matter.
The next important date is the first anniversary of the opening of the bridge next June. It is important because that is when compensation claims can be submitted. The fact that every successful act of noise mitigation will reduce those claims should be some encouragement to the Treasury. Indeed, at one point, New Passage residents collectively offered to forgo their rights to compensation if the noise was reduced. Whether they were wise to do so is a matter for them, but it certainly shows that they would prefer less noise to more compensation.

975
The second case is different. It is that of an individual—my constituent, Mr. Philip Jones. He owns salmon fishing rights on the Severn, which he has fished under Government licence for many years by the traditional method of lave net fishing—highly skilled and potentially dangerous work. It was his livelihood and that of his father and grandfather before him and it is an ancient method of fishing for salmon, much used on the Severn in years gone by.
Two things are clear. Building the bridge, with its many piers, has inevitably altered permanently the currents and, therefore, the sandbanks on the river, although I accept that it is extremely difficult to know exactly how they have altered. It is also clear that, in the same period, Mr. Jones's fishery at Oldbury has become impossible to work because of movements in the sandbanks. His problem is to prove that the one was a consequence of the other, although to the layman the coincidence of timing makes it look highly likely, as far as I can see.
Mr. Jones has spent more than three years arguing the case and has been forced to commission several expert reports because of the refusal of the authorities to decide the matter. It has already cost him and, latterly, the Legal Aid Board a great deal. If the case goes to court after all this time, it will cost even more.
As there are practically no lave net fishermen left, very few people are likely to be able to claim the case as a precedent. Why not pay Mr. Jones a reasonable amount now, rather than paying it to lawyers and consultants and in court fees?
The third matter concerns the attempt of South Gloucestershire council, supported by others, to protect the public rights of way that have been affected by the building of the approach roads. Like me, the council thinks that the Highways Agency is trying to do the minimum, so the public are losing amenity and being encouraged to use their cars. For example, the agency has resisted for months a cycleway between Redwick road and Northwick road, which is an essential link for the national cycleway. It has also failed to provide alternative bridleways at a time when everyone else is trying to encourage horse riders to use off-the-road routes. An example is that it will not provide suitable parapets and fencing on the M4 bridge near Holm farm, and expects the council to provide an alternative bridleway.
The British Horse Society, whose golden jubilee some of us had the honour to celebrate this morning, is rightly concerned about that, and I pay tribute to the society's work in that area and generally. The Countryside Commission is also concerned about the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that it is the Government's policy to encourage the off-road riding of bicycles and horses and that the Highways Agency should provide alternatives when road construction closes or affects footpaths, bridleways or cycleways. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will back the provision of cycleways. As we all know, he is a keen cyclist. I, too, think that they are important. The excellent Sustrans is based in Bristol. It has done so much and is doing excellent work with the backing of the Millennium Commission, particularly on the national cycleway. I am sure that the Minister will want to support Sustrans.
Those are three different aspects of the same thing—the consequences of the building of the approach roads. I welcome the bridge, but residents in my constituency
976
and in that of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who has joined the debate and represents those on the other side of the river—the other half of the bridge and the approach roads on that side are his concern—are paying the price of the building of that valuable facility.
I have sketched in a few cases. There is a lot more detail and there are other cases. My constituency probably has more motorways than any other—20 miles of the M4, 17 miles of the M5, plus the M48, M49, a bit of the M32 and half of both Severn bridges. When new motorways are built or old ones altered, the Government, through the Highways Agency, must do their best to mitigate the harm for those affected. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will help to achieve that in this instance.
1.15 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Has the hon. Gentleman the leave of the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) or of the Minister to speak?
Sir John Cope indicated assent.
Mr. Hughes: I wanted to endorse the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) about noise levels. I represent an area on the Welsh side of the crossing that was formerly very quiet and secluded. The way of life has changed quite a lot since the opening of the new bridge. Apparently, the prevailing wind is from the west and residents in the Rogiet and Caldicot areas get the worst of all worlds, so to speak.
The main environmental problem that arises from the opening of the new bridge is caused by the fact that tolls are collected only on one side, so people tend to drive down the A40 through Monmouth and on to the A449, do whatever business they have to do and travel back across the bridge toll free. That seems detrimental on environmental grounds, besides being most unfair. I hope that the Minister will be able to consider those two matters.
1.16 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) on his diligence and persistence in pursuing the cause of his constituents and bringing these matters before the House today.
As my right hon. Friend acknowledged, the new Severn crossing is a magnificent structure, but he rightly expressed concern about the impact that the opening of the second Severn crossing and the Avon approach roads have had on his constituents. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) also referred to the impact on his constituents in Wales. I am not sure whether I am permitted to reply on behalf of the Welsh Office, but if I do not have the opportunity to do so during this brief debate, I shall ensure that he receives a written reply.
The roads were constructed in pursuance of the Severn Bridges Act 1992. During the planning and design stages, great care was taken, in decision making, to maintain the sensitivity of the local environment. The environmental

977
statement that was published in 1990 identified and limited construction access routes. It also required separate drainage networks and outfalls, as well as environmental protection and landscape planting.
Extensive consultations were held with local authorities, landowners and representatives of others with key interests, including environmental bodies, prior to and during the planning and construction stages of the scheme to ensure that local views were taken into account. Regular liaison meetings continue to be held to discuss any outstanding matters.
The choice of motorway alignment was made carefully to balance its impact on local communities. As a result, environmental bunds have been constructed at several places adjacent to properties along the M4 and M49, to provide visual and noise mitigation. Where the M49 joins the M5, environmental noise fencing has been erected. As the construction contract has progressed, the bunds have been increased in height where possible to improve visual screening and further to reduce traffic noise.
My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have been able to accommodate the request for screening from the majority of residents of New Passage by the provision of a new earth bund to the north of Pilning interchange, up to 5.5 yd high, which will replace the temporary topsoil bund left over from the construction works for the second Severn crossing. The replacement bund is an additional measure. Preparatory work for its construction is under way, and it should be completed by this summer. My right hon. Friend referred to the agreed timetable, and I believe that the bund will be completed on time.
Landscape planting of the area is programmed for later this year and will help to screen the motorway from properties. Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend said, we have not been able to accommodate his constituents in New Passage with an extension to the bund, because the motorway rises as it approaches the second Severn bridge, and any extension to the bund would be below the level of the motorway and therefore would not provide any further protection for the residents. There is also a lack of available land to produce a bund that would be wide enough to support a height above the level of the motorway and provide protection.
Following representations from my right hon. Friend and from residents in the Redwick road area, we propose to erect a fence to fill the gap in screening over the River Pill. A planting programme to screen local views and integrate the roads into the surrounding landscape was started this winter, and eventually about 250,000 to 300,000 trees will be planted both off and on site along the motorways.
Among the many indigenous species to be planted will be oak, ash, field maple, hawthorn and blackthorn. Evergreen species and species tolerant of pollution will be used in strategic locations to provide visual screening for properties along the route. Owners of 138 properties identified as eligible under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 have received offers of noise insulation, and about 70 have already accepted. A public notice will be issued early this month giving advice on the appeals procedure for insulation against traffic noise to anyone who has not received an offer but considers himself to be entitled to one.
978
Following representations from my right hon. Friend, and complaints from residents, including two petitions, a study to examine the benefits of noise fencing in the vicinity of Pilning interchange was undertaken. It showed that fencing would not provide a noticeable improvement in noise levels, and would be visually intrusive to properties in New Passage and the Redwick road area, so the estimated cost of about £300,000 could not be justified. Properties in the eastern part of New Passage are shielded by an earth bund provided as part of the environmental mitigation, varying in height from 1.3 yd to 3 yd high above the motorway adjacent to properties.
My right hon. Friend referred to porous asphalt. He will recall that the approach roads construction contract began in March 1993; porous asphalt, which can reduce traffic noise by an average of 3 to 5 dB(A), was not approved for use on motorways and trunk roads until 1994. It was therefore not possible to specify its use in the contract, and to incorporate it would have required extensive modifications to the water drainage system, leading to delays and disruption to the completion of the contract.
In addition, porous asphalt is considerably more expensive than conventional surfacing materials, as well as being less durable, so it is doubtful whether value-for-money considerations would have permitted its use. Although it can be extremely valuable in the appropriate circumstances, it cannot be used everywhere and will not always provide good value.
I give my right hon. Friend the assurance, however, that when we resurface the road, as must inevitably be done, we shall consider using whatever quieter appropriate surfacing materials are available, which can be used without completely rebuilding the road. Porous asphalt was laid on the M4 west of Cardiff in 1996 to reduce surface water spray and ameliorate a poor wet weather accident record.
Some new proprietary products for renewing existing road surfaces can help to reduce surface water spray and traffic noise, but many of them are not yet approved for general use on trunk roads and motorways, and could not have been employed in place of the conventional materials used in the contract. All available materials will be considered when the road needs to be resurfaced at some time in the future.
As well as trying to offset the effects of the scheme by both physical and financial means, we have examined the safety issues. At the Church lane footbridge, timber fencing will be provided to the path on the eastern approach embankment. On the western side, both the steps and the alternative ramp approach have pedestrian guard railings and there is considered to be sufficient ambient lighting for use during the hours of darkness.
South Gloucestershire council has expressed concerns about a pedestrian crossing on the A403 at Church road. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that a revised location has been identified for the crossing, north of the Church road junction, and that discussions will shortly be held with the council. The site chosen should allay the concerns about poor visibility of approaching vehicles for pedestrians trying to cross the A403. Clearly, we want to provide the safest facilities that we can for pedestrians.
Pilning and Severn Beach parish council has sought changes to directional signs on existing roads, for fear that otherwise heavy goods vehicles will continue to use unsuitable local roads. The signs are the responsibility of

979
South Gloucestershire council and Bristol city council, but we have already agreed to reimburse the reasonable costs of necessary consequential signing undertaken by those authorities, and we await their proposals.
A request has been received from South Gloucestershire council to provide a cycle track at the south side of the M4 between Redwick road and Northwick road. Although it is not part of our remit, as it would fall outside the motorway boundary, we have made provision within the works on the A403 overbridge, and by modifications to earthworks, for a future cycleway to be provided by South Gloucestershire council and local transportation groups. As my right hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be very much in favour of such a development of cycling facilities.
We have recently discussed the issue with South Gloucestershire council, and have agreed to allow the proposed route to cross over part of the adjacent land that we acquired for the schemes. During construction of the approach roads, one bridleway was diverted over the new M4, and an equestrian bridge parapet was provided. Replacement routes have been provided for all bridleways stopped up as a result of the scheme.
In accordance with national policy, we have not provided those higher equestrian parapets on the other overbridges, which are frequented by horse riders but are not part of the bridleway network. We have, however, provided mounting blocks to assist riders. Discussions are taking place with South Gloucestershire council on its proposed alterations to a bridleway route at Awkley hill, to move it further away from the motorway, and on an addition to the bridleway route between Holm lane and Greenditch street, to provide a continuous route for horse riders in the area.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the effects of the second Severn crossing on salmon fishing in an area known as Oldbury lake, about six miles upstream from
980
the new bridge. The Government carried out several studies prior to the construction of the second Severn crossing to determine any effects on siltation in the Severn estuary, including hydraulic model studies and bathymetric surveys, which have continued after construction.
The earlier studies predicted that the bridge would have only a local effect on flow, and that was confirmed by recent surveys. It is also considered that any effects caused by the bridge would be insignificant when compared with natural changes occurring in the estuary.
Oldbury lake is not covered by any of the studies, but it is not considered possible for the bridge to have had an effect there without having a discernible effect on the waters nearer the bridge. Oldbury lake is very close to Oldbury nuclear power station, which outfalls into the estuary, and that may be of some significance.
I am happy to say that completion of the outstanding works is progressing well, and it is expected that they will be substantially completed by Easter. Progress has been somewhat delayed by additional works resulting from the safety audit process and by extra works requested by local councils. Remedial works will continue from time to time until the end of the contract maintenance period in January 1998.
Responsibility for the side roads was formally transferred to South Gloucestershire council on 24 October 1996 for the M4 and on 11 November 1996 for the M49. There are, however, some outstanding matters to be resolved. Inevitably, a scheme on that scale creates disruptions, although we do our best to keep them to a minimum. I hope that the major problems for my right hon. Friend's constituents are at an end. I ask him to thank them for their patience and forbearance during construction—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Fire Services (Essex)
1.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There is a crisis in the fire service in Essex. Before this debate, a local journalist asked me who I was going to blame. He misunderstood the motive for the debate. It is not to apportion blame but to identify that there is an acute problem with fire cover in Essex, and to try to point the way forward. If I make measured criticism, it is only to demonstrate that the county council's consultation process on the fire service review is deficient.
The public's expectation of what should be considered in assessing the adequacy of fire cover is not the same as that of the Home Office. Government resources are generally inadequate for England and Wales. The distribution formula needs to be revised. I believe that the Home Office is considering how it assesses fire cover and risk category. I hope that that process will be completed with greater expedition.
The existing criteria by which the Home Office judge the efficiency and adequacy of fire cover take account of property but not of lives, which are of paramount importance to all hon. Members. They assume that call-outs for fire appliances occur at convenient times. In practice, call-outs often happen simultaneously. In Essex last summer, on several occasions all fire appliances were out on call at the same time, leaving no cover for further emergencies. Fire incidents are, by nature, not routine.
The Home Office's criteria disadvantage Essex, and especially those of us in the south of Essex. Essex has a high number of road traffic accidents. It has many A roads, on which, unhappily, many accidents occur. We have a high inspection rate, which is critical in saving lives but which is not reflected in the Home Office criteria. The Lakeside shopping centre alone requires 360 inspections a year. That would be doubled if we included the whole West Thurrock retail park.
In addition to major traffic infrastructure, we have petrochemical industries all along the river. My constituency includes the QE II Dartford-Thurrock crossing. There is a major airport at Stansted, and soon the channel tunnel route will enter Essex in my constituency. The river requires extra fire cover because of riverside industries and the docks. The river also means that fire engines cannot come across the river to Southend from Kent. The borders of counties such as Sussex and Surrey allow reciprocity between counties.
I regret that Essex county council did not appeal against its standard spending assessment this year. That was a mistake. It did ask to meet the Home Office Minister, Baroness Blatch, but that request was turned down. I hope that that decision will be reviewed. I was told that the council had approached the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) to seek a meeting with Essex Members but had had no response. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, but he said that that was not correct. That is between him and the county.
In the autumn, I was approached by the county's chief executive for a meeting to discuss the crisis in the fire service. I offered him some 20 occasions for such a meeting. I followed up the offer of those dates with telephone calls and correspondence, but he was unable to arrange a meeting. Getting the fire service review
982
documents that I have with me from the chief fire officer's representative a few weeks ago was like extracting teeth from a whale. The county council's consultation and powers of persuasion have been deficient.
In my constituency, the public consultation meeting on the fire service review was held at 5 pm. The county said that that was the borough council's choice. In response, I said that, while it should meet the borough council, the public consultation should be in addition to, not merged with, proper consultation with the borough council.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mackinlay: No.
The Fire Brigades Union has taken the initiative in protecting and promoting the fire service in Essex. We should acknowledge that it is a representative body of dedicated, skilled public servants who must deal every day with the harrowing trauma of road traffic accidents and domestic fires.
The revised SSA that the Government have awarded Essex provides sufficient cover only to meet fire service wages and pensions. That applies also to other counties, much of whose budgets go on wages and pensions. The county council's triennial review is happening at the same time as the budgetary process. I accept that the county council faces difficult choices. We were told yesterday that it was likely that there would be a further £1.5 million reduction in the fire service budget, in addition to the matters under consideration in the review. That fills me with alarm.
The review explores the possibility of closing fire stations at Rochford, Leigh—with its population of 80,000—and Canvey Island. I recognise that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is in his place. Corringham could lose one appliance.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Corringham fire station is in my constituency and I take a special interest. It covers the petrochemical areas of Shell Haven and Mobil on Coryton peninsula, two of the largest processing areas in Britain, which service many big oil tankers every day.
Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Lady is correct. The nearest whole-time fire station that will have to meet the deficiencies if the closures and service reductions are enacted will be Basildon, which deals already with 3,000 call-outs a year.
I am concerned about the Purfleet Garrison estate area of my constituency. As long as 20 years ago, and certainly in the 1986 review, it was identified as an area of great concern. The Essex fire service cannot meet the attendance time recommended by the Home Office for Purfleet, being a B risk category area. The attendance time for B risk is one appliance in five minutes and two appliances in eight minutes. That time cannot be met for that critical part of my constituency. The problem cannot be abated by fire appliances from Greater London. The old reciprocity principle has long gone; local authorities decided to charge for fire services provided across county boundaries. I regret that. That means less fire cover for Purfleet and Aveley in my constituency.

983
The Southend conurbation, which has 20 per cent. of the county's population, has seven fire stations, three whole-time and four retained. Under the review, two stations would be closed. That would leave five stations to deal with a quarter of the county's calls. Some 44 stations will remain to deal with the rest of the county—a perverse distribution of fire cover. I do not, however, dismiss the needs of other areas of the county and I know that rural districts have special problems. I appreciate the attendance of the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) in the Chamber for today's debate. In an ideal world, there should be full-time stations at Braintree, Stansted and Witham. We should be expanding our services, not contemplating their reduction.
I have already mentioned my constituency and the special categories and risks that exist there and elsewhere along the river front. Another cause for great concern in our county is the significant growth in the so-called modern sandwich-panel buildings that are prevalent in the food storage industry and among factories, offices and warehouses. They present unforeseen opportunities for fire spread, with its attendant loss of life.
The review documents—to which, as I said, it was difficult to gain access—show areas of residential property in my constituency that are category D. One such area in my constituency is Stifford Clays and I know there are other examples in other constituencies. In category D areas, a pump has to arrive in 20 minutes. I am worried about the situation, not just in Essex, but nationally. We put property before people. Unhappily, the overwhelming majority of deaths caused by fire occur in residential properties, not factories and offices. I hope that the Home Secretary will acknowledge the fact that standards need to be re-examined.
What needs to be done? I have acknowledged—I reiterate—that Essex county council has enormous resource problems. I could have reduced the debate to a party political slanging match—the temptation is there, as we are now in an election period—but it would not be productive or useful for the people of Essex; nor would it advance the matter that I wish to bring to the attention of the House: the immediate crisis in fire cover in Essex.
I recognise that there is a problem with resources and that the county council has to weigh the fire services against other services such as social services and education. However, the council needs to reflect. The review—the consultation process—has been deficient; the council has been conducting it at the same time as it has been considering its budget. We have been told that there is likely to be a significant reduction in moneys for fire services as a result of the budget. As a consequence, there should be a moratorium in the review; the council must stop and consider the matter more critically.
The Home Office should recognise that Essex is an unusual county of great diversity, with a growing population. In the period up to 2001, my borough alone will have increased its population by 10,000 in 10 years. It is part of the Thames gateway—a welcome Government initiative, supported by the Opposition, designed to bring new industries, employment and residential properties to that part of south-east England. The river itself presents enormous difficulties in terms of fire cover. I hope that the Home Office will be prepared to reconsider those matters.
If my pleadings this morning do not bring a halt to the threatened cuts and if either the budget cuts or the review result in the county council making an application to the
984
Home Secretary under section 19 to permit a reduction in personnel, appliances or the closure of stations, I ask the Minister to hold a public inquiry. He is entitled to do so under section 19(8), and if a public inquiry is held, many of the matters that I have mentioned can be amplified and those issues that I have been unable to raise owing to lack of time can be explored in full.
That would allow the county council to have a fair day in court; it would also allow everyone interested in this important public service, as well as the representative organisations, particularly the Fire Brigades Union, to state their case. It would enable the Home Office to understand the special nature of the county of Essex, which is not reflected in its standard spending assessments or in the resources available for its important public services.
1.44 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who made a most responsible speech, for allowing me two minutes to speak in his debate. I shall offer him the same facility next week when I have an Adjournment debate.
The Government should appreciate that, while local Members of Parliament are always shouting about local problems, in this case there is a widespread belief among hon. Members of all parties in south Essex that the closures proposed in the document presented to Essex county council are unacceptable on safety grounds. They are based on the principle of vehicles moving at 30 miles an hour. As a local resident in Southend, I know that, when travelling from Southend to Rochford—where it is proposed to close a fire station—it is impossible to move at 30 miles an hour in the busy period. In fact, it is difficult to travel at two miles an hour. All our stations face more calls and have more, not fewer, buildings to cover. We have special problems in the Southend area, with a number of houses in multiple occupation, a hospital and an airport.
We must also accept that Essex faces major problems. The report identified the need for extra facilities at Stansted national airport. The council is already overstretched as it already spends £5 million more per year than it should on its fire service. Despite that, the efficiency review showed it to be extremely efficient.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, it is vital not to apportion blame. It would be possible to blame each party in different ways, but the crucial point is to find a solution. I hope that Essex county council will formally declare that it is withdrawing its proposals so that Members of Parliament can, on its behalf, seek meetings with Ministers to discuss a number of issues. I hope that the Minister will accept that, if Essex were to withdraw its proposals and make it clear that it will not proceed, we could have discussions on a number of matters.
Mrs. Gorman: Is not the amount of money in question barely £1.5 million? As that compares with Essex council's current reserves of £21 million, should it not be well within its capacity to find that money? Will my hon. Friend address that point?
Sir Teddy Taylor: Most certainly. Those are issues that we could discuss. On Monday, the Minister of State

985
made it clear that, as long as the county could prove that it had a good case for overspending its capping limits, it would be considered.
National airports are more than a responsibility for a local council. I hope that that issue will be considered.
Another question is whether, despite the generous settlements that the Government have given counties over the country as a whole, there is a need for additional provision to be made for fire services.
I hope that the Government will accept that Members of Parliament in south Essex are genuinely concerned about safety. They hope that a solution can be found in commonsense negotiations and consultations. They hope that the Government will accept that hon. Members from all parties have a genuine desire to find a solution to this serious and urgent problem.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on securing the Adjournment debate, and I welcome other hon. Members to a debate of great concern to Essex Members. I particularly welcome the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton).
We have good reason to be proud of the fire service in this country. Surveys have consistently shown that the service is held in great esteem by both the general public and individuals who need its assistance. It was commended in 1995 by the Audit Commission in a major value-for-money study on its very high levels of skill and assistance.
In a report last April, the commission noted that, in respect of the performance of fire brigades in the year 1994–95,
"the fire service maintained its outstanding performance in meeting national standards for attending fire calls on 95 per cent. of occasions".
In that respect, Essex is one of the best performing brigades. In the year 1994–95, it performed better than average in meeting required response times to fire calls—its response rate was 96 per cent. The Audit Commission will soon produce audited figures for 1995–96, and it will be interesting to see whether Essex has managed to maintain that high standard.
Statutory responsibility for the provision of an efficient fire service rests with individual fire authorities. Those authorities necessarily review their fire cover arrangements periodically to keep them up to date. The Essex fire brigade recently had an extensive review of fire cover, the results of which were recently circulated for public comment. As several hon. Members have already said, the report proposes a major redistribution of resources, including the closure of two stations, a change in the status of others, and an improvement in the fire cover in other parts of the county. I fully appreciate that those changes will cause concern to some hon. Members.
Under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's approval is required if a fire authority wants to reduce the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting
986
posts. He has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19. He grants approval when certain conditions are satisfied.
First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail, and with adequate time to enable any interested party to make representations. Secondly, the representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.
In the event of a section 19 application being made, my right hon. and learned Friend will also take into account any representations made direct to him, including those from hon. Members, firefighters and the communities affected. To date, we have not received a section 19 application from Essex county council following its fire cover review. I assure the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and my right hon. and hon. Friends that should the county council make such an application, my right hon. and learned Friend will, in reaching his decision, take account of the representations that he receives, including those made in the debate.
Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend revisit the debate that I secured on 18 December, when I asked that the Home Office deal with those problems? He will see from reading the report of that debate that Canvey Island is a special case. Although I am sure that all hon. Members would claim that for their patch, I am sure that they would agree that that is true for Canvey Island.
Despite the fact that the public consultation undertaken by Essex county council was totally against the cuts, and despite requests from me and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for the council to reconsider this matter using a more appropriate set of assumptions, including average speed of vehicles, it has extended the consultation period by two months, which will put this decision beyond the 1 May elections. Does not the Minister find that curious? Does it not show that Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors are running scared on this issue?
Mr. Sackville: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but this should not be a matter for party political debate. We are discussing whether, on advice from the inspectorate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that fire cover is being maintained. I hope that the county council will hear what my hon. Friend said, and will take his remarks seriously. There should not be a delay, but there should be cool and detailed consideration of where best to use the resources to ensure that every part of the county is properly covered.
I should say something about the national recommended standards of fire cover, about which the hon. Member for Thurrock has doubts. The Fire Services Act 1947 does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service that a fire authority must provide. However, it is long-standing practice to interpret that by reference to the national standards, which dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category in which an area has been placed. That system of risk is based on the characteristics of the buildings and property in an area, and assumes for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time.

987
The standards are not just nationally recommended: they are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. They were extensively reviewed in 1985 by the joint committee on standards of fire cover for the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. The standards enable all concerned to know where they stand as regards the minimum level of service that they should deliver. We believe that those standards have served the country well.
Mr. Mackinlay: The standards have served us well, but they do not take account of modern shopping malls, such as Lakeside. Things have moved on, and it is time for those standards to be reviewed.
Mr. Sackville: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later.
We believe that the standards have served us well, but that is not to say that we regard them as entirely unchangeable. The Audit Commission's report recommended that there should be another fundamental review of the levels of fire cover, but recognised that no fundamental change could be considered without the most careful research. A review of fire cover standards is being taken forward by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but these issues are complex and much work will be required. In the meantime, any section 19 application will be judged according to existing standards.
Many people are concerned about the level of resources available for the fire service. We still expect the fire service to make efficiency savings, as in every other
988
public service: it is vital that the taxpayer receives best value for money. However, the Government have shown their commitment to the fire service by confirming that we shall increase the fire service element of the standard spending assessment in England for the coming financial year by £50 million, which is more than 4 per cent. I believe that that is a satisfactory settlement. I also point out that Essex will receive an uplift of 4.7 per cent. in its SSA.
I appreciate that Essex spends over the SSA, which is its right. In case anyone is under any illusions, I point out that the cost of the fire service in Essex represents about 4 per cent. of its total base budget. The fire budget in the current year is £39.35 million, against an overall budget of £976.7 million. It is within the county council's gift to review its priorities and to make further funds available if it has doubts about whether the fire cover is being maintained.
I assure the House that everything that has been said today about the particular problems of Essex—whether they relate to Canvey Island, the extent of river industrial frontage, the number of A roads or cover for an airport with international flights—will be heard by the county council, the chief fire officer and the inspectorate. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be taken fully into account in any future decisions.
It being two minutes to Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND

    Glasgow (Funding)
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to meet Glasgow city council to discuss the allocation of public funds to the city. [12880]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I have offered to meet a delegation of hon. Members from Glasgow and representatives of the council next week.
    Mr. Davidson: Are the Minister and his colleagues aware of the widespread view in Glasgow that the Government are deliberately discriminating against the city, not only in terms of the money given to local authorities but in terms of money for the health board, the development agency, Scottish Homes and other organisations? Will he agree next week to give Glasgow the resources that it needs?
    Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is very brave to come here and talk about Glasgow at all, in the light of the article in today's Glasgow Evening Times about the civil war that seems to be going on in the Labour party there.
    As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, central Government funds are distributed according to a formula drawn up by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Office and the distribution committee. I understand that COSLA is perfectly satisfied with the distribution procedure—although I gather that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has proposed an independent review of it. Given that COSLA is largely the Labour party, is this yet another split in the Labour party in Scotland?
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since 1979, per capita spending by all Government agencies and Departments in Glasgow has far exceeded the amount spent in North Tayside? When we hear complaints from those in Glasgow—especially after the rows and ructions that have been going on there, and the spending of money on limousines rather than vehicles intended to transport people—we ask whether it is not time that we told them to shut up.
    Mr. Kynoch: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. He is referring to a report in yesterday's Evening Times, which mentioned the £810,000 that had been spent on some 28 limousines, one of which was a Rolls-Royce for the Lord Provost of Glasgow. The people of Glasgow have a perfect right to question the priorities given to expenditure in their city—which, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is significantly greater than expenditure in many other parts of Scotland, and very much greater than expenditure per head south of the border.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister not admit that the Government's record on spending public money is a disgrace? No council in Britain comes anywhere near it.
    990
    How does the Minister explain the apportionment of Glasgow's share of urban programme funding, which is grossly unfair to those in the city?
    Mr. Kynoch: Yet again, we have heard a reference to distribution. I have already covered the distribution of local government funds; as for urban funding, perhaps the hon. Lady should visit some other parts of Scotland, where people think the exact opposite—that Glasgow has received more than its fair share over the years.
    Mr. Stewart: Has my hon. Friend read the whole of today's Evening Times article? In particular, has he seen the headline "Give us a trip and we'll vote for you", which refers to Labour councillors in Glasgow? Given that appalling state of affairs—given that Glasgow receives 80 per cent. more Government grant per capita than the English average, and the administration is descending into chaos—is there not a case for suspending that administration and putting in commissioners?
    Mr. Kynoch: I shall not comment on allegations that are reported in the Glasgow Evening Times. Like my hon. Friend, I read that article, and I suggest that, if there are such allegations, they could be referred to Lord Nolan, who I am sure would be particularly interested. Local elected representatives have a responsibility to their electorate, and the people of Glasgow should expect no less of their councillors than anyone else.
    Mr. George Robertson: Could we hear a little less humbug from Ministers, the arch-priests of waste who lost £1 billion of taxpayers' money on the poll tax? Less preaching would be much appreciated in Scotland.
    When the Minister meets Glasgow city council next week, why does not he tell it that he will abandon this wasteful nursery voucher scheme and give it and other local authorities the money that is being spent on the scheme? He should also cancel the incredible advertising campaign, which is pure party propaganda and is grossly improper before a general election. It is funding the Tory party's campaign on vouchers. He should use that money for the provision of proper nursery education, which the people of Scotland want and the children of Scotland need.
    Mr. Kynoch: I noticed that the Opposition Chief Whip had his eyes closed during that contribution. I am not surprised, because the hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. Unfortunately, he believes in removing choice from the people of Scotland. If he talked to people in one of the pilot areas, such as Eastwood, which is close to Glasgow—the city that we are discussing—he would discover what a successful scheme it has been and that it has had a high take-up. It is right and proper that people in the rest of Scotland should be able to enjoy such a scheme so that they can give their four-year-old children nursery education.
    Of course, the hon. Gentleman is in a remarkable fix because he is tied by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and is clearly not able to offer an alternative. Nursery vouchers are good for Scotland, and that has been proved already.

    Health Spending
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the level of health spending per head in Scotland relative to that elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [12881]
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Next year, we are planning to spend £883 per head in Scotland—£153 more than in England.
    Mr. Congdon: If there were a Scottish Parliament, how could I justify the significant extra amount that is spent on health in Scotland to my constituents in Croydon when I would have no vote on Scottish health matters or funding?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, higher spending on health is justified at present because, for a variety of reasons, health spending need is greater. People who live in Scotland have a higher incidence of heart disease and cancer, and there is a greater need for dental treatment. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Members of Parliament are traditionally reluctant to vote funds if they have no say over how they should be spent. A further tax-raising parliament would inevitably raise questions about the size of the Scottish block and, frankly, it is a gamble that we Conservatives are not prepared to take.
    Mr. Donohoe: Is it possible that the additional expenditure on health in Scotland is to line the pockets of the private sector? In my constituency, most geriatric beds are being transferred to the private sector, where excess profits are being made. Is that not another example to show that the national health service is not safe in Tory hands?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. Whether a person remains in hospital is a matter for clinical decision, and that is where it should remain. It is not a matter for political decision. The recent Tayside inspector's report made it absolutely clear that for comparable care there could have been huge savings—well in excess of £2 million or £3 million—if the private sector had been used more.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give some idea of capital expenditure on the health service in Scotland during the past five years? Will he reaffirm our commitment to spend more on the health service year on year? Does he not find it astounding that the Labour party cannot give the same assurance?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have given a commitment to increase spending for the health service year on year in real terms—a commitment that the Labour party has failed to match. In Scotland, net expenditure in 1997–98 is planned to be £4.375 billion, an increase of £148 million—or 3.5 per cent.—over the 1996–97 expected outturn. If we had adopted the Opposition's line on local government finance, less would have gone to the NHS.

    Borders Health Board
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of additional resources to be made available to Borders health board for the year 1997–98 relative to the average level in Scotland [12883]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Because we have made health a priority, Borders health board received an extra £3.3 million, which is a 3.7 per cent. increase and above the national average increase of 3.5 per cent. Had we given those funds to local government, again health interests in the Borders would have received less.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but, leaving capital aside and considering recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure, does he accept that the settlement for the Borders health board region next year is the lowest of any health board region in Scotland? Is he aware that, on Monday, the Secretary of State for Scotland came to Selkirk and tried to argue that local people should thole a massive shortfall in local authority funding on the ground that he was giving increased priority to health in Scotland?
    According to my figures, when we consider recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure, the increase is 2.55 per cent. That is the lowest increase in mainland Scotland. Will the Minister consider the matter, review the settlement and give a personal guarantee that, if there is any suggestion that patient care could be prejudiced in the next financial year, he will make good any shortfall and do away with this ministerial mean-mindedness with regard to public service provision in south-east Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Borders health board received an allocation above the national average. Hospital and community health services in Borders will receive some £69 million recurrent expenditure and £1 million non-recurrent expenditure next year. The £1 million is less than 2 per cent. of the hospital and community health services allocation for 1997–98, but it is important that the non-recurrent element can be used for restructuring and investments to boost services in future. We are committed to continuing all allocations to health boards by a fair population-based formula. I repeat the commitment that I have given the House: we are determined to increase spending for the NHS in real terms year by year—a commitment that has not been matched by Her Majesty's Opposition.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that Borders is not the only region where increases have taken place? In south Scotland—in Ayrshire—has not expenditure on health care gone through the roof? It is well above the 50 per cent. real terms increase per head over recent times—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must caution the hon. Gentleman that we were in the Borders; I am sure that the Minister will reply appropriately about the Borders.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Just as a substantial allocation has been made for Borders, so the allocation

    993
    throughout Scotland has been made on the basis of fairness. We will ensure that all parts of Scotland are properly catered for.
    Madam Speaker: Back to the Borders with Sir David Steel.
    Sir David Steel: Will the Minister take note of the fact that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) visited the Borders general hospital during the Christmas recess, he found that acute beds were being blocked by elderly people who should be cared for in the community or in nursing homes? That problem is caused by the lack of financial resources both to the health board and to the local authority. It cannot be in patients' interests. Will the Minister undertake to examine the problem?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The total increase in social work grant-aided expenditure for Borders is 8.3 per cent., but if the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations for enormous increases to local government expenditure were implemented, there would be substantially less for health. We have given top priority to the NHS. That is our commitment. It will remain our commitment, and it will generally be supported by the electorate.

    Electricity Interconnector
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with Scottish Power about the electricity interconnector with Northern Ireland. [12884]
    Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend is considering representations received and, once he has done so, will announce his decision.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Does the Minister realise that the Secretary of State's interference in this affair could add £28 million to the project's cost and cause impossible technical problems? In short, he could scupper—he could sabotage—the whole interconnector project. Given the great importance to the economies of Scotland and Northern Ireland of establishing an interconnector between the electricity systems on each side of the Irish sea, will he stop playing local politics with this important issue and uphold the outcome of the public inquiries on each side of the Irish sea?
    Mr. Kynoch: I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to consider all representations made to him on the issue. This afternoon, the hon. Gentleman has once again disclosed the significant split between Labour Members, in that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was shaking his head the whole time the hon. Gentleman was asking his question. My right hon. Friend will seriously consider all representations; when he has done, that he will make his announcement.
    Mr. Beggs: Can the Minister confirm that Scottish Power took account of all representations—including those made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—and that the re-routing
    994
    has been done to appease environmentalists and to satisfy the justifiable need to protect fishing grounds? Will he accept that, if the project is not approved and the public inquiry's finding is not upheld, the Secretary of State will bear responsibility for sabotaging the link between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for imposing a huge burden on electricity consumers in Northern Ireland? Will he therefore further consult the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland before making a final decision?
    Mr. Kynoch: As I have said, my right hon. Friend listens to all representations. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have a great interest in the matter. Indeed, the Secretary of State has received a letter about it from the hon. Gentleman, and has already agreed to meet him and a small delegation of his colleagues at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the interconnector will burn the equivalent of 600,000 tonnes of coal? Is he further aware that the coal used by Cockenzie power station comes from Monktonhall; and that Scottish Office Ministers were involved in encouraging Waverley Mining to invest in that mine? The company has spent £15 million on new machinery, so jobs in my constituency and in East Lothian will clearly be under threat if the project does not go ahead.
    Mr. Kynoch: I am well aware of that. I should point out that my right hon. Friend has said that he is minded to approve the interconnector, subject to four sections of it being undergrounded. It is on that aspect that he has sought further advice from the interested parties; but the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are commercial. They are therefore for the companies concerned, not for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Trimble: Perhaps the Minister will remind his right hon. Friend that the crucial question is whether the interconnector will go ahead; if the undergrounding that the Secretary of State is considering is required, it is probable that the interconnector will not go ahead. It thus comes down to considering whether the project is to go ahead. Will he remind the Secretary of State that he must, in his deliberations, rise above purely local considerations and think about the national interest? He is one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State: he must consider the national interest.
    The interconnector is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland, which has to bear electricity costs 15 per cent. higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The interconnector might help to reduce those costs. There are therefore larger considerations to be borne in mind.
    Mr. Kynoch: As I told the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), we are well aware of the significant interest in Northern Ireland in the project, but I know that my right hon. Friend is considering all representations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect him to reach a conclusion before giving serious consideration to all aspects. He is doing that; he will do that; and when he is ready he will make an announcement.

    Health and Community Care (Highlands)
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his funding projections for health and community care in the highlands for (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [12885]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Highland health board's 1997–98 initial revenue allocation is £138 million, which reflects a 5.6 per cent. increase in the board's basic allocation over 1996–97. The local authority grant-aided expenditure allowances to Highland council for its community care responsibilities are £24.5 million in the current year, rising to £26.6 million in 1997–98.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for those figures. Will he acknowledge that, in the highlands, as elsewhere in Scotland, a mixed economy of provision, particularly in care of the elderly, will remain essential? Against a difficult financial backdrop, particularly in the local authority's social work department, a major consultation exercise is now under way, and public provision of care of the elderly faces a very uncertain future. There is uncertainty at such facilities as Urray house, in Muir of Ord, as there is at other facilities in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Inverness. Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).
    Does the Minister realise that local authorities are being put in an impossible position trying to maintain the level of public provision for care of the elderly, because they have simply not been given adequate resources by the Scottish Office?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The settlement includes provision to increase the community care allowance by £2.1 million in the highlands, which is an 8.6 per cent increase. I am of course aware that Highland council is currently consulting local interests as part of a comprehensive review of future arrangements for the care of elderly people in the highlands. I must repeat that, if the hon. Gentleman had his way and we were to give much more funding to local government, funding through the health service would be considerably less.
    Mr. Maclennan: Against the background of Highland council contemplating closure of residential care for the elderly in at least four places and a reduction of care in others, will the Minister very carefully consider the feasibility study that the Highland health board has proposed for Sutherland? Such a study might carry the implication of closing the excellent Migdale hospital, which is providing care for the elderly and psycho-geriatric cases, and post-operative and respite care. That health service provision is absolutely necessary if there is to be close co-operation between authorities in providing care for the elderly in Sutherland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Requests for hospital closures must be cleared by us, and we would consider any such request very carefully before giving approval. However, I shall look into the case and the feasibility study mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

    Public Expenditure Settlement
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the public expenditure settlement for his Department for the financial year 1997–98; and if he will make a statement [12886]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The public expenditure settlement is a good deal for Scotland. We have given priority to education, law and order, health and jobs.
    Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend understand that it is relatively easy for me to justify that good deal for Scotland to my constituents in Worcestershire so long as the Parliament of the United Kingdom retains control over that expenditure? Does he understand that it would be a great deal more difficult for me to pursue that justification with the creation of a Scottish Parliament that controlled expenditure with their own tax-raising powers, particularly if Scottish Members were still able to come here to vote on English expenditure?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend, because he is quite right. Local government expenditure in Scotland, for example, is almost £2 billion over and above the per head proportion in England. On health, the extra is £1 billion. From Scotland's point of view, having a Secretary of State in Cabinet and Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies—who have the same status and role as hon. Members from other constituencies—undoubtedly helps us to secure a good deal for Scotland, which Labour would squander for the sake of party political advantage.
    Mr. Galloway: That depends on whether the Secretary of State is Scotland's man in the Cabinet or the Cabinet's man in Scotland. Does he have any understanding of how that "good deal for Scotland" looks on the streets of Glasgow to the 30,000 people who demonstrated there a week last Saturday? It looks like another dismal round of school closures, wind and rain coming through houses that cannot be repaired, day care centres being shut and a further spiral downward in the standard of public services in Glasgow, which is already beset by poverty and mass unemployment.
    The "good deal for Scotland" that the right hon. Gentleman trumpets means more despair, more homelessness and more joblessness in the city of Glasgow. When he meets representatives of the city council next week, will he take account of the fact that everyone in Scotland—bar him and the motley crew that sit beside him on the Treasury Bench—know that Glasgow is a special case with special problems? Will he do something to help what was the second city of the Empire?
    Mr. Forsyth: If I am Scotland's man in the Cabinet, the hon. Gentleman is Labour's man in Libya. Perhaps if he spent a little more time in Glasgow and a little less time elsewhere, he would know what was happening.
    As for overall local government finance, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been reading the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline. East (Mr. Brown), who has made it

    997
    perfectly clear that a Labour Government would not increase local government expenditure in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) raised the issue of how Labour would put at risk the funding that we have because it would leave us impotent to argue our case at Westminster where Scotland's budget would be determined. That is the matter that the hon. Gentleman should address.
    Sir Hector Monro: Were my right hon. Friend to allow local authorities to spend more money without there being an increase in income tax, surely he would have to scrap the business rate and increase other taxation or levy a tartan tax. Does he agree that the Labour party's proposals would inevitably lead to an increase in taxation in Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Labour party's agenda is perfectly clear: it is to allow councils to put up the business rate. On the basis of the limited concession announced by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), that would have meant the business rate in Glasgow going up by 20 per cent. last year, which would have destroyed jobs and businesses there.
    My right hon. Friend is also right to point to the so-called independent review of local government finance which is concerned with inventing new taxes. Indeed, in Edinburgh the Labour leader suggested a bed, or tourist, tax. Labour would therefore introduce a trade tax, a tartan tax and a tourist tax, all of which would destroy jobs and Scotland's competitiveness.
    Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has committed himself to £860,000 of expenditure to advertise nursery vouchers. Given the number of parents at whom it will be directed in Scotland, as compared to England, how does he explain—especially in the run-up to an election—why it costs so much more pro rata to run the campaign in Scotland? What answer will he give to the parents who see the £1,100 voucher waved before their eyes but who will find no outlet at which to cash it?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman calls himself a Liberal; for a Liberal to stand up in the Chamber and denounce a scheme that will allow parents to choose the provision for their children says a great deal about what has happened to the Liberal party in Scotland. As for the success of the scheme, why does not the hon. Gentleman take up the invitation issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who asked him to come and see the success of the pilot scheme? Ninety-seven per cent. of parents have taken up the vouchers, and more places are being provided by the private sector, but where is the biggest increase in the number of nursery places being provided as a result of the voucher system? In local government, which is able to take advantage of the extra resources that we are making available for children.
    On the cost of advertising, I am not responsible for the rates charged by the media in Scotland; I am responsible for ensuring that parents know what the Government are offering, and I hope that everyone in Scotland will know that the Liberal party wishes to take it away.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is all very well to attack Glasgow, but it spends money on providing services such
    998
    as home help. Home helps are the unsung heroes in our communities, and cuts will mean that the elderly and disabled will be denied the services they need, which, in turn, will mean more pressure on carers. Will the Secretary of State face the fact that Glasgow is indeed a special case? It provides work not only for the people who live in the city, but for those in areas such as Eastwood where the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) comes from. Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State's cuts will mean unemployment throughout the west of Scotland?
    Mr. Forsyth: There have been no cuts in Glasgow. Glasgow has had an increase in its spending. The hon. Gentleman talks about cutting back on home helps. Why does he not read the Glasgow Evening Times—not a newspaper that I regard as particularly favourable to the Government—and its examples of waste in Glasgow? It cites the fleets of limousines and the £500,000 that was to be spent on celebrating the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, pouring red dye into the Clyde. Those are not the priorities of people who put services first. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his colleagues who are responsible for Glasgow. They are now fighting among themselves like ferrets in a sack instead of looking after the interests of the people they were elected to serve.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a good wheeze to raise more taxes would be to say that we shall not put up income tax for anybody in the United Kingdom Parliament, but take an extra 3p on income tax in a Scottish Parliament? Would that not be one way for the Labour party to bamboozle the people of Scotland, to get votes up there without telling people that they are about to get a 3p increase on their income tax?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that some people in England will have to pay the tartan tax—people on the payrolls of Scottish companies. That is another reason why the tartan tax would be damaging to Scotland's interests.
    Mr. Salmond: I commiserate with the Secretary of State on the demise of his argument that Scotland is a subsidised nation. Has not the admission by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 January that Scotland has generated an absolute surplus of £27 billion since 1979 blown a black hole in the Secretary of State's argument, particularly given the Scottish Office's assumption that there will be another £12.5 billion over the next five years? Is not the reality that the subsidy junkies in the United Kingdom sit on the green Benches behind the Secretary of State—people who are so anxious to hang on to Scotland that they turn up here on a monthly basis and ask foolish planted questions?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman lives in a dream world of his own. I set out the position clearly on the extraordinary paste-up job he did on the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I clearly pointed out that Scotland would have a substantial £6.1 billion deficit. The hon. Gentleman goes around Scotland promising everything to everyone, but has no means by which to deliver his promises. With his slogan,

    999
    "Independence in Europe", the hon. Gentleman, more than any other hon. Member, would surrender most of Scotland's sovereignty to Brussels. That is the reality. The people of Scotland will not vote for people such as him, who want to give their country away.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: When the Secretary of State has calmed down and recovered his equilibrium, will he tell the House whether he is satisfied with the decision of his Minister of State to spend £150 million driving a motorway through the urban area of my constituency? Is he aware that the decision has been met with widespread disapproval in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth? In those circumstances, and having regard to the fact that not a single elected member of North Lanarkshire council or the previous authorities—Strathclyde regional council and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council—favoured that option, will he call a public inquiry?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will fight strongly for his constituents. I understand that such a major project will cause concern and difficulties wherever it is sited. There were two possible lines of route, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I imagine that the relief in one area will be matched by disappointment in another. We had to take a decision in the national interest of Scotland. Of course I shall be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss any particular concerns of his.

    Legislation
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pages of legislation have been passed in each of the last three years; and how many pages have been repealed in the same period. [12887]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): There have been six pieces of Government primary Scottish legislation and 977 instruments passed in the past three years; no central record of the number of repeals is held.
    Mr. Steen: Although the Government's deregulation initiative is going very well, is my hon. Friend aware that, since 1970, 220,000 pages of additional law have been added to the statute book? As a Scottish Minister, will he take the lead and, in addition to the qualitative test of debating measures on the Floor of the House, introduce a quantitative test whereby, when any new Scottish law is introduced, the identical amount of legislation is repealed, so that a balance is achieved and no additional laws are added to the statute book without the repeal of others at the same time?
    Mr. Robertson: It is right that my hon. Friend maintains pressure on all Departments, including the Scottish Office. As we have heard, he has great style However, as he is aware, the Government have passed 44 deregulation orders resulting in savings of more than £100 million per annum. Last year alone, 228 statutory instruments were passed; 105 produced savings for business by repealing some 500 existing regulations.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister recall that there was no greater supporter of the legislation to impose the poll tax on Scotland and the rest of Britain than the current
    1000
    Secretary of State for Scotland? That legislation was repealed within five years and cost the taxpayer £14 billion. Does the Minister also recall that the Secretary of State for Scotland wasted months of legislative time in Scottish Standing Committees forcing through measures in respect of opted-out schools in Scotland—legislation that has been ignored? Does he recall that the Government imposed local government reorganisation on Scotland, creating the crisis in Scottish councils today? The measures were unwanted, expensive, unnecessary and wasteful. If I had a pound for every wasteful piece of legislation passed through the House, I would not have to buy a ticket for the national lottery tonight.
    Mr. Robertson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes the same venom and passion to Scottish local authorities and encourages them, in the same way he has berated me, to collect the outstanding £750 million in uncollected poll tax and council tax.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the increasing number of pages and volumes of legislation being generated throughout the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland come from the European Commission and the European Union and, furthermore, that the policies pursued by the Scottish nationalists and the Scottish Labour party giving in to federalism in Europe will increase that volume of legislation and place a terrible burden on the Scottish people?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition parties seek, each in its own way, to sell Scotland short and to sell Scotland out to the bureaucrats in Brussels. My hon. Friend will be pleased that we have succeeded in getting the Commission to look at ways of cutting the burdens placed on business by the single market legislation.
    Mr. Watson: Are not the past 18 years important—not the past three years of legislation—during which the Government have attacked the unemployed, the homeless, local authorities and trade unions in Scotland? Is it not a matter of having a general election within weeks rather than months, so that a Labour Government can begin to repeal some of that legislation and introduce a Scotland Bill so that, for the first time in hundreds of years, the people of Scotland can have a say in their destiny? Finally, is it not the case that the one thing that the Government have passed, on which everyone will agree, is their sell-by date?
    Mr. Robertson: The Scotland that the hon. Gentleman describes would not be recognised by anyone who lives or works in Scotland. In reality, Scotland is prospering and booming, and the quality of life there is second to none. It is not worth a Scotland Bill from the Labour party.
    Mr. George Robertson: I hope that the Minister will accept that there is one piece of legislation that both sides of the House want to get through Parliament before the general election—the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which will tighten up the law on handguns. Will he join me in condemning the action of unelected hereditary peers who seek to dilute, weaken and sabotage the Bill, which has

    1001
    the backing of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members? As the Opposition will offer the Government our full support in their confrontation with the upper House, can the Minister reassure us that this valuable and valued measure will be on the statute book before the general election and that the 200,000 handguns in Britain will be taken out of circulation?
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Labour peers voted both for and against in the Divisions. He should therefore watch before he casts accusations across the Dispatch Box. He knows that we have presented a Bill in both Houses of Parliament. We have pledged to deliver on that Bill, and we shall do so.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance. [12888]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: I met COSLA on 17 January and I am looking forward to meeting it again on 4 July.
    Mr. Welsh: If only that could also be independence day for Scotland.
    As local authorities face their greatest ever financial crisis, the Government claim that Scotland receives a per head of population subsidy for local services. Has the Secretary of State read the COSLA report that demolishes that Tory subsidy myth? Will he take the opportunity to refute line by line the COSLA report or cease the Tory anti-Scottish propaganda that he is pumping out?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The Pieda report to which he refers is about jobs. He ought to know that we have commissioned an independent study by Coopers and Lybrand and Pieda which will set out where the extra money is going in local government. I think that he will be surprised when he sees the result.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that we are told not only by elected councillors in Glasgow but by every official from the chief executive to the director of finance, right down across the whole board of the council's chief officials, that Glasgow is facing the greatest crisis in its existence? Why does he keep pretending that there is no crisis? Is he accusing them of telling lies? Whom should the people of Scotland and Glasgow believe—him or the officials?
    Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he should believe the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who I believe is the shadow Chancellor. He made it absolutely clear that a Labour Government would not give a cent more to the public expenditure plans that we have provided. If the hon. Gentleman feels that Glasgow is not getting its share of the pot, he should have a word with the Labour chairman of COSLA and leader of Edinburgh council, Mr. Keith Geddes, who has indicated that the distribution formula is fair and correct. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who appeared to say along
    1002
    with the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that he thought that the formula for Glasgow was wrong, but is now saying that it is not.
    Mr. George Robertson indicated dissent.
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman appeared to be saying that from a sedentary position. The Labour party should get its act together; men it might be in a position to give a coherent view on what it would like to happen.
    The Government have set forward their proposals. We have been fair by Glasgow, including last year, when I gave it an extra £15 million to find time to make the necessary adjustments—time which has been squandered by the Labour administration.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: The Secretary of State will be aware of the £8.5 million cuts which are facing Argyll and Bute council, because I wrote to him to ask him for a meeting on the matter, which he unfortunately declined. Is it not unrealistic to expect COSLA and the distribution committee to agree to take money from other councils so that Argyll and Bute can qualify for the special islands needs allowance? Does not the ultimate responsibility for funding and helping Argyll and Bute lie with him? We really must stop going around and around in circles and buck passing. Will the Secretary of State take that on board today?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady is normally very courteous. She has written asking for a meeting and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Local Government has agreed to see her next Wednesday. She really does have to tell the whole story and not half the story. It is certainly true that Argyll and Bute would like to increase its expenditure substantially, although it has had extra cash. As she knows, I have some sympathy with her about the special islands needs allowance settlement. The position of COSLA is that Argyll is not justified in having it. Given the number of islands in Argyll, I agree with her that, on the face of it, that seems rather extraordinary. I am very happy for that to be considered in the distribution committee and agreed by COSLA.
    We simply cannot have COSLA, which is dominated by the Labour party, saying that it speaks for the whole of local government and agreeing an arrangement with the Government, followed by the various constituent parts of local government coming along—[Interruption.]—and saying that they have not been treated properly and do not agree it. Then people such as the hon. Gentlemen speaking from a sedentary position blame the Government, who are genuinely trying to get a good deal for local government—a deal on which the shadow Chancellor has made it clear he could not improve.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why do the Government not tell the truth about local government, instead of giving us fiction and fiddles about grant levels and spending limits, and scaremongering rubbish about Labour's plans for the business rate? Why, for example, do they, unlike anybody who has studied the subject, keep pretending that £60 million will be saved next year, compared with this year, through local government reorganisation, and then keep adding that imaginary money to grant levels to come up with an imaginary increase for next year? Does the Secretary of State not understand that this is the worst

    1003
    local government settlement for more than 20 years—the final monument to 18 years of Tory economic failure? Does he not realise that nobody trusts or believes him, and that it is time for him to go?
    Mr. Forsyth: If this years settlement is the worst in years—which it certainly is not—why can the hon. Gentleman not pledge an extra cent on top of it? If it is so bad, what has happened to the Labour party? What exactly would a Labour Government be for? If the hon. Gentleman says that ours is a poor settlement for Labour councils, why can he not add a single penny? The truth is that his masters in Islington know that it is a good deal for local government in Scotland.

    Education Institutions (Agency Staff)
    Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with education institutions concerning the employment by them of agency staff. [12889]
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: None. The employment of agency staff in colleges is for individual college boards of management to determine.
    Mr. Hughes: Does that answer not show the Minister's cavalier disregard for his responsibilities to education? Is he not aware that the decision by Aberdeen college and others to force their part-time staff out of service into agency employment is causing great concern about pay, conditions and standards in education, with the fear that that may be a precursor to turning all full-time staff over to agency employment?
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that many further education colleges, including Aberdeen college, in which he and I share an interest as constituency Members, are restructuring staffing levels so that they can deliver a more efficient and effective service to students. He does Aberdeen college a great disservice by choosing to ignore the fact that, as part of the restructuring, 42 new posts have been made permanent.
    Mrs. Liddell: Why has the Minister not ordered an immediate public inquiry into the college board members who operate the very agencies that undercut the pay, conditions and job security of college lecturers? Is he aware that the matter is likely to be raised with Lord Nolan? Why did he wash his hands of it when I raised it with him in correspondence?
    Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Lady wishes to raise the matter with Lord Nolan, she is entitled so to do; but, in all kindness, I must tell her that it was obvious on Monday that the pressure is getting to her. She should take some time off, away from the House, and visit Scottish colleges and schools to find out what the real situation is. Then she should come back to the House and stop running down the great achievements of Scottish education.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the level of unemployment in Scotland. [12890]
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Unemployment in Scotland has fallen to 7.4 per cent. and has fallen by 10,000 in the past two months.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and for the fact that unemployment in Scotland has fallen by 71,200 since December 1992. [HON. MEMBERS: "Fiddled figures."] Does he agree that the rate of unemployment, at 7.4 per cent., is lower than that in Germany, France, Italy and Spain—[Interruption.]—all of which follow the economic policies put forward by the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the only hope for continued reductions in unemployment is the re-election of a Conservative Government?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not know whether he noticed, but he was being barracked throughout his question by Opposition Members who, on this occasion, seem to have seated themselves as far away from the Opposition Front Bench as they can. I do not know whether that is symbolic. Opposition Members were shouting. "Fiddled figures." When unemployment in Scotland was increasing, Opposition Members were happy to quote the figures time after time, and they accepted them; but, now that we have a success story with falling unemployment, they do not want to acknowledge it. That is the kind of commitment that Labour has to Scotland—a commitment to decline, which we in government have reversed.
    Mr. David Marshall: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed by the unacceptably high levels of unemployment and poverty in Glasgow? By how much would the 11 Glasgow constituencies have benefited in total if they had received the same preferential treatment pro rata as the constituencies of his fellow Tory Members, especially his own constituency of Stirling?
    Mr. Forsyth: If we are talking about public expenditure and the constituencies were funded on the same basis as those of my hon. Friends, there would be a reduction. The hon. Gentleman surely recognises the transformation that has been brought about in Glasgow as a result of a partnership between the Government and local authorities, and I pay tribute to all concerned. I agree that there are areas in Glasgow—and elsewhere in Scotland—where unemployment is far too high. There are a number of proposals to achieve a reduction in unemployment and to encourage investment in Glasgow. I will happily work with anyone from any party who wishes to achieve that purpose.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that the parties that claim to want to reduce unemployment want at the same time to impose a new tax on the Scots? Labour also talks about running headlong into Europe, but when it shares out the oil as a common

    1005
    resource after it has committed itself to do so, it might well share Spain's unemployment rate of 23 per cent. Does he not find that ironic also?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The only jobs that a Labour Government would create in Scotland would be jobs for the boys in their Parliament on Calton hill. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the girls."] That is right, because Labour would impose a gender balance quota on that Parliament. We still have to hear from the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), where the money will come from to pay for that Parliament—more than £70 million in the first year. If there is to be no increase in the overall Budget, the money will presumably come out of the health service or local government.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Has any of the Scottish Office team visited any of the project work pilots in Hull or Maidstone to see exactly what the scheme to be foisted on Scotland consists of? If any Minister has done so, could he tell us exactly what benefit Scotland will receive from the scheme?
    Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman should know that there has been some marvellous development work in Glasgow, for example, where we have had schemes in which the long-term unemployed have been encouraged to carry out work that is useful to the community, and have received payment for doing so. These projects have been built on and developed.
    The hon. Gentleman will recall that—during a period of absence from the Scottish Office—I was an Employment Minister, and I have seen for myself some of these projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman—or certainly new Labour—will welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that people who have been on unemployment benefit for many years are given the opportunity to work and to make a contribution to the community, and that he will therefore welcome and support the pilots.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 35 per cent. in the past five years? Will he take on board the words of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg)—whom we all respect—and look at the money that is to be spent on the A80? Considering the opposition that is coming from north Lanarkshire, would not that money be better spent on the A70 in Ayrshire? Such a move would increase the employment prospects in my constituency and those of other Ayrshire Members.
    Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps I could add to the discomfort of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth by paying a tribute to him as well. He is an excellent Member of the House. Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) know that, where lines of route have been proposed for the roads, if there are a sufficient number of objections, a public local inquiry has to be held to resolve them.
    I welcome, and acknowledge, my hon. Friend's continuing lobbying for the interests of his constituents. No sooner than we have delivered on one of his proposals than he appears with another, which is why I am sure his constituents will return him as their Member of
    1006
    Parliament, not just at the next general election but for many years to come, particularly if they contrast his behaviour with the way in which the other Members who represent Ayrshire constituencies behave in this Chamber on these occasions.
    Mr. Dalyell: What does the Secretary of State say to worried officials of the Scottish Office who read in the newspapers that they are likely to be faced with redundancy?
    Mr. Forsyth: They should do as I do, which is not believe everything they read in the newspapers.
    Mr. Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency of Eastwood has been falling very sharply and is a great deal lower than it was five years ago, because of the excellence of the Government's policies in Scotland, including the important policy of controlling the level of business rates, especially for small business men? What would happen if a Scottish Parliament threw that policy out of the window, business rates went into the stratosphere and the Scottish Parliament also imposed a tartan tax, about which Opposition Members are enthusiastic? If they were elected, they would not pay that tax, because they work in England.
    Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend may have stumbled on something. Perhaps it is the fact that Members of Parliament would not have to pay the tartan tax that makes some of them so keen on voting for it, or at least having an opportunity to do so. I agree that the effects of putting us back to the bad old days, when Labour councils discriminated against Scottish business through the business rate, would be disastrous for jobs and for those people who are struggling to run small shops and corner shops and who are already facing difficulties because of competition because of changes in shopping patterns.
    When Labour in local government says that it wishes to broaden the tax base so that it is not so dependent on central Government, that means introducing new taxes—it is a bed tax and a tax on business. As a Scottish Parliament, if it were established, would be 97 per cent. funded by revenues determined here, why would the same arguments not apply to such a parliament? Of course they would, and it would mean raising the tartan tax well beyond the 15 per cent. extra that is planned and promised by Labour at present.
    Mr. McFall: Why is there no commitment to reducing youth unemployment? The Secretary of State is aware that each of the 50,000 unemployed under-25s costs the taxpayer almost £8,000 a year. Would it not be better for Scotland's economic and employment future to have policies like the Labour party's, to get a quarter of a million young people in the entire country off the dole? After the Government's 18 years of neglect, is not the true message that Tory policies have left 50,000 young people with no jobs, no hope and no future? That can be remedied only by the election of a Labour Government.
    Mr. Forsyth: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed, but youth unemployment has been falling. He asks why we have no proposals, but we have a proposal—we have got skills vouchers, worth

    1007
    between £3,000 and £8,500, which are offered to every 16-year-old so that they can choose the training that they wish. The Labour party cannot stand vouchers and the idea that youngsters should be able to buy the training that they require.
    What is happening in the countries that have adopted the social chapter and the minimum wage—policies of the Labour party? Those are the countries where youth unemployment is going through the stratosphere. That is the generation that has been betrayed by socialism, and that is what the hon. Gentleman would do to Scotland.

    Care in the Community
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to increase the value for money of care in the community funds; and if he will make a statement [12891]
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Proposals are being considered to ensure that information on the net costs to local authorities of purchasing services from the private and voluntary sectors, as well as from their in-house providers, is made available to elected representatives and to the public.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the chairman of the social work committee of Perth and Kinross council has told the private sector owners that, although the inquiry into Tayside provisions showed that massive savings could be made of between £3 million and £6 million in Tayside
    1008
    and between £33 million and £66 million in Scotland as a whole, nothing will be done about it and Government directives will have no impact?
    Lord James Douglas—Hamilton: That assertion is incorrect. In the next few weeks, the Scottish Office will publish directions on information that local authorities cannot disregard, and the inspector's report made it quite clear that the three authorities could save between £3 million and £6 million, which would mean between £33 million and £66 million nationally.
    In the public interest, electors should have the right to expect their councils to ensure that they get value for money for all their services, including in-house provision, and the facts should be made public. We shall ensure that that happens.
    Mr. Connarty: Is the Minister aware that Central Scotland Healthcare NHS trust, which is responsible for care in the community in Forth Valley, is proposing to do away with its care managers and to sack 28 charge nurse sisters and replace them with 18 nurse managers, who will be responsible for double the number of patients? Sisters will no longer be responsible for contact with patients in the hospitals in the Secretary of State's constituency and other constituencies in central Scotland, including mine. Will the Minister take a stand and keep the sisters in the wards? Matrons have been done away with, and now the same is to happen to sisters. Will he prevent that?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The problem is not caused by funding for community care. The increase in funding for community care is £66.5 million, taking it to about £720 million for Scotland as a whole. I shall look into the individual circumstances about which the hon. Gentleman asked, and be in touch with him in due course.

Press Release (Madam Speaker's Statement)
3.31 pm
Madam Speaker: Yesterday, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) raised a point of order with me and was good enough to let me have the documentation so that I might examine it. I have to say to him that I can see nothing wrong in the Labour party press release to which he referred. It is perfectly open to any hon. Member to raise a subject with the Comptroller and Auditor General, either directly or by means of a conversation with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and to tell the media that he has done so.
On the point of substance, which is publicising the nursery voucher scheme in Scotland, I noted from the material that the hon. Gentleman sent me that the Secretary of the Cabinet has made it clear that this is legitimate at present but that once a general election has been called new advertising campaigns will in general be postponed and running campaigns will be closed. That would no doubt include the one that the hon. Gentleman referred to.

Press Release (Madam Speaker's Statement)
  BILLS PRESENTED
    MENTAL HEALTH (JOINT COMMISSIONING CONSORTIA)
    Mr. Peter Thurnham, supported by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Charles Kennedy, presented a Bill to enable health and local authorities to form consortia to commission health and social care for mentally ill people and to jointly disburse the funds voted them by Parliament to provide mental health services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 5 March, and to be printed [Bill 97].
    TOWN CENTRES (INSURANCE AND RESTORATION)
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, presented a Bill to provide a requirement on the owners of properties in urban areas to maintain adequate insurance cover to enable them to restore to its previous condition a building damaged by fire or other accident; to require money paid by insurance companies arising from such a claim to be used primarily for that purpose unless granted a specific derogation by the local planning authority; to authorise local authorities to make claims against the assets of the owners of such properties in the event of their failure to restore damaged buildings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 98].

Constitutional Change
3.33 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on any constitutional change approved by Parliament.
The Bill seeks to address the public concern that could be expressed if some of the constitutional proposals that are currently being discussed in the United Kingdom and the European Union were to be implemented. I make it clear at the outset that it is neither a device to maintain the status quo nor a device to frustrate Parliament.
I sincerely believe that the United Kingdom's constitution and Parliament have served the people of these islands well. Scotland and the Scottish people have been especially well served. Sometimes the arrangement is called sovereignty—the right to make one's own democratic decisions.
The constitution's great strength is that it is not cast in stone. Since 1707, it has changed to meet the needs of the times. In other words, it has evolved, and the people have accepted its evolution. Only during the past 20 or so years might some changes have occurred by default rather than consent. That is important, because consent is at the heart of the United Kingdom constitution and vital to the way in which we are governed. If Parliament deliberately or inadvertently ignores that, it does so at its peril.
The single-Member constituency is a cornerstone of the constitution. Once elected, a Member represents all the people of the constituency. Another cornerstone is the Member's right to ask questions and have them answered. That, coupled with parliamentary privilege, means that Members can, through questions, debates and motions, address problems brought to them by their constituents. All that is free to the constituent. Any change that affects those cornerstones should have the consent of the people. My Bill seeks to ensure that that will happen.
Members of Parliament have the leasehold of the constitution during their time in Parliament. They can make changes that can be reversed the following month or year if Parliament so decides. However, we cannot bind future Parliaments. That is why I say that Members have the leasehold of the constitution—or sovereignty—during their period in Parliament. The freehold of the constitution belongs to the people. I remind the House that, in the United Kingdom, we govern by consent. If Parliament wishes to make permanent constitutional change, it must have the consent of the people. Only the people can give away our grandchildren's inheritance—the constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliament.
Put simply, constitutional change embraces any transfer of power from this Parliament to other bodies in Europe, Scotland Wales, Northern Ireland or the regions of England; any change in the single-Member constituency and the way in which elections to the House are organised and structured; any change in how individuals can become peers of the realm and sit in the other place; and any reduction in the ability of this House to vote Supply, or to influence interest rates, inflation, or levels of borrowing or unemployment.
Many people propose referendums because they regard them as a means of obtaining consent before Parliament decides. The main problem with such proposals is the difficulty of framing the questions to be put to the people.

1011
There is also the problem of the complexity of such changes and the difficulty that that creates for public debate. My Bill would ensure that any change proposed was fully debated by Parliament, and that only after Parliament had decided, and a Bill had completed its passage through both Houses, would the matter be put to the people. That means a straight yes or no: do the electors accept or reject Parliament's proposed change?
During the passage of a constitutional Bill, the proposers—probably the Government of the day—will have to tell the millions who voted for them what Members of Parliament will or will not be able to do if the proposal becomes law. They will, quite properly, have to explain the impact of their proposals on the ability of the House to influence matters of great importance to the people. Sovereignty—or the constitution—is not a theoretical abstract matter but a living thing that impacts on everyone living in the United Kingdom. It influences tax and spending decisions, and unemployment. All that will be argued in Parliament during the passage of any Bill for constitutional change, be it for devolved assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast, for European Union federal matters, or for the single currency.
My Bill is not novel. It was tested and tried during the referendum on entry to the European Economic Community. It was used again during the referendum on the Scotland Act 1978; the precedents exist.
My Bill ensures that full, frank and open debate on constitutional change is held in Parliament against the background of the knowledge that the proposals, when agreed, will be put to the people in a referendum, thus ensuring that consent will occur before sovereignty or the constitution is changed. Change by default will cease, and the risks of constitutional unrest following unwanted change will have been banished.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker. Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. Bill Cash, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. Barry Field, Sir George Gardiner and Mr. David Shaw.

Constitutional Change
  CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
  Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on any constitutional change approved by Parliament.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February and to be printed [Bill 96.]
Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  National Health Service
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that, of the many improvements the NHS needs, immediate priorities should include the reinstatement of free dental and eye checks, a freeze on all finance-driven bed, hospital and service closures which represent a reduction of service to patients pending the first report of an open and independent assessment of national health demand and provision, a move to three year contracts between health authorities and boards and health providers and the immediate scrapping of local NHS pay bargaining.
  Parliament is, of course, entitled to debate the state of the national health service at any time. But—and above all just before a general election—it strikes us that politicians should also be obliged to say how they would improve it. Public experience and perception is that, however good the NHS may be most of the time, sadly we cannot guarantee that it will be there to do what we need whenever we need it. We cannot at present in the United Kingdom rely on the NHS to do what it was set up to do. That leads my colleagues and me to the conclusion that, sadly, the NHS is not safe in the Government's hands. We also believe that the NHS would not be safe in a Labour Government's hands.
  On the basis of agreed commitments given by the Conservative party, the Labour party and ourselves, we believe that the best guarantee for the NHS after the next general election would be for its management to be in our hands. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) grunts—if he looked at the spending commitments and was honest about admitting the facts, I am sure that he would agree with us. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is happy with his party's current policy.
  My colleagues and I also believe that all the Irish parties represented in this Parliament and the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist parties would, like us, be willing and able to vote for a more significant commitment to the NHS than either the Tory or the Labour party.
  Mr. David Shaw: I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman is trying to identify some party differences over this subject. But does he not accept that two thirds of the health service has been built by a Conservative Government at one time or another and that two thirds of the hospitals and all the capital projects in this country were built by Conservative Governments? Is not the health service a Conservative success?
  Mr. Hughes: The NHS is bigger than all of us. In previous speeches I have paid tribute to the Tory successes and progress in the NHS. I am happy to do so again—I have no problem with that. The NHS is what it is today owing to the efforts of three parties. A member of one of those parties devised and proposed it during the

  1013
  war: our party, the Liberal party. A Labour Government enacted it in the post-war Parliament; they did so with our support, opposed by the Tories. The Tory party has often given it extra resources. I shall not argue with the hon. Gentleman about that, because I accept his point. The issue is the current state of the NHS, and where we go from here.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is true that the Liberal Democrats voted against the income tax cut.
  Mr. Hughes: Two years running.
  Mr. Skinner: Two years running, as the hon. Gentleman says. We should get the record straight. The Liberal Democrats voted against the last income tax cut, which would have produced £1.8 billion extra to spend on the national health service and education. I did the same. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that there were three further votes that night on measures to spend money. The Liberal Democrats voted against the reduction in income tax, thereby saving money for the health service and education—or so they said—and then proceeded to get rid of that money by voting against the airport tax and the increase in petrol tax.
  I told the Liberal Democrats that I was being consistent, because I voted against the income tax cut. I wanted to provide £1.8 billion, but they and the other rag, tag and bobtails went into the Lobby to spend the money that they had tried to save for the health service. I have never seen so much hypocrisy in one night as I saw on that occasion.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is good at blustering.
  Mr. Skinner: It is true.
  Mr. Hughes: No, it is not true. Like all good stories, the hon. Gentleman's story is partly true and partly untrue. The truth is that we voted against the income tax reductions two years running. The figure he used was correct: it was about £1.8 billion. So that he does not accuse me of misrepresenting him, I have to say that we proposed that that money should go on education.
  Mr. Skinner: Why did he vote against the airport tax?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should listen.
  We have also costed—I will willingly give him the figures—the other Budget proposals that we voted for. As I shall set out later, our proposals for the health service—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Hughes: I am answering his question.
  Our proposals for the health service will mean extra expenditure that has not already been spent or given away on anything else. The hon. Member for Bolsover is embarrassed, because he voted with us on the income tax reduction. The reality is that our party, unlike the Labour
  1014
  party, is willing to make significant further investment in education and health, which is why we are proud of our record, and will be happy to defend it today.
  Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way after the hon. Member for Belfast, South has intervened.
  Mr. Hughes: I may give way once more, but then I want to make progress.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. I understand his response to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), but does he accept that he was only partially right? The bulk of the hospitals in Northern Ireland were built under a devolved Administration, and have been run down ever since.
  Mr. Hughes: Not only do I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I share his view that the budget for the national health service in Northern Ireland would be better allocated and run by people there following a democratic debate in Northern Ireland rather than in the House. One of the frustrations of Parliament is that we have hardly any time to debate public welfare issues for Northern Ireland—far less time than for Scotland and Wales. The people of Northern Ireland rightfully agree.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I press the hon. Gentleman on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover? He says that the Liberal Democrats voted in three Divisions to spend £700 million, and in another Division voted to save £1.8 billion. There is a shortfall of £1.1 billion. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that £1.1 billion would cover all the expenditure commitments that the Liberal Democrats have made in debates on education and the health service? Can I tie him down on those figures? Does he understand them?
  Mr. Hughes: I understand them, and I am happy to answer the question.
  No, we are not tied to that figure. We have made a commitment to put an extra £2 billion into the education service. I shall outline our commitment to the health service in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman has not already seen them, I will happily send him our costed manifestos for the last election and for the coming one, so that he can see exactly where we would raise the money and where we would spend it.
  The debate is timely because the position is similar in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom. The NHS is under pressure; those in the NHS, and the people who use it, feel insecure; and the NHS needs further investment. However, as I tried to point out in reply to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), there is a much more important question than whether the NHS is safe in

  1015
  a particular party's hands at a particular point in history That question is, are the public safe in the hands of the NHS today?
  That should be the test of whether we are supporting the service efficiently. Can we give a guarantee to the hon. Gentleman's family, my family and the families and friends of hon. Members and their constituents that, when we need it, the NHS will be able to deliver the care that it is there to deliver, without sending people home when they should be operated on, or sending them around the country when they should be admitted to their local hospitals?
  We all know that it is not normally through the failing of any individual—although, of course, individuals fail in the NHS, as in any walk of life—that the service is not up to the job. The fact is that, when competent, well-trained, experienced NHS staff become demoralised, overstretched and under-resourced, they are not good for anyone's health. If the NHS is to be a service fit for patients to rely on, adequate staff and facilities need to be there so that patients can rely on them as well.
  The task of all politicians in the United Kingdom—and of the Government of the United Kingdom, whoever they are—is not to ensure that we can "sort of" respond to the NHS crisis of the moment and plaster over the long-term structural cracks, but to insure the NHS for now, and to start securing it for the future.
  If we are to be honest with the public, we must admit that there will be no one-election wonder. There is and can be no miracle cure. Demand is rising, costs are escalating, and a national debate is needed about how much health care we can fund and how best we can fund it. That debate will, of course, take place in politics, but it must also take place outside and beyond politics. It is not a moment too late to start it now. [Interruption.]
  The Minister may mutter, but, in a recent letter to me the Secretary of State said that he
  "would welcome greater cross-party consensus on the major issues in the NHS."
  I agree that more consensus is necessary, as do the public, the commentators and the professionals. On behalf of my party, I give a pledge to work with anyone and everyone to obtain the maximum possible agreement that will secure the future of the NHS. The NHS is much more important than any divisions along party lines.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it not unlikely that, by absenting himself from the debate, the Secretary of State will promote consensus?
  Mr. Hughes: I find the Secretary of State's absence surprising. I am glad that the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State are present, but, if the Secretary of State thinks the NHS as important as he claims, he should be here. This may well be the last debate on the NHS before the general election, which is another reason why the person in charge—in a system that I must say is very undemocratic: no other elected person can be in charge even locally—ought to be present.
  Politicians will need to be bold. It is widely recognised that the Tory and Labour parties are not yet rising to the challenge. I am not the only one who says that: it was said the other day on a Radio 4 programme in the "Analysis" series, presented by Andrew Dilnot, entitled
  1016
  "Free for All". Let me briefly quote from what he and Chris Ham, professor of health policy at Birmingham, said in the programme. Andrew Dilnot said:
  "Clearly and unambiguously committed"—
  the Secretary of State, apparently, is so committed—
  "to high quality, universal, tax-funded healthcare … With both major parties so firm in their backing of the NHS, surely we can just relax in the security of knowing that it will be all right.
  No, we cannot. In fact there is now a real risk that over the next five years the NHS will cease to be a universal, comprehensive, free service, without any real debate, because neither party"—
  neither of the main parties, that is—
  "is prepared to promise anything like the rate of growth in spending seen throughout the life of the NHS."
  Professor Chris Ham said:
  "This year is the toughest year for the Health Service in the last decade. There's always been a funding problem in healthcare because demand exceeds supply of resources, but in the current year that's a particularly acute problem. We're finding that hospitals all around the country, health authorities and GPs, are finding it very hard to make ends meet. In that sense the wheel has come full circle because a decade ago Mrs. Thatcher, when she was the Prime Minister, was forced to set up a review of the Health Service because of the funding problems. That review has led to increased efficiency and greater responsiveness but it's not really tackled the long-term underfunding of the NHS and it's that problem that the NHS continues to grapple with."
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Not for the moment: I want to proceed.
  Therefore, there is no dispute that there is a long-term problem or that we owe an enormous, probably unspeakable, amount to the work of the people who are in the NHS locally in our constituencies, regionally and nationally. There is no doubt that many of them work under perpetual pressure and often regular crisis in the frontline, saving and extending lives and alleviating pain every day.
  The predicted winter difficulties have, in large measure, come to pass. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. They just have to read reports in the past couple of days from the Greater London Assn of Community Health Councils and the British Medical Association, or a briefing from the Royal College of Nursing for today's debate. I did not know that it was going to be on, but last night I watched a report on "Newsnight" by Alexis Rowell on the health service in Whipps Cross hospital in north London. The report confirmed the crisis and acute difficulties of coping with people, some of whom testified to spending two days waiting in the casualty department before admission to a ward, and to not being able to get a moment's sleep—understandably, because it is a busy place and that is not where they should have been cared for.
  Above all, hon. Members do not have to take the word of politicians or journalists if they talk to people in the health service. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I met a nursing student and three nurses: Jerry, an accident and emergency nurse from Homerton hospital in Hackney; Tracey, an HIV and AIDS staff nurse from just across the river in St. Thomas's hospital; and Richard, a senior staff nurse working with older people who are acutely ill. They all confirmed that there is a need for more staff, for better

  1017
  training and for urgent provision of methods to ensure that we keep staff—who, at the moment, often choose to leave. They also confirmed that we have the facilities for patients, who are just not receiving them.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Yes, but this is the last intervention.
  Mr. Banks: I just wonder whether I could ask the hon. Gentleman, in view of that visit, where the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is at present?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not know the answer to that question, but I assume that my right hon. Friend will be here shortly and certainly he has spent a lot of time in recent days on health service matters.
  On the motion and the Government amendment, the big questions are these. Is the NHS doing enough, which in Government-speak is a question about volumes? Is the NHS doing it well, which in Government-speak is a question about quality of care; and has the NHS been given adequate resources, which in Government-speak is a question of NHS spend? My party's view is that, sadly, we are not doing enough, and we are not always doing it well enough; and those two conclusions are not surprising because we are not spending enough.
  We have real concerns about the volumes. Where we used to count patients, we now count episodes of treatment. People whom we used not to count as admissions—for example, newborn babies—are now additional parts of the statistics. There is now widespread, probably universal, public and professional scepticism about the Government figures on increased volumes. In terms of separate individuals being treated by the NHS, those figures no longer accurately add up. We believe that the NHS statistics must be collected, verified and reported by a body independent of Government and of party politics. We propose a practical way of doing that. We are worried about the fact that no one independent of the authorities vouches, when people are discharged from treatment, for the fact that that treatment has been properly administered. We believe that the quality of work done in the NHS by the NHS should be checked, verified and reported by a body independent of the Government of the day and of the authorities, and independent of party politics in general. We propose a practical way of doing that.
  We also have real concerns about costs. Again, no one independent of the authorities vouches for whether the NHS is given enough resources to do even the minimum amount of work that we expect it to carry out. An assessment of what the NHS needs should be done by a body independent of Government and party politics. Here too we propose a practical way of achieving that. The NHS needs an independent assessment of supply and demand, of the quality of its care and of what we should spend on it.
  How we pay for the NHS is a separate question. I suspect that the debate over the next few years will develop our idea of hypothecating taxes instead of simply assuming that the NHS can always win its share from general tax and revenue held by the Treasury.
  1018
  For us, therefore, three issues must be dealt with: investment, planning and accountability. For us, investment means—above all—investment in staff: doctors, midwives, nurses and allied professions. We are committed to spending an amount equivalent to the cost of 10,000 nurses or 5,000 doctors to get the NHS back to a state in which it can do the job.
  Waiting lists must be reduced; they are currently rising. The public should not have to wait, as they often do, for 18 months for routine operations. That requires investment; we have identified the money that can go into reducing those waiting lists. We believe that, over a three-year programme, waiting times could be reduced to six months.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I have already said no. This is a half-day debate, and I want to give colleagues a chance to speak.
  We must also make sure—careful language is called for here—that NHS expenditure keeps pace with inflation. The Government say that they are committed to year-on-year real-terms growth—referring to general inflation—but everyone knows that the NHS costs a bit more, and that, unless expenditure on the NHS keeps pace with NHS inflation, a real reduction in funding will occur.
  There has been some debate this week about public sector pay. Last year, the nurses were awarded a flat rate—sometimes topped up locally—increase of 2 per cent., which was below the rate of inflation. This year, according to Red Book projected expenditure on health and community services, and if the award recommended by the review committee, when it is announced tomorrow after the Cabinet meets, is about 3.3 per cent., that amount can, we believe, be afforded.
  An analysis of the real-terms growth in the budget for health and community services shows that the 3.3 per cent. increase anticipated by the Government for next year leaves money to spare to allow the Government to agree the recommended increase. We believe that the Government should tomorrow, without demur and without phasing, agree to implement the recommended award; and we would expect the Labour party to agree with us that the money should be paid straight away.
  If morale is to be restored to the health service, it is essential to honour an independent recommendation on pay for the 1.3 million people at the bottom end of the public sector. We should stop being distracted by the pay of a very few at the top end—although they seemed to be the preoccupation of the shadow Chancellor this morning. Moreover, we must bring back national pay negotiations. Most of the health service has not even settled yet for last year, which is clearly nonsense. It wastes a great deal of professional time; it wastes millions of pounds. We think that the NHS should have a single pay review body, so that the chief executive and the porter, as well as the doctor, the dentist, the midwife and the nurse, all have their pay assessed at the same time.
  Our motion also contains the simple proposal that we reinstate free dental and eye checks—an idea which has the support of Members on both sides of the House, as confirmed by their support for early-day motion 471, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam).

  1019
  According to the Minister's answer of 27 January 1997, it would cost £120 million a year to reinstate eye tests, and £60 million a year to reinstate free dental checks—a total of £180 million a year. The Royal National Institute for the Blind confirms that people are becoming ill and are suffering incurable eye disease because of the loss of those free checks. We believe that the House and the public would be united in backing as a high priority the restoration of those preventative health measures by finding the relatively small amount of money required.
  Thirdly—although the Secretary of State has hinted that he and the Government are moving towards this view—we believe that it is not possible to conduct planning in the health service if contracts between health authorities, health boards and health trusts are renegotiated annually. It is nonsense to do so. It is like painting the Forth bridge—no sooner has one finished than one must begin again. Some people in the service do nothing other than negotiate contracts. A generally held view is that the health service should be funded and that contracts should be entered into for a minimum of three years, and possibly longer, and that contracts should be altered according to the year-on-year outturn. We must stop the stop-start, on-off, nobody-knows planning of the health service. It is a mystery how one can plan on that basis, nationally or locally, the nation's largest service—a mystery not only to us but to those in the service.
  The final matter most concerns the public. They just do not believe that the health service can stand any further service reductions, whether in beds or in other services, that are not replaced by equivalent services. The public simply do not believe that there are sufficient resources I do not want to get into a debate with the Secretary of State about how many beds or hospitals there are, because Ministers say that they never know, as figures are not collected centrally—but I want us to have those figures, so that we can have a debate.
  If the Government are not believed, and if politicians dialogue does not advance the argument, we believe that there should be an immediate halt to any finance-driven closures—or such a halt could occur on 1 April, for six months. Yes, it would cost something, but during that time there should be an independent audit of health service resources, capacity and demand.
  Yesterday, I spoke to the chief executive of the King's Fund, and learned that he and his organisation would be willing to conduct such an audit. Tomorrow the fund will celebrate its centenary, and it is an extremely reputable organisation, but so be it if there is a better organisation in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland to conduct an audit. The point is that such an audit should be conducted independently. We should stop the ridiculous nonsense in which we spend half our time disagreeing about the facts. Let us agree on the facts, and we can then consider our disagreements on funding.
  There will always be differences in policy and priorities between political parties, but we must get away from the dialogue of the deaf, because patients and patients' interests are not being served. My colleagues and I can initiate a debate on the long-term future of the NHS and go through a litany of problems, but, today, we have limited ourselves to making four practical suggestions, which hon. Members on both sides of the House support and which the public and the professions overwhelming support. In an accountable NHS, realising those proposals would start us on the road to securing in the years ahead
  1020
  the place of the national health service in all four countries. I hope that we can make some progress, and I hope that the House will approve our motion.
  4.7 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "is committed to the National Health Service as a public service, promoting health and offering increasing volumes of high-quality health care on the basis of need regardless of the ability to pay; and welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to real terms increases in NHS spending year by year.".
  I listened with interest, and mounting incredulity, to the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). If we required any further evidence that Liberal Democrats perhaps live on another planet, he has absolutely provided it. We shall now have a health service that is simultaneously "inside", "outside" and "beyond" politics—whatever that may mean.
  The hon. Gentleman's wish list of wishful thinking does not sit very comfortably with his ambitions—which I read in my copy of Nursing Times and Nursing Mirror. In the event of a hung Parliament, he will apparently have a difficult choice to make, as he wants to be either a Health Minister or mayor of London. It is always good for him to be ambitious, and it is clear that he and his party are once again preparing for government, as they did—under instructions from the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—in the general elections of 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992. However, if the hon. Gentleman is wondering about his job prospects in a hung Parliament after the next election, he is wasting his time.
  I thought it odd—I think that the House will find it odd, too—that the hon. Gentleman and his party have chosen three immediate priorities. The first is a national commission—a sort of fairness commission on statistics. Commissions to gather figures always fascinate the Liberal Democrat party. We are always told that these proposed commissions will be independent. They are surrounded with worthy words, which the Liberal Democrat party hopes will play well with the public, although they will perhaps not do very much at all—[Interruption.] As I hear an Opposition Member say from a sedentary position, a commission such as that being proposed will certainly not do what the Audit Commission does, which is to provide a real insight into how the health service works.
  As a second immediate priority, the hon. Gentleman wants to reduce the money spent on patient care by reinstating free eyesight tests and dental checks. I shall deal with that matter in some detail later, but the rather interesting cross-talk on the Labour Benches made it clear that that was what the hon. Gentleman was proposing.
  The hon. Gentleman's third priority was to end local pay awards in the NHS. He was long on saying how important it is to accept the review body's recommendations, but I must point out that one of its consistent recommendations has been the introduction of local pay in the NHS. The hon. Gentleman and his party quote selectively when it suits them and depart from a consistent line of argument when it gets too difficult.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have had a few other immediate priorities for the health service—probably boring old ideas such as treating more patients,

  1021
  improving the quality of care and the effectiveness of treatment and underpinning the research programme that keeps the NHS at the cutting edge when compared with any health service in the world.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned waiting times. He said that he wants to reduce them, but he failed to acknowledge that, for the first time in the history of the NHS, this Government have focused on waiting times. We have made great progress in identifying the length of time that people wait and then in reducing it according to patients charter standards.
  I also thought that the hon. Gentleman would make it an immediate priority to underpin the reform of primary care, which is currently in another place and which will come to the House in the not too distant future. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say what he thinks about that. Such ideas may be boring to the Liberal Democrat party, but they are the essence of our health service and they are top of the agenda for patients and the professionals who work in the service.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: None of those things is boring or unimportant. The Minister knows that I share his view in that respect. Does he accept that, according to the evidence that he is receiving, waiting times are increasing again?
  Mr. Malone: Since we began to examine waiting times and since we bore down on them with the patients charter standard and the setting of benchmarks, remarkable progress has been made. The vast majority of patients are now treated within three months of an operation being diagnosed as necessary. The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he fails to recognise that, during the winter months, when there is pressure on the health service, elective surgery will take second place to emergency care. That is perfectly obvious—it is how the NHS has always operated. The important point is whether we are continuing to build on the standards that we have brought into the health service. I confirm that that will be the priority of this Government and of the next Conservative Government.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? Will he confirm that waiting lists in every constituency are getting longer?
  Mr. Malone: I told the hon. Gentleman that when the service is under great pressure, of course elective surgery will take second place for a while. Progress on reducing waiting times and securing better standards, if we can, has to be maintained. The hon. Lady is making a non-existent point.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was rather thin gruel compared with the announcements of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the document, "A Service with Ambitions", which set out clearly not just the immediate priorities, but the long-term priorities for the health service. I shall set out those priorities again to the House.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Before my hon. Friend moves from the subject of waiting lists, will he confirm that the
  1022
  additional £25 million that the Department has put into areas of pressure has been directed to the causes that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is concerned about—blocking and mental health services?
  Mr. Malone: That is absolutely right. The history of reducing waiting times—as my hon. Friend understands, but the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey clearly does not—shows that, to maintain progress, it is important to invest in that progress. The Government have consistently done that by setting targets and standards and by the actions that we took to cope with the emergency pressures that we foresaw during the winter.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: No. I want to move on to my next point. I have given way a lot so far.
  In "A Service with Ambitions", recently published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, we set out our ambitious alternative for the immediate and long-term future of the national health service. It is an ambition for a quality integrated service that is responsive to patients. Those working in the NHS share that ambition. It can be brought about by having a well-informed public and a seamless service working across boundaries, so that patients understand that they are being treated by an integrated service. It should become more a knowledge-based, decision-making service and should have a highly trained and skilled work force. It should be a responsive service, sensitive to differing needs.
  "A Service with Ambitions" sets out the Government's policy of underpinning our national health service, based on the principles on which it was founded, into the foreseeable future. The Government are also committed to real-terms increases in funding, because we believe that the NHS is affordable in its current form and needs continuing investment.
  The document gives a detailed commitment to the development of the NHS as a public service. It outlines an exciting vision of an integrated service, sensitive to the needs and wishes of patients. It is very useful to the NHS and has been widely welcomed, setting out strategic objectives to help set future direction nationally and locally. It commits the Government to the future of the service, much criticised by Opposition Members at every opportunity. We will build a service of quality for the future.
  The debate introduced by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is based on a false premise—the idea that we can somehow remove health from politics. Raising the issue and then claiming to want to remove it from politics is a frequent Liberal Democrat party tactic. The Liberal Democrats go up and down the country, from constituency to constituency—all my hon. Friends are aware of this—making health a political issue in a way that is a disgrace to any party that says that it supports the national health service, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  The Liberal Democrats have made an industry of saying piously that everything controversial should be removed from politics and then doing exactly the opposite. They want to remove the economy and education from politics. They actually want to remove

  1023
  Government from politics, as it is part of their policy pretty well to abolish Westminster and to set up regional assemblies across the country Now we hear that they want to abolish health as a political issue.
  I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should make the absurd suggestion about central Government clearly not being very important at local level, but for some bizarre reason he and his party are not in favour of local pay.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We could spend the entire debate discussing which issues ought to be non-political. No one has ever argued that the health service should not be political. What is the Minister's objection to removing the accumulation and presentation of statistics on the health service from under the hand of Government, so that they would be believed—as they are not at the moment?
  Mr. Malone: It is a disgraceful allegation for the hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on civil servants who prepare statistics.
  Mr. Hughes: Who are they?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman asks who they are. I hope that everyone who works in the public interest preparing those statistics—and that public interest goes well beyond the Government—will have heard the hon. Gentleman's derision. I shall explain in some detail how we have introduced open government in the health service, and the statistics support the evidence that we bring of its success.
  I would take the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman talks about removing the health service from politics slightly better if he used the existing statistics fairly. The description that best befits the Liberal Democrats is that they use statistics in the same way as a drunk uses a lamp-post—for support, not illumination. It is frankly absurd for the hon. Gentleman suddenly to say that if there were a national body, his party would suddenly accept the statistics that it provided, when it does not accept any of the statistics from the organisations that currently provide them to the Government—often at arm's length.
  The Liberal Democrat party delighted in counting the people who came off dentists' registers. When I pointed out that the Liberal Democrats did not count people who went back on the registers—as they are rolling registers—they failed to respond. In the face of the evidence, they produced a league table of people ditching dentists.
  The Liberal Democrats also twist the statistics that relate to their own spending commitments. We heard a rather good example of that at the beginning of the debate. At the Liberal Democrat party conference last September, the hon. Gentleman claimed to have found a national insurance tax loophole that would provide, as always, a painless £350 million. However, in the Liberal Democrats' self-styled Richmond Park Mail, one of the exciting documents that flutters through letter boxes in a number of constituencies, the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate scaled that down by £100 million. What is the hon. Gentleman's commitment?
  Last month, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party promised £500 million for the national health service. He said that £175 million would come from additional
  1024
  increases in the price of cigarettes, but that left a £325 million hole—another unexplained statistic from the Liberal Democrats.
  Effectively, the Liberal Democrats have said that they would make every family worse off by an average of £12.50 a month, by adding a penny on income tax. Their health promise would double that. As a result, every family would pay an extra £300 every year with no increase in the care provided. Today the hon. Gentleman is committing his party to spending yet another £180 million or £190 million, although he has no funding plans to back that up. His position is absolutely unsupportable.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: That is the most extraordinary allegation, given that we obtained the figures—and we have costed them all—from answers that we were wise enough to get from the Government only last week. In the past 10 days, we have obtained Government figures in respect of eye tests, dental checks and closing the national insurance loophole. They are all costed and our commitment remains the same—£550 million a year in addition to keeping up with real NHS inflation.
  Mr. Malone: In every election since I have been a boy in politics, the hon. Gentleman and his party have said that they have a wonderfully costed, tested manifesto commitment that will fly and bear all scrutiny. The truth is that none of them ever does, because they are based on false premises throughout. The hon. Gentleman can wave his piece of paper and send it across the Chamber. I shall have a look at it and be delighted to write to him in due course, picking it apart, as we have always been able to do with every Liberal Democrat commitment that has ever been made inside or outside the House. The House is not impressed, and the Government are certainly not impressed.
  Mr. Gallie: A point that comes to mind from serving on Select Committees and listening to debates in the Chamber is that I repeatedly hear Opposition Members demand statistics. Is it not so that, the more statistics we gather, the more bureaucracy is required to gather them and the greater the cost imposed on the health service or any other service, yet Opposition Members complain about administrative costs? Is there not a degree of—I should not use the word "hypocrisy". I shall try to think of another—but I cannot.
  Mr. Malone: I am sure that my hon. Friend's thesaurus will reach him before the debate goes on much longer. He is right. In my two-plus years in office, I have not noticed that the Department of Health is entirely a statistics-free zone. In fairness to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, he was saying something else: the statistics were unreliable. They are unreliable simply because he chooses not to accept them.
  I come now to Government accountability and shall address the Government's record of increasing it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey may not recollect that—I concede to him—Gladstone formed the Public Accounts Committee and created the post of Comptroller and Auditor General in 1861. Gladstone the hon. Gentleman is not. The national commission that he is proposing would in no way be as powerful or as enduring as both those important offices.

  1025
  In considering the Government's service, and especially the NHS, we should also remember the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and, in terms of accountability to the House, the Select Committee on Health. I should point out that the Government established the Audit Commission in 1982. It is far more important to have a commission that looks with some practised insight into what the statistics mean and at the performance of the service rather than one that simply collects statistics that can be published eventually in some unread book that does not serve the service.
  The fact that raw statistics, useless in themselves, should not be collected because that is a burden on the health service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly pointed out, underlines the Government's approach. We are encouraged by the Opposition parties always to try to get rid of forms wherever possible, so it is right that we should not burden the service with collecting unnecessary statistics.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would do better to follow the example of the Audit Commission. In 1990, we extended its role to the NHS and it was given powers in 1992 to require performance indicators from local authorities. Insight offered by organisations such as the Audit Commission not only into the gathering of statistics but into the way in which the service works is far more important than anything that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend and I have had many discussions on the status of rural dispensaries and priorities in the NHS in ensuring that, consistent with good Conservative principles of competition, pharmacies on one hand and rural dispensaries in doctors' surgeries on the other do not have an undue advantage over one another. In his role as Minister for Health, my hon. Friend has been immensely successful in applying himself to the question. Will he ensure that we stick to Conservative principles so that my constituents in Madeley and Gnosall can have an assurance, either today or as soon as possible thereafter, that the matter will be resolved, difficult as many people find it?
  Mr. Malone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have turned round and noticed that he has not been with us throughout the debate, but arrived breathless in the Chamber to make his point. Although his question is not closely related to what I am talking about now, I had not intended to deal with it in the substance of my remarks, so I shall answer it right away.
  The answer, of course, is that there must be a compromise between professions that have found it rather difficult to agree on those issues over time. I believe that there is an opportunity to resolve several of the immediate issues that my hon. Friend raised, which will be taken forward by both professions in the coming weeks. I hope that we shall be able to make some progress and build a better atmosphere between the two professions. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in that subject.
  Back to boring statistics. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made much of the idea that, if we set up a great organisation, we could remove the
  1026
  question of statistics from politics. For support in my response, I turn to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is also something of a statistics guru. I think that he, too, sometimes shares the hon. Gentleman's interesting belief that one could remove such matters from politics. However, in the same breath he went on to say something else—and in terms of the real world, which is populated not by people such as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey but by others, the hon. Member for Blackburn made a good point. He said:
  "But often, as someone in the heart of that process I can attest that statistics are used more as hand-grenades to be lobbed at one's opponents, than as a means of illumination. There will always be an element of that in adversarial politics."
  Therefore, even if we were to go beyond where we are now and provide sufficient information that could be properly audited and accounted for to Parliament, by means of the great new office that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants to set up in the land, anyone who suggested that things would be much different would not be living in the real world. That is probably a truism that both the public at large and anybody who has been in politics will recognise.
  I shall now talk about an issue that I promised to address—the integrity of Government statistics. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman simply to scoff at an extremely important activity. Government statisticians, like all civil servants, have an obligation to serve Ministers, but as part of that obligation, they must ensure the integrity of any departmental statistics and provide impartial advice.
  Statisticians do not work alone in some far corner of a Department, and they do not work entirely to Ministers. They observe the official statistics code of practice, published by the Government statistics service, which is based on good practice and designed to promote high standards of accountability and to maintain public confidence in all official statistics and analysis.
  The code contains several points that I should draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention because, perhaps inadvertently, he has made an attack on those who provide the information. It requires them to be impartial and objective. They must release information in accordance with the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information"—open government, as sponsored by this Administration, especially the Prime Minister. They must pre-announce publication dates of statistics, and must take responsibility for the content of statistical press releases. Ministerial press releases containing policy comment must be issued separately; the two cannot be issued together.
  It does the hon. Gentleman and his party no credit to try to attack the integrity of the mechanism of government that is underpinned in such a fundamental and clear way, whose standards have been built upon by the Government throughout their period in office.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Is it the fault of the statisticians or of the Government that, when a parliamentary colleague asks how many hospitals have been closed since 1979, the answer comes back from the Minister that those figures are not held centrally?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman totally fails to understand the point. We collect statistics across the

  1027
  national health service because they may be relevant to its operation. Often, parliamentary questions are asked that are relevant to the operation of the NHS, while other questions are not. The suggestion that we should collect a whole range of statistics of which we could make absolutely no practical use is foolish, and would add to the burdens on the NHS that we are effectively trying to reduce.
  The example raised by the hon. Gentleman was a good one, because I should like to hear his definition of what constitutes a hospital, for which statistics might be gathered. Would a hospital be a super-surgery, with a small number of in-patient beds serviced by a general practitioner? If we added such surgeries to the statistics, the hon. Gentleman would say that we were fiddling the figures by adding things that were not hospitals at all. Should we include community hospitals, or hospitals that have a certain range of services? Would a hospital with a minor accident treatment facility be counted in the same way as a hospital with a major accident and emergency unit? If the hon. Gentleman wants to collect statistics which he may find interesting but which are of no practical use to the health service, he will be frequently disappointed when they are not available centrally.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to ask a follow-up question on the rather intriguing theory now being advanced by the Minister. Clearly, there will be differences in the definition of different facilities within the health service, and I quite accept that. But is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House of Commons that, as the Minister for Health, he does not have at his disposal relevant information as to the rate of closure of hospital facilities throughout England and Wales? Surely that information is central to the conduct of his duties.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman completely fails to understand what is important to the NHS. It is fundamental that decisions should be taken at a local or health authority level on the future of services. That is what is meant by devolved NHS. I understand that it is the ambition of the Liberal Democrats to hand control of the NHS to local councils, and that makes a double absurdity of the suggestion that we should accumulate non-operational statistics of that kind.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: No, I have given way a lot. I intend to move to another point, which is openness in the NHS.
  Mrs. Mahon: I wish to ask about openness.
  Mr. Malone: Let me develop my point, and I might give way to the hon. Lady in due course. Recently, we have made the NHS a far more open organisation, and it is now more accountable to both Parliament and the public. The code of practice on openness was published in April 1995 and came into effect on 1 June, when the NHS executive published detailed guidance on its implementation. The code supports the Government's commitment in the White Paper "Open Government" of 1993, to increase public access to information about the NHS.
  That complements the code on access to information, which applies to the Department of Health, including the NHS executive, and helps the public to know what
  1028
  information is available and where they can get it. All NHS organisations are required to have a named individual responsible for the operation of the code, which sets out the basic principles underlying public access to information about the NHS. I totally reject the implication of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the NHS is not open and accountable. It is, and in a way that it never was before.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Why was the Minister prepared to tell me the location of the dental practices of the highest-paid orthodontists who practise in Norfolk and Essex, but when I asked him the same question concerning dentists doing primarily non-orthodontic work, who receive £350,000 from the NHS, he told me that the disclosure of that information would be in breach of the code of practice on open government?
  Mr. Malone: I can answer that simply. In some cases, it would be possible to identify the individual dentist. That would be in breach of any proper code. If the hon. Gentleman wants a system by which one can gain an insight into people's private affairs without any let or hindrance, it is up to him to explain that to his constituents or to the country as a whole. Of course, any sensible code of operation should protect people's privacy.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned sight tests and dental examinations. In 1994–95, spending on sight tests alone was in excess of £90 million. We assess that £120 million would have to be taken from expenditure on other forms of health care if free sight tests were to be restored. The hon. Gentleman never even touched on whether, if that were done, the quality of health would improve.
  There is an on-going debate in the national health service among professionals and politicians about the priorities and direction of targeted resources and where they can be effective. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the number of sight tests has increased since the fee was introduced. Other things are happening as well. For example, domiciliary visits, which are paid for by health authorities and provide sight tests for the housebound—often the elderly, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—have increased by 105 per cent. in the five years to 1995–96, from 109,000 to 222,500.
  I point that out simply to illustrate the fact that, rather than introduce some universal benefit, which the hon. Gentleman might think would play well to the audience, he would be far better advised to ensure that expenditure was targeted, as we are doing in the NHS, for example with domiciliary visits and the targeting of those at risk, such as the relatives of people suffering from glaucoma. That should be his priority instead.
  The suggestion on dental examinations would be a fruitless exercise. The hon. Gentleman failed to point out that the number of individual treatments carried out within NHS dentistry has risen from 17 million in 1978 to 24.8 million in 1995–96, which shows that there are even more opportunities for the general examinations that must surely precede such treatments. More facilities are available for examinations now. Again, it is a matter of properly targeting the resource—of targeting those who are at risk. That is why we reformed the child capitation system and why we are ensuring that, in funding NHS dentistry in the future, we shall use purchaser-provider

  1029
  agreements driven by health authorities, which have an insight into the local health needs of their population. Thus we shall target the resource effectively at those who need it, rather than spreading it across the population, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy rose—
  Mr. Malone: I shall give way for the last time.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the Minister, as he has been generous about interventions. On dental charges, surely the Minister, like every other hon. Member, will have anecdotal evidence—through his family, for example—and any dentist could tell him the same story. Dentists can give comprehensive and proper preventive and restorative attention to only two categories of patient—those who are fully funded by the benefits system because of their income status and those who can afford to pay. A great swathe of middle-class families do not qualify for support and are having to take short cuts, or are not undergoing the full treatment that the dental surgeon prescribes.
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman should have a care. People can always promise to do more. Within NHS dentistry, anything that is clinically required is available for patients. Of course, there is a system of charges that raises a substantial amount that can be spent elsewhere in the NHS or targeted at at-risk groups in dentistry. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey completely failed to recognise that properly targeting need in the NHS is far more important than simply spreading the resource thinly across a population: that cannot bring results.
  There are immediate priorities for the health service. The Government have pledged funding on a secure basis for the years to come and the Prime Minister pledged to increase spending on the health service in real terms, year on year on year. That is the foundation stone on which the service will rest in the years to come.
  We are developing a primary care-led NHS, which is vital for patients and for the profession, especially those in the primary health care team who can now develop their professional roles, and we are continuing to make more effective use of taxpayers' money, so that more and more patients can be treated. That is the Government's record and that is what we intend to continue. We shall continue to build the quality of the whole NHS team—doctors, nurses and other medical professionals—which has greater horizons than ever before.
  Our long-term priorities are to build a service in which the public can have confidence, which expands the professional skills of all who work in it, and which invests in work that keeps us at the clinical cutting edge of medical research and development: a service that can take pride in its achievements over the past 50 years, and has ambitions for the next 50 years. That is what the Government have delivered and will sustain after the general election.
  4.46 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am aware of the positive role of the national health service. I remember that, some years ago, when we were considering
  1030
  long-term financing, we had before us a person who had been in private medicine in the United States and in England. He was asked which was the most effective health management organisation, and his response was, "Yours—the NHS." I accept that, but there is room for improvement in everything.
  When the Minister spoke about waiting lists, my mind went back to a little family discussion a good number of years ago, when I had asked my wife whether she would be able to join me on a certain occasion, and she had said no. I turned to my eldest girl and said, "What about you, Rosemary?", to which she replied, "Yes",
  whereupon my younger daughter immediately said, "Ha! Using a big word when a small one would be sufficient!" The younger daughter had worked out that if Rosemary had said no—a smaller word than yes—I would have invited her instead. The Minister gave us a long, wandering explanation of the waiting list problem, when the simple reality is that waiting lists are growing. It would have been much easier to say that on the record.
  It is not sufficient for Ministers to be on the defensive in the House, even when some hon. Members may be on the offensive, asking questions and putting things on the record. A senior civil servant put on the record the role, at times, of civil servants, when he said in a famous court case that they were economical with the truth. Figures can be used in different ways.
  Mr. Gallie: Given the hon. Gentleman's comments on waiting lists, is he aware of the service offered by hospitals in Ayrshire to patients from Northern Ireland for orthopaedic surgery, aimed at reducing waiting lists in Northern Ireland, and does he feel that that strengthens the bond between Scotland and Northern Ireland?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I have no difficulty with that, because it is part of the system. If people who need treatment can receive it in other places, that is fine. The tragedy is that some purchasing bodies are not prepared to go elsewhere, even if, as in the case of Ayrshire and some London providers, the service is offered as a loss leader, to try to fill spare places. If patients who need treatment can be treated anywhere in the NHS, I would support it. Certainly there is a bond, and it will be strengthened when Musgrave Park hospital starts competing and tendering abroad. It, too, has the facility to do that but, unfortunately, it has tried to treat people in Northern Ireland as first priority when the boards in Northern Ireland have not been able to purchase places there.
  I am concerned by the phrase
  "on the basis of need regardless of the ability to pay"
  in the Government's amendment. I accept that, but the harsh reality is that that does not always happen in the national health service. We will be told that we offer only anecdotal evidence, but if only one person in a hospital, having been examined by a cardiac specialist, is told, "You need a cardiac operation. I will have to put you on the waiting list. If you can afford £10,000 or £12,000, we can do it in three weeks," something is wrong. Those surgeons are employed in the national health service rather than in private practice: it would different if the patient had gone to a private practice for treatment. If that happens to one person, it is one person too many.

  1031
  I generally support the motion. It is the way of all Governments, of whatever ilk, that they bring in people from outside to try to resolve problems—to kick them into touch, to use a rugby analogy. They might call it a royal commission but someone else has to take the responsibility. Why did the Minister try to shoot down a mere Opposition spokesperson who suggested using a body, such as the King's Fund, which the Government have used often? As a Member of Parliament, I have found its services very helpful. My constituency has at least two medical facilities that have benefited from assessment by it. I support its use.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's response to our suggestion was to ask why we should not use the Audit Commission. Many hon. Members would rather have the Audit Commission perform independent assessment of statistics than the Government. If they have some problem with using the King's Fund for this job and the Minister were offering that, it would be an acceptable middle way that the hon. Gentleman might encourage the Government to adopt.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I have no difficulty with the Audit Commission doing the work, but I am concerned about the pressure of work on it. Often, when Select Committees are asked to consider its reports, civil servants or officers come before us to answer our queries and we discover that they are doing their best to kick into touch. They say that were not involved in the misdemeanours of previous years and assure us that they will do better in future. In the end, the same mistakes are perpetrated. However, I have no difficulty with the examination being carried by the Audit Commission.
  I am not sure that the Minister fully understood what he was saying in talking about free dental and eye checks. He said that they would mean that there would be less money for patient care. I have a suspicion that the people we are talking about are patients who need care. Some people have found that they can benefit from routine check-ups because other diseases are immediately discovered and helped on their way. We are arguing for something that experts have been asking for.
  Only recently I went in to have my eyes tested—admittedly, a year after I should have done, not because of the expense, but merely because I put off until tomorrow what I should have done yesterday—and asked about the figures. I was interested in the Minister's answer. There was a decisive drop in the number of people coming for eye tests when the change took place; the numbers have now begun to rise again.
  I am not so sure that they are rising again simply because more people need the tests. It may reflect the fact that some sections of our society are better off financially and are ready to have check-ups earlier. However, elderly people who have to balance their budgets think twice before having a routine eye test. They wait until something affects their eyesight before going for a test. We might save pounds in the long run if we treated patients earlier.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is now evidence—I think that we have all seen it—from the Royal National Institute for the Blind which confirms that there has been a deterioration in the sight of some of those who are now not being tested? It is not a
  1032
  theory, but practice. The proposal that I and others have made is not that we should take money from the rest of the health service budget to reinstate free eye and dental checks, but that we should raise money elsewhere—we propose putting extra tax on cigarettes. We propose not taking from the health service, but adding to its resources.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The motion deals specifically with that matter. I accept that the Government of the day may have to find some money from another sphere.
  I know that we do not want to make political points; there are those who fear that, the nearer we come to an election, the more likely it is that political points will be made. All I shall say by way of guidance to the Government is that the recommended increase for nurses of about 3.3 per cent. might be their best vote winner and it may embarrass others if the Government opt for it. Only yesterday, those close to the core of the matter claimed to me that the money is available for such an increase. That may relate to the argument that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was advancing.
  People throughout the nation still believe that those in the front line of medical care at every level, community or otherwise, are those in the nursing profession. Unfortunately, even now, some people have not received last year's increase because the discussions are still continuing. There is something wrong with that. I cannot understand how those who manage different health provisions can argue that they have been wrong-footed and that, if the Government give the increase, they will be short of money because they have already allocated their funds in a different way.
  When we discuss financing the health service, we must watch out for what I constantly call medical politics, where each group—whether managers, community groups or elsewhere—argue specifically for themselves. They may bring in patients as an added bonus, but there is undoubtedly a need in the nation. I am discovering that Northern Ireland is being robbed of some of the advantages that it had when it governed itself.
  Lest anyone should misunderstand, I shall put the record straight. There is no Minister responsible for Northern Ireland present on the Front Bench. I know that the House will sympathise with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who lost his wife yesterday. I felt a great sense of sympathy when I was told about his bereavement at the conference of the Royal College of Student Nurses in Belfast. That is why the Minister is not on the Government Bench today.
  People in Northern Ireland believe—as do people in other parts of the nation—that there is a great need for more resources to be concentrated on health care.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this important debate on the national health service. Before coming to the substance of my remarks, I shall take a moment to join the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) in his expression of sorrow. We were all sorry to hear of the family bereavement of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).

  1033
  The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the attendance at the debate. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Health on the Front Bench, and also the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who is representing the Scottish component of this important debate, if I may put it that way. As I commence my remarks, I am sorry to see that not a single Labour Back Bencher is present. I get the feeling that the Labour party is trying to make the debate collapse early, in the hope that insufficient Conservative Members will be present to out-vote the Liberal Democrats. No doubt the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will be here later, because, as a member of old Labour, he is hardly likely to pay any attention to the antics of the new Labour Whips Office.
  I was pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wanted to introduce a non-partisan element into the debate, especially on the development of health provision. His attempt to do that was spoilt when the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) popped up and demanded to know where the Secretary of State for Health was. I do not think that any convention has been broken by the absence of the two senior Front-Bench spokesmen on health. Most of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey are not participating in the debate and are not here to support him.
  I can say one positive thing about the attendance of Liberal Democrats at their own debate. At least they have come a long way since my predecessor, Councillor Fearn, was the Liberal Democrat party's health service spokesman in the House. Liberal Democrats had to pitch in with helpful interventions to try to keep him on track, until the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) rightly replaced him with the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) when things became a little too hot for him. Councillor Fearn is the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency at the next general election. It is his 66th birthday tomorrow, and I genuinely wish him a long retirement from Westminster politics, because I doubt that we shall see him back here.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: One never knows.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland drew attention to the fact that the Secretary of State is not present. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said that this morning he had visited health service premises in his constituency with his right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is almost right. My right hon. Friend and I had a visit from nurses: the meeting took place in this building, and not in NHS premises.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. It is even more disappointing that his
  1034
  right hon. Friend has not bothered to turn up for a debate initiated by his party. Either this is an important subject for the Liberal Democrats or it is not.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The debate may be of interest to the three Liberal Democrat Members who are present, but it is clearly of no interest to the rest of them.
  Mr. Banks: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), he stayed for about 20 minutes and did not even hear the end of the opening speech by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
  It was suggested that I will have difficulties at the next election, but I suspect that there will be a number of Conservative gains from the Liberal Democrats.
  I shall return to the substance of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not want to incur your wrath or get a little too overheated about the impending general election.
  Although I did not catch the fact that the meeting with nurses took place in the House, I listened attentively to the substance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. He is clearly not a budding Treasury Minister. He should take care when advocating the hypothecation of taxes, because we could end up with a problem if we had to find money to spend on provisions that were not particularly popular.
  Although the motion does not refer to nurses' pay and whether it should be negotiated locally, I have read the hon. Gentleman's previous speeches in which he has referred to that, not least in the debate on 20 November. [Interruption.] He is waving the Order Paper at me. I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
  I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. His point about the independence of pay negotiating bodies is important, but he cannot have it both ways. We either have an independent body whose recommendations we accept, or we do not. The independent body that looks after nurses' pay has recommended that it should not fall below a ceiling of a 2 per cent. rise. However, there is no reason why nurses cannot be paid more than 2 per cent. either across the board in a geographical area or in specific cases on a local basis, depending on the trust.
  It is important to have local flexibility in pay negotiations. In an area that is looked after a particular NHS trust, greater flexibility may allow management to reward nurses with an increase of rather more than the 2 per cent. suggested by the independent body. We should not be too rigid. What matters is the local provision of care within the national health service.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman about contracts. I have some sympathy with the view that too much time is spent negotiating contracts. I am not suggesting that every contract that an NHS trust puts out to tender should be a rigid three-year one. We should seek ways to extend, in appropriate circumstances, the one-year contracts that take up so much time to renew each year. That is bound to free management time, so that the management can ensure that the provision of health care is improved in each trust hospital.
  I regret that insufficient reference was made to the additional £25 million. That is a constructive criticism by the Minister of State. Insufficient credit has been given to

  1035
  the £25 million additional resources from what I call an emergency contingency fund to deal with some of the winter problems, which have resulted in a marginal rise in waiting lists. I appreciate the action taken by the Department of Health.
  I am fairly familiar with the £25 million split. That money will help to deal with bed blocking problems, which have certainly affected my local hospital in Southport, It will ensure that the local health authority has the resources to put more money into care in the community in local authority and private nursing homes, and it will free hospital beds so that people can be treated more quickly.
  I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends in the Department, who have ensured that additional contingency funds have been used to deal with problems in community mental health services.
  I believe that a non-partisan approach to some health issues is possible. In this debate, Conservative Members may come closer to achieving that with the Liberal Democrats than with Labour. After all, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, the Labour party has not in any way met the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government to year-on-year-on-year increases over and above inflation That commitment was first made in 1992, and has been met. Have we heard such a commitment from Labour? We have not: the silence has been deafening. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) later in the debate.
  I strongly agree with some of the other comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. I particularly agree with what he said in the NHS debate of 20 November:
  "Like the Secretary of Stale. I welcome a debate on the NHS. I welcome an opportunity to pay tribute to the service, to praise those who work in it and to say how good I believe it is. It serves hon. Members and our constituents extraordinarily well. Of course, things go wrong and sometimes there are sad mistakes and tragedies."—[Official Report, 20 November 1996: Vol. 285, c. 1021.]
  I hope that those mistakes and tragedies will be kept to the absolute minimum, and eradicated where possible, but we should all recognise that, because so many more patients are being treated in the NHS than were treated in the 1970s—as a result of the Government's policies—the odd mistake will inevitably be made. It would be frivolous to suggest otherwise.
  Nevertheless, I agree with what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said in that debate. It took place only a few weeks ago, and nothing has changed since then. I have no doubt that the commitment given by the Prime Minister in Bournemouth last year—which is, of course. Government policy—is one of the many promises that we have kept in the present Parliament and will keep in the next.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am trying to establish what areas of agreement there are between us. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would not be a bad thing—I am trying not to trap him into saying anything that might push him too far—if the question of statistics, to which nurses" pay is relevant, were dealt with by an independent body? The Minister suggested the Audit Commission; I have suggested the King's Fund. All the matters pertaining to the hon. Gentleman's constituents—the number of beds,
  1036
  whether there are too many or too few, whether they are under pressure and whether there are enough hospital places—could then be evaluated independently, before the political debate about which hospitals should be built and which should be closed. That, of course, will ultimately be a political decision.
  Mr. Banks: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, for two reasons. In fact, I am sure that there are others, but I shall mention two.
  First, the Audit Commission is there to ensure that we receive value for money. I do not think that its task is to do what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, although in certain circumstances I retain an open mind. Secondly, I believe that such a suggestion impugns the integrity of the civil service. Over the years, it has been suggested that the civil service has become a little too close to the present Government, but anyone who talks to Ministers privately will be told that that is certainly not the case. Civil servants do an excellent job; no doubt they have their own private views, but they behave very professionally. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the statistics that he receives from the Government—which are compiled by civil servants—are in any need of disinfecting.
  Today's debate takes place against a background of record spending on the NHS. Spending has risen by some 74 per cent. in real terms since 1979. For every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom, we are now spending about £724, compared—in real terms—to some £444 in 1978–79. That is a significant difference. The problems of this winter have led to a special cash boost of £25 million. Some of that has been used to deal with bed blocking, and has certainly helped my constituency; £4 million of it has been spent on extra intensive care and high-dependency beds, and £5 million has been used to improve mental health services, which have also been affected by winter problems.
  There are more doctors and nurses than there were in the 1970s Since then, the number of nurses and midwives has risen by some 55,000. The number of doctors and dentists has risen by 22,500. For every manager in the NHS, there are some 77 employees directly involved in patient care.
  I have mentioned the Prime Minister's commitment to year-on-year-on-year real increases in the next Parliament. I remember that, when he first came up with the idea of the citizens charter, one or two foolish people laughed at the suggestion; but what a difference the charter has made. It has enabled the public to know precisely what level of service they ought to expect, and how it should improve year on year. It has established benchmarks, and if those benchmarks are not met, action is taken.
  I very much hope that the Labour party will match that guarantee I thought that the hon. Member for Dulwich was going to intervene and give me such a pledge, but she is only shuffling her papers. I do not think that we should be surprised by the Prime Minister's commitment, because he gave the same pledge in 1992, and has adhered to it. It is, however, staggering to note that there is to be a further increase of some £1.6 billion in NHS spending next year, which means a 3 per cent. real-terms increase in hospital and community health services. In 1995, the NHS share of gross domestic product was about 5.8 per cent.; in 1978–79, it was about 4.7 per cent.
  I have mentioned nurses' pay, and the importance of having the flexibility of local negotiation on a trust-by-trust, hospital-by-hospital basis. Nurses' pay has

  1037
  risen from about £68 a week in 1979 to some £311 a week in 1995: that is a real increase, over and above inflation, of around 70 per cent. I believe that locally negotiated pay is the way forward. We have seen great benefits from it in my constituency, and I was heartened to learn that the independent body had made it clear that there should be an increase of no less than 2 per cent.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman mentioned our last debate on the NHS. In that debate, the Minister who was responding gave a figure of £1.56 billion for the NHS, but did not say that £56 million was going to Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned local negotiations. Our budget has not been given an increase of 3 per cent., but has been cut by 3 per cent. This year, it has been reduced to 1.5 per cent. up front.
  Mr. Banks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for telling us what is happening in Northern Ireland. I know that he will forgive me if I plead genuine ignorance of the specific case that he mentioned. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland cannot be with us, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. Perhaps we will pick up on that matter later in the debate.
  All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the flexibility that I have seen in and around my constituency—in the Southport and Formby Community Health Services NHS trust and the Sefton district health authority, which covers three parliamentary constituencies—has been welcomed because it has been effective in giving pay rises to people who deserve them most. With such flexibility, it is important to be able in certain instances to do what is best on a local basis. What is perhaps best in Southport is not necessarily good for Northern Ireland, and vice versa.
  I mentioned the background that we have in dealing with in the debate. One further point of substance in relation to improvements in the NHS is the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has in many ways, together with the Secretary of State for Transport, pioneered the PFI. It is no surprise or coincidence that both have been Treasury Ministers. Mixed public and private funding for improvements in the NHS is vital. I need to look only to my constituency to see the enormous benefit of such funding. Approximately £12 million is being used to develop new premises to ensure that one of our older hospitals has the opportunity of closing to provide better facilities on the newer site, which was built after the Government's election to power.
  That site should have been built in 1970s, but, when the Labour party had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund and cut the capital hospital building programme by 33 per cent., unfortunately my constituents were not able to have the site when they needed it. The PFI is vital. Its critics are being proved wrong. A combination of public and private sector capital is the way to ensure new build where it is necessary, and improvements in existing facilities.
  There is no better proof of increasing satisfaction with NHS services than personal experience. I am sure that I am not alone in the House in experiencing treatment on the NHS, although I freely admit that I take the
  1038
  opportunity also of contributing to a private health care scheme. I have had tax relief on those contributions, which have been so opposed by the Opposition parties. I take the opportunity of ensuring that I have choice. I advocate it. That is what we Conservative Members advocate. We have done so, not least in the past, but we continue to do so as we head towards a general election. Choice is vital, but the experience that I was mentioning of hon. Members receiving treatment on the NHS is important.
  I recall going to a meeting of the chairman of the NHS trust in my constituency in the early 1990s—I think 1993. I expected the meeting to last some half an hour. I actually left the hospital some seven days later, having spent a week in intensive care. The health care that I received was absolutely outstanding. I had the opportunity not just of remaining in one intensive care ward, but of going to another ward and to two or three different hospitals. I cannot fault the care that I received, and I deprecate people both inside and outside the House who all too frequently criticise unfairly and without good reason the good work by nurses and doctors in the service. We all recognise that there are problems, but too frequently we hear about those few problems and not enough about the success of those who work in the service.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am glad that the NHS looked after the hon. Gentleman well and brought him back to health. Will he accept, however, that one of the concerns about the health service is that many people who do not want to use the private health sector feel increasingly driven to do so because they cannot be sure that the NHS will be able to do all the things that they need? One of the tests of the NHS's fragility is that there is a consistent increase in people who are opting for private health insurance—it was 11 per cent.; it is now up to 14 per cent. I remember that his previous leader, the noble Lady Thatcher, was happy to have private health insurance, but, when she needed emergency or more acute treatment, she relied on the NHS.
  Mr. Banks: I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. What I was talking about was choice and I am not going to debate what the noble Baroness did or did not do. I can tell the House my experiences only, and they have been excellent in relation to the NHS.
  Mr. Gallie: Surely the words of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) underline what my hon. Friend says. He points out the values and the excellence of the NHS. It has been demonstrated that, where someone had the choice between private and NHS, the individual plumped for the NHS. That is surely a great credit to the NHS, and surely backs my hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is such an advocate of Ayr; despite what his political opponents say in Scotland, I believe that he will hold his seat.
  I should like to make one final local point. May I make a plea to the Minister to take action? The two local health authorities that provide services in and around my constituency have been consulting over a lengthy period on the provision of health care for the future. In some instances, too few patients have been spread over two

  1039
  brand new hospitals, if I can put it that way, some five miles apart—one in Ormskirk and one in Southport. South Lancashire district health authority, which covers Skelmersdale and the west Lancashire region, and Sefton district health authority, which covers Bootle to Southport, have been debating whether health care should be provided on one site and, if not, how the split between the two sites should take place.
  The major concern has been that the two health authorities, rightly trying to take decisions locally, have not been able to agree. As a result, they commissioned Sir Duncan Nichol, the former chief executive of the health service, to conduct a review. He decided that there should be a hot site and a cold site, and he further concluded that the hot site should be in Southport.
  As part of what I can only describe as a deal, a suggestion was made to transfer maternity services from my constituency five miles down the road to Ormskirk. There are concerns about that in relation not just to geography but to where intensive care and accident and emergency services will be located and where, without those facilities, young babies will be born.
  I believe now that, after a lengthy period of consultation, South Lancashire health authority has been dragging out taking a decision on the matter because it knows that, in a few weeks' time, there will be a general election. It is vital that a decision is reached, because my constituents are fully aware that, if there were to be a Labour Government, they would ensure that the North West regional health authority intervened to transfer those maternity services away from Southport to Ormskirk.
  Every historical precedent suggests that that will happen. There will be nothing for Southport under a Labour Government because, under them, we could not have even the brand new hospital that the regional health authority wanted to build in the 1970s. The only hope to ensure that Sir Duncan Nichol's recommendations are implemented will be for the regional health authority to intervene, and to do soon, before a general election.
  I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is not involved in this local review of services. It has come not from the Department of Health but from the region and the locality. I want the Minister to press the chairman of the regional health authority to intervene so that a decision can be taken now. Then we can ensure that the Nicol proposals are implemented, so that all the major services are based in Southport. Once the independent review has been implemented, I shall tell my constituents that that review, commissioned by the two health authorities, has gone ahead, that it is expected that maternity services will stay in Southport and that only a Labour Government could change that.
  I have no doubt that the interests of my constituents will be best served by the re-election of a Conservative Government.
  5.29 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: We too would like to record our condolences to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) following his recent sad bereavement.
  We welcome the opportunity to debate the immediate priorities for the national health service. I share the view of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey
  1040
  (Mr. Hughes) that we must take every opportunity to provide a view of the real facts of life for staff and patients in accident and emergency departments and GP surgeries up and down the country, as an antidote to the rosy view of the NHS adopted by Richmond house.
  I begin, however, by dealing with the priorities outlined in the Liberal Democrat motion. Free eye tests and dental checks are top of that party's wish list. The Labour party recognises the value of eye tests and dental checks as important preventive measures, and we share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that the withdrawal of free tests has had an adverse impact on public health. But restoring free eye tests and checks would not come cheap. The combined cost would be at least £170 million and probably nearer £200 million—roughly the same amount as highly conservative estimates of the hole in the Government's finances for the NHS between now and the end of this financial year.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey knows, the problems of our health authority—Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham—have led to patients in both our constituencies waiting as long as 18 months to be admitted to hospital, which is longer than patients wait in other parts of the country. The problems have also given rise to what the chief executive of King's College hospital recently denounced as the two-tier health service which he found it impossible to defend to the patients of his hospital.
  The acute problems that hospitals have experienced cannot possibly be separated from the pace and scale of the cuts in acute hospital beds in recent years. That is not just our view; it is a view shared by the British Medical Association, which has today published new evidence of the continuing crisis in our hospitals. It has found that Southampton General is "just about coping". In Liverpool, the bed crisis continues. Addenbrooke's in Cambridge is
  "in and out of red alert."
  Torbay is
  "closed to elective admission and running at full capacity",
  and in Bristol,
  "waiting lists have grown longer".
  These problems are inseparable from the fact that a quarter of NHS hospital beds have been lost since the Government's competitive internal market was introduced. Nearly 13,000 beds in all specialties have closed in just five years as a direct result of the Government's doctrinaire obsession with competition. In the battle for patients, hospitals have been forced to cut services to the bone in order to keep costs down.
  It is a simple fact that no service, public or private, could withstand such a huge reduction in capacity over such a short time and avoid deterioration in the quality of the service that even the best efforts of staff can provide. Of course we recognise that the needs of the NHS and its patients are changing—that more day surgery is being carried out, for instance; but even so the pace of bed closures has been dangerously fast.
  We have in London an example of the damage done to patient care by the pace of change. As long ago as 1994, Dr. Brian Jarman warned that the Tomlinson report, on which the bed closure programme was based, was founded on flawed evidence. Incidentally, it followed the report of the King's Fund, which reviewed the health

  1041
  needs of London. Dr. Jarman pointed out that important data relating to the availability of mental health services and of residential and other long-term services for elderly people had been omitted from the calculations.
  Even though the Department of Health seems belatedly to have accepted Brian Jarman's analysis, bed closures have continued at an alarming rate. More than 17,500 beds have been closed in North and South Thames over the past five years.
  We support the call in the motion for reducing unnecessary bureaucracy by introducing longer-term agreements between health authorities and hospitals. That is what the health service wants; it will provide important stability and savings on bureaucratic costs which can then be redirected to patient care. It was, after all, the Government's doctrinaire obsession with competition that created the explosion of bureaucracy in the NHS at the cost of patient care.
  The BMA has calculated that the internal market costs £1.5 billion. In private the Secretary of State seems prepared to accept that. It is significant that his recent White Paper—his credo, as he put it—"A Service with Ambitions", did not make a single reference to the competitive internal market. Indeed, in one part of the country the Secretary of State has even permitted the suspension of that market. In Newcastle, the city's health trusts have returned to a system of collaborative contracting in which competition has been replaced by co-operation and three-year rolling contracts. The move, the trusts explain, is intended to
  "avoid the perils of over-competitiveness … there is the ever-present danger of trusts becoming too competitive for business at the expense of quality. In other words, trying to do more for less. If this were to continue unchecked, staff would undoubtedly lose confidence in the market system."
  When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will assure us that, if the Newcastle project can be shown to have brought benefits by improving local standards of care, the Government will immediately encourage hospitals and health authorities across the country to ditch the absurd competition that is imposing such a burden on the health service and creating such an obstacle to best patient care.
  We share the concern expressed in the motion about the effect of local pay bargaining on the NHS. It has embroiled hospitals and staff in drawn-out, often acrimonious negotiations and distracted them from their main priority, which should be improving patient care. The Royal College of Nursing has found that only 196 trusts out of 488 have so far reached agreement on pay for the current financial year.
  I offer the House an example of what local pay has meant for one trust this year. The Newcastle City Health NHS trust describes how it has been engaged in a long-running dispute with staff over local pay. The chief executive has spent between 80 and 90 hours on negotiations; his deputy has spent 100 hours, and a human resources manager, 200 hours. On top of that, 80 other managers have spent about 20 hours each on the subject. That amounts to a total of 2,000 managerial hours. Given that a further 1,000 hours were lost on the day of a strike, almost 3,000 hours—which could have been spent on more productive work—have been lost to pay negotiations. That is why we support the call to scrap
  1042
  local pay bargaining. It is another example of how the Government have allowed NHS bureaucracy to spiral out of control.
  We welcome today's debate, and we support many of the calls that have been made. However, we are sceptical of the remedies suggested by the Liberal Democrats and of how those would be paid for.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for identifying the issues on which we agree. However, will she tell the House whether she and her colleagues can support our second proposal, which is
  "a freeze on all finance-driven bed, hospital and service closures which represent a reduction of service to patients"?
  As I said, the public desperately want a national halt to service reductions while an independent assessment is made. Can she and her colleagues endorse and support that proposal?
  Ms Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made clear our commitment to a moratorium on any further acute bed closures in London, because of the particular circumstances and pressures that arose after the Tomlinson report. So we are committed to a moratorium in London. We have not made, and at this stage we would not make, a similar commitment nationally, as he would like. If elected to government after the next general election, however, we will carefully examine the position, particularly in deprived inner-city areas, where—for very obvious reasons—pressure on acute beds tends to be greatest.
  Sir Donald Thompson: The hon. Lady is making a very careful and interesting speech; and I heard what she said about the difference between London and the provinces, which seem to manage these matters rather better. Nonetheless, will she now take the opportunity to appeal to local government across the country to stop blocking hospital beds? In my constituency, 50 beds are being blocked by the local social services people, who will not allow old people who have been assessed into care homes, because those care homes are private. It is a scandal which the hon. Lady's words would help to alleviate.
  Ms Jowell: It is absolutely clear that the way in which the Government have tilted the balance in distributing money for community care towards the independent sector has created the bed-blocking problem in so many parts of the country. There was virtually no independent provision in my own borough—which I shall use as a specific example—and it was therefore very difficult to move elderly people out of hospital and into care funded through community care money, which was made available by the reforms. All types of perverse incentives have been created because of the Government's doctrinaire obsession with care commercialisation, rather than with patients' best interests.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Lady has confirmed that those councils—for political reasons and because they do not like the policies—are taking out their revenge on patients, and that she supports them.
  Ms Jowell: The Minister is perfectly well aware that that is absolutely not so. One of the obstacles to many

  1043
  councils being able to provide effective community care has been the perversity of the Government's distribution formula for care in the community money.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Ms Jowell: No, I will not give way again—[Interruption.] In a short speech, I have already given way many times. I shall move on to the costings—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the House knows my views on seated interventions, especially when they are repeated.
  Ms Jowell: I make no apology for not giving way to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who made a speech lasting almost half an hour.
  As for costing the proposals made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and his colleagues, as I said, the Library has already performed some calculations. The cost of restoring eye tests and dental checks, based on 1994–95 prices, would be about £170 million. The pledge to increase NHS expenditure in line with NHS inflation would cost an extra £594 million in 1998–99, and £1.3 billion in 1999 to 2000. The pledge to recruit 10,000 more nurses and 5,000 more doctors, which appeared in 11 October 1996 edition of the Liberal Democrat News, would cost at least £100 million. The pledge to cut waiting lists to a six-month maximum, crudely estimated, would cost £240 million. In short, the Liberals' proposals would cost an extra £2.5 billion.
  The way in which the Liberal Democrats have tried to explain where the money to meet those pledges would come from has not been completely convincing. I reiterate that they told us at last year's conference that an extra £350 million for nursing staff would be made available by closing a tax loophole, although that loophole had apparently already been closed. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to think twice before he throws stones, and reconsider the credibility of the cost of his own policies.
  Opposition Members should not be distracted by the hypothetical and irrelevant question—diverting as it might be—of how a Liberal Democrat Government would fulfil their commitments. Our main concern is the real crisis that is gripping the health service.
  In recent weeks, it has become blatantly clear that the Government have only one immediate priority for the NHS—crisis management, so that they can get through to the general election and the end of the financial year Health authorities and hospitals are being told to keep problems under wraps, so far as possible. We have heard how the chief executive of the NHS has dispatched a memo to hospitals on "managing the winter crisis". We have been told that hospitals are being advised not to pay bills so that they can make ends meet, although that means that small businesses which depend on that cash may go to the wall. We have also heard of a hospital in Liverpool being urged to find ways of "judiciously eliminating" patients from the waiting list.
  Those are not the actions of a responsible Government who put patients' interests first; they are the actions of a Government and Ministers engaged in a desperate bid for
  1044
  survival. The needs of the NHS take second place to the electoral prospects of the Conservative party. While all that is going on, patients across the country wait on trollies in casualty; elective surgery is being cancelled, often at the last minute; and staff are working under intolerable and unacceptable levels of pressure. The Government should be dealing with those problems as a priority, rather than being concerned with news management and drawing a veil over the circumstances facing hospitals daily.
  Every day, we read further evidence of the crisis. This week, the Greater London Association of Community Health Councils published a new report on how accident and emergency departments in London have coped this winter. It paints a bleak picture of the quality of patient care in London's hospitals. It states:
  "People are regularly waiting unacceptably long periods of time on trolleys in A & E departments".
  New terminology has had to be invented to explain how hospitals are dealing with the crisis. The report states:
  "Overnighters, people waiting overnight in casualty, are becoming a regular feature of London's health services."
  In the past five years, a new nursing protocol has been created to deal with the pressure sores and dehydration that inevitably follow when very elderly people spend any time waiting on trolleys. The GLACH report adds that this year's crisis is affecting all patients, not just those admitted to A and E. It talks of
  "hospitals running at near to 100 per cent. occupancy and elective surgery frequently cancelled—including cancer operations".
  Cancer operations are being cancelled elsewhere, too.
  A letter from a consultant neurosurgeon at the Salford Royal Hospitals NHS trust to a patient awaiting surgery shows the intolerable pressure on his patients. The letter reads:
  "Because of the problems in other district hospitals brought about by the recent bed crisis, we have not been able to move patients out of the unit and, therefore, this has restricted our ability to bring in patients for treatment. I wanted to reassure you that your brain tumour is not growing rapidly and that you will come to no medical harm as a result of the additional delay which has been forced upon us by this difficult situation. At the moment I cannot give you a date for admission but you can be reassured that you have not been forgotten."
  The Secretary of State's view that there are no waiting lists for cancer operations does not tally with the experience of patients across the country. Labour has already pledged to treat an extra 100,000 patients and take them off hospital waiting lists by releasing £100 million from the red tape which is the result of the Government's bureaucratisation of the NHS. As part of this pledge, we will ensure that cancer patients do not have to wait for surgery.
  There are other immediate priorities to which a Labour Government will give urgent attention. We will end the two-tierism which has been the hallmark of this Government's treatment of patients needing primary care—the division is between people who are patients of fundholders and those who are not. We will extricate the NHS from the perverse incentives of the internal market and halt the moves towards the privatisation of the service.
  This debate is an opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the national health service, not only the doctors and nurses but all who work in it—very often in the most

  1045
  difficult circumstances—and who provide the very best care that they can. We will end the commercial internal market and restore the NHS as a public service which puts patients first because that is what the staff and the people of this country want—the immediate priority for the NHS is a Labour Government who will rebuild it.
  5.52 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to offer my condolences and those of my colleagues to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who is responsible for health in Northern Ireland. At talks yesterday at which all parties were represented, there was a public and unanimous expression of sympathy for him. I trust that the Ministers here today will convey that to him as soon as they can.
  I must pay a brief tribute to the Under-Secretary. The Minister for Health said that some people were on another planet. I assure him that North Antrim is not on another planet; indeed, it is not far from Scotland—just 20 miles across the water.
  When I entered the House in 1970, there were eight hospitals with acute units in my area. Today there are no such acute hospitals within the bounds of my constituency. Ballycastle, Ballymena and Ballymoney are three local government areas which make up my constituency. Ballycastle hospital is closed, Ballymoney hospital is being closed, and Ballymena hospital, which was to be the main hospital, is also closing.
  As Ballymena is the geographical centre of the locality, we were promised that it would be the site for a new acute hospital. That was put on the long finger, and then rejected. A new hospital—or a third of a new hospital—has been erected in Antrim. No one knows when the rest of it will be completed, but I am sure that it will not be in the lifetime of anyone here.
  The northern part of the district lost out, and we were then promised a new hospital outside the area, nearer to Coleraine. That was put on the long finger for 30 years. The recent cuts in the finance to Northern Ireland meant that there was a question mark over that, too. In fact, building was stopped, and it was decided not to proceed. It was thanks to the Under-Secretary that the project was retained.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told me himself that the Under-Secretary was lacerated for the bold stand he took to ensure that the promise of 30 years ago was implemented. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary—but for him, we would not be getting that hospital, although it is outside the bounds of my constituency. I am glad to have put that fact on record.
  There is no increase in NHS expenditure in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said, there has been a year-by-year 3 per cent. cut. We are told that the reductions can be made in so-called efficiency savings, but that is impossible, and the health service is being decimated. The flesh is disappearing, and the bones are beginning to show—anyone can see that by going to the Province. The facts cannot be covered up or argued away. All sections of the community agree on that.
  1046
  I pay a warm and whole-hearted tribute to all who work in the health service. This is a difficult time not only for the health service but for our Province. The people who work in the service have even more pressure on them; they need even greater patience, and have to make sacrifices. They are providing care and making sacrifices, but if they do not have the finances to do the job, services are seriously curtailed.
  Wards have been closed, waiting lists for elective surgery are increasing, and people waiting for major operations are being telephoned on the very day they are due to enter hospital and told that, because of a lack of funds, the operations are cancelled. Indeed, even patients prepared and ready for theatre are being sent back to the ward and then home. That has happened time and again. Of course, the Minister receives representations from all Members of Parliament about such incidents.
  Assessments are taking ever longer to complete. There are numerous examples of bed blocking because the community trusts have no money to put care packages in place or provide residential or nursing home care finance. Surely it must be more cost-effective to keep a person in their own home or in residential or nursing care than in a hospital. That has to be faced up to. If we do so, money could be made available. We need to take a decision on that.
  The Government's decision not to proceed with adjustment capitation funding will have devastating consequences on the Eastern health and social services board, which covers Belfast, where the major regional hospitals are. A report was submitted last year, but so far the Government have put it on the long finger.
  The main hospital in Belfast is the Royal Victoria hospital, but the House must recognise that it is in the heart of IRA Provoland. People do not want to go there, and more and more are objecting. Mr. Nigel Dodds, who is my assistant in the European Parliament and was the youngest Lord Mayor of Belfast, had his young child in the sick children's hospital in the Royal complex. Before Christmas, the IRA attempted to kill him and his wife on the ward when they were going to visit their boy. A bullet from an IRA gun went through an incubator. We cannot ask parents to go to a hospital under those circumstances. It is a very serious situation.
  I do not visit the Royal Victoria hospital any more, even though I have pastoral duties that I should attend to, because a massive security operation is needed to get me in and out. I cannot put 40 members of the security forces at risk just because I want to visit one patient. I once went to see one of my church officers, who was seriously ill. When I left the ward, two IRA men came in and demanded to know "the bed that Paisley visited". That is what is happening in the Royal Victoria hospital. We must decide whether to continue pouring money into that complex, where people are afraid to go and where life is being jeopardised. The Government must consider that.
  The current review considering the possibility of introducing charging into health provision in the community is rightly causing alarm in my area, where we have the most vulnerable and needy sections of all communities. It would be scandalous for the Government to introduce charges for services such as home help, occupational therapy and a range of other vital work. The people in my area need those services on a no-charge basis. They cannot meet the commitment otherwise.

  1047
  It is also reprehensible that trusts should be proposing to introduce charges for nurses and other hospital staff to park their cars in the hospital grounds. Just think about that. That is what is happening at the Royal Victoria hospital. Surely there is no better place for them to park their cars than an area where the police have to keep them under surveillance. They have to pay for parking. Even though they have already paid up, nurses from the Royal group of hospitals are not even guaranteed parking space if people get there before them. How can we expect the best from our nurses and doctors if we do not look after them? They need to be looked after. The hospital trusts in my country must think again.
  The Government introduced the patients charter, which was widely welcomed by my party, but we warned at the time that a charter is meaningless if the funding and resources are not in place to allow its targets to be met. How can targets be met without the financial wherewithal? That is particularly true on the reduction of waiting lists, which, as I have already said, are on the increase. Many hospitals in my country have made it clear that there will be no more surgery for non-emergency patients until the new financial year in April. They are all stopped.
  There is also great concern—mentioned by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell)—about the two-tier health service, which we now have, in effect, in Northern Ireland. GP fundholders have no difficulty getting treatment for their patients, while the patients of non-fundholders have to take their place in the queue. They pay the same taxes and rates as anyone else. Why should they be discriminated against? When everyone has to pay the same taxes to provide health care, can the Government allow discrimination in patient care because of a patient's choice to stay with a non-fundholding doctor?
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned nurses' pay. A serious situation has arisen on that, and I shall not go over the points he made. I remind the House that 80 per cent. of the female work force in Northern Ireland are employed by the NHS. Pay and conditions for those female workers are being driven down, destroying quality standards and equality. I have raised in the House before the on-going dispute between workers, the NHS trusts and Compass. We are in great difficulty. We have had strikes, and there is a lot of opposition.
  The Government and the trusts have not lived up to their responsibilities. The Government cannot wash their hands of the issue and claim that it is a matter for the trusts, which has nothing to do with them. The Government have tried to shunt the matter off, saying that it pertains to the private sector. Remember that 80 per cent. of our female work force are employed in the NHS. The pay they are offered is atrocious—it is an insult to them. The Government must take that into account. They cannot wash their hands of it.
  Those are some of the serious difficulties that the health service in Northern Ireland is up against. We have rightly emphasised those issues today. We are not trying to do down the health service. The Government have taken credit for building the health service. I ask them not to destroy what they have built. Being a preacher, I am reminded of the apostle Paul's words that, if I pull down that which I once built, I am a transgressor. My final homily to the Government is, "Please do not be a transgressor."
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). In particular, I share the concerns he expressed about nurses, who are waiting with great interest and hope for the announcement from the pay review body and the Government's reaction to it.
  My party's view is that the presumption should be that the Government accept the findings of an independent pay review body that they established. That must be the starting point. If we are to believe what prior indications and leaks suggest, the proposals are likely to be modest. It certainly ought to be within the Government's capability to meet in full the award, which should have been taken into account in the Chancellor's forward budgetary predictions.
  I emphasise the importance of nurses and those who deliver the health service, because they frequently work under enormous pressure.
  We often hear about the predicament of young doctors who spend very long hours in hospitals when they are training and in the early years of their specialisations. I am the son of a gynaecologist and a specialist in public health, and have always been conscious of the long hours that doctors work. However, there is considerable evidence that recently the pressure on people upon whom we rely so heavily has become too acute.
  Another sector of health providers to whom I pay tribute is the general practitioners. Although the Secretary of State for Health has not attended the debate, the presence of the Minister of State, Scottish Office is most welcome. I believe that, when the House is debating a central issue of policy such as the health service, there is no more important ministerial duty than to be present and hear hon. Members, representing all parts of the United Kingdom, relating widely differing experiences.
  Rural doctors can also be under great pressure, not from hour upon hour of accident and emergency treatment, although that may form part of their care and concern, but because they are on constant duty without necessarily having any back up. The case of the inducement practitioners in the highlands of Scotland has to be kept under constant scrutiny and regard lest the pressure upon them becomes insupportable.
  I find it unsatisfactory that, in my constituency, there should be arguments about whether 0.5 per cent. of a doctor should be included in the medical resources available to a practitioner whose practice may cover hundreds of square miles, where he is the only person providing medical cover.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend and I probably represent the most different species of constituency in the United Kingdom. Mine is in the heart of London, and my hon. Friend's is in the most remote rural part of northern Scotland. Does he agree that one of the real concerns that affect us both is that, unless a real effort is made and funds are allocated to recruit people to general practice, there will be a shortage of general practitioners in all parts of the United Kingdom, in a way that none of us have known in our adult lives?
  Mr. Maclennan: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I call in evidence in support of what he has said what I was told by general practitioners I recently met in Thurso

  1049
  in Caithness. They drew my attention to the substantial number of general practitioners who chose to emigrate to Australia and other countries not entirely different from our own. That is a disturbing factor, which requires advanced consideration. It will not do for us to be scraping around in other countries in five or 10 years' time trying to induce practitioners to come to Britain. That would not be a reasonably priced, cost-efficient option.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman comes from Scotland, as I do. Is it not a fact that Scotland has the greatest teaching hospitals in the world, and Scots have always taken their excellent skills worldwide? Should we not be proud of that rather than bemoaning it?
  Mr. Maclennan: I take great pride in that fact. My father was a teacher at one of those great teaching hospitals. He was president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was a Commonwealth college. Of course I welcome to the United Kingdom doctors from abroad, as I understand the impulse of those who want to find their fortunes elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I was seeking to make not a partisan point, but the point that doctors in Scotland have told me that their numbers are becoming dangerously depleted. They are worried about the effect on the service in future. It right for me to convey that anxiety to the Minister.
  Many general practitioners, particularly in rural areas, feel that their job has expanded in recent years, not because of the influx of new patients or the necessity of keeping abreast of the latest developments in medicine—although that may be true—but because of the requirements of form filling and meeting the demands of the health authorities to provide information for which they receive no additional emolument. That is another factor that is not adequately taken into account, particularly in rural areas with single-handed or small practices with few partners.
  I am not suggesting that the work should not be carried out. Some of it is necessary to provide a proper audit of health treatment and to enable the formation of policy to adequately meet the demands of health in Scotland today. However, it is not adequately taken into account in evaluating the service of doctors.
  I now turn from doctors to other servants of the public, in ancillary and related spheres. In the north of Scotland, there is great pressure from the lack of certain services, some of which may be regarded as paramedical, such as speech therapists, of whom there is gross under-supply. That can create serious medical problems. I have to ask the Government why we have been aware of the problem for so long, yet the demand is still unmet. I feel that it has much to do with the inadequate reward offered to people providing those services.
  I now draw the Minister's attention to a matter with which he is familiar. Although many ambulancemen provide an excellent service, as I found out 20 years ago, when I fell off the edge of my constituency in north-west Sutherland and was taken some 120 miles over fairly rough terrain by an ambulanceman and have been grateful ever since, there are considerable anxieties in the north of Scotland about the management of the ambulance service.
  1050
  The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and I have expressed those anxieties to the Minister. We have amassed a number of cases that show that there is something seriously rotten in the management of the service, particularly in Inverness, and we look forward to the possibility of discussing our concerns. Although they involve management issues, they raise extremely grave matters that cannot be tackled without ministerial intervention.
  I turn from various tributes and concerns to some of the priorities that we have highlighted in today's debate, not because we consider that they are the only issues that matter, but because they touch immediate needs that can be addressed effectively and immediately.
  The first requirement that we have put forward, to which I was rather surprised to hear the Minister taking such extraordinary exception, and to which he reacted in such a partisan fashion, is that there should be a proper independent survey and an analysis of the needs of the NHS. He treated that suggestion as though it was somehow impugning the statistical integrity of officials.
  The reality is quite different: it appears that Ministers are indicating that there are certain statistics in which, for whatever reason, they are not interested. They apparently do not want to know about hospital closures on a nationwide basis. That is to do not with the integrity of statisticians, but with political bias, the purblind attitudes of those in charge. For such reasons, it is necessary to conduct an independent survey—one that is not capable of being pushed around by Ministers who are anxious to cover up the defects of our NHS.
  There are two reasons why such a survey is necessary. The first is that we need to know the outturns of the services that are being provided. That they are different in different parts of the country is absolutely clear. I serve on the council of the Cancer Research Campaign, which spends substantially more money on cancer research every year than the Government.
  One of the things that the council put its hand to was a survey of the outturns of cancer treatments in different parts of the country. It revealed quite disturbing figures, of which the Government are aware. Such work should not be left to charitable organisations to fund, albeit in conjunction with particular health authorities. Such work needs to be done all the time if we are to continue to ensure that our treatments and the delivery of services meet the challenges and standards that we demand and expect, especially in a technologically rapidly advancing area of society.
  The second reason is the cognate one that it is important that we know where to invest. That should not be a matter of happenstance or of political pork-barrelling, with Ministers looking favourably on their friends' constituencies, or anything of that kind. It should be decided according to need. We need independent facts and figures to calculate that need. Although we certainly have to aggregate and accumulate those figures locally, they must be interpreted nationally. That was missing from the Minister's response.
  I turn to the other proposals in the motion. We should recognise that the imposition of prescription charges is becoming so punitive that impoverished people—there are a substantial number of them, perhaps 10 per cent. of the population—are seriously deterred from going to the

  1051
  doctor because they know that they cannot afford what they may be required to pay. We believe that there should be a standstill on prescription charge increases. We have costed that at £9 million per annum, which we believe can be funded by a portion of our proposed tax on cigarettes.
  We have also recognised two other specific areas of importance: dental and eye checks. There is very great anxiety that the failure to provide free dental checks is leading to a general deterioration of the dental health of the community. That can have effects far beyond teeth. It can lead to the general debility of an individual. Reinstating free dental checks is a form of preventive medicine that can be extremely cost-effective, and I therefore commend it strongly to the Government. It is not one of the more expensive measures that one might propose. It adds up to £60 million per annum at current prices.
  Eye checks are of such importance. There is evidence of people failing to have their eyes checked. There is concern among eye specialists about the spread of glaucoma and preventable diseases due to inadequate cover. I have no doubt from surveys in my constituency that there has been a substantial downturn in attendance in doctors' surgeries for such things of late.
  We also recognise the need to increase the number of nurses, and, in some cases, the numbers of doctors. The shortages of doctors have been rather haphazard and very disturbing. I know that one of the great shortages we have suffered in the highlands is among orthopaedic surgeons. We began to catch up after some years of acute shortage, and we now have five orthopaedic surgeons at the Raigmore hospital. They are trying to deal with a great backlog and a long waiting list of people whose operations may be described as elective but who have been suffering great pain. I know, because they come to my surgeries and ask if there is anything that I can do about it.
  It has been deeply depressing that, in the past five years, so many medical cases have been raised in my constituency. People used to ask about lawyers, doubts about legal matters or housing, and they still do, but medical matters for a Member of Parliament are something of a new phenomenon. It is due in part to the disturbing medical shortages. We have proposed 10,000 additional nurses and 5,000 additional doctors, and costed that, too. The recommendations are not irresponsible: they are particular.
  I draw attention to the rather striking empty assurance from the Labour party that all that is required is the return of a Labour Government. The only money about which the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) was prepared to speak was £100 million that would be drawn from some putative savings in administration costs. I should be delighted if we could make such savings. I hope that it is not just whistling in the wind.
  There is an argument that, on occasions, administration is a little top-heavy, but, until the Labour party makes available more particulars, we must view the assurance as rather small beer, especially set against the announcement two weeks ago by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that Labour accepts the Government's budgetary targets for health spending for the next two years.
  The hon. Gentleman made that announcement without even bothering to wait to open the books or having the opportunity to examine whether the health administration
  1052
  savings can be made. He has bound his party and his Government-to-be, if there is to be a Labour Government—heaven forfend, if that is to be their policy—to accepting the Conservative party's views. That is a sad thought for the country, which is left with a choice to support the Liberal Democrat party, which has been clear, prioritised and firm about things that need to be done.
  I should like to cite a couple of examples of issues that have arisen in my constituency that I think need attention. The example of the Migdale hospital, to which I referred at Question Time today, encapsulates one of the pressure points on the health service: the treatment and care of the elderly. I am not attributing blame either to the health service or to the social work department. It is not satisfactory for health service hospitals to seek to edge out those who have been living there for some time, either into social work departments' non-existent care provision or into private nursing homes.
  Those are hospitals which bring together, as the Migdale does, specialisms of many kinds to ease the lives of the individuals resident there and of their families. They give respite care, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, as well as specialist treatment. The health board's proposal to consider depriving Sutherland of that hospital is a retrograde step, which I hope will not be taken.
  I am conscious of the fact that this is rather a short debate, so, although there are many other matters of general interest that I should love to raise, I shall follow the example of those from my party who have spoken earlier, and confine my remarks to the priority issues. As I have already said, I am grateful to the Minister for being here, and I hope that his response to the debate will be positive.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: We have had a useful set of exchanges, and we await the Minister's wind-up speech. At the outset, I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the condolences expressed to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), following his recent bereavement. Clearly, hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to extend their sincere condolences to him.
  Secondly, I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at the beginning of the debate—that it is perhaps regrettable that the Secretary of State cannot be with us today. Depending on the timing of the election, this could be one of the last opportunities for the House to examine the national health service, so it might have been appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman to be here.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Kennedy: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption] I am sorry if he was frozen out of the debate, but the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), who is sitting close to him, spoke for nearly half an hour, and I am sure that he could have made his telling points in slightly less time.
  Mr. Matthew Banks: Tell us where Paddy is.
  Mr. Kennedy: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

  1053
  Some of the debate, especially the opening contribution by the Minister for Health, focused on statistics, but, as he began to deploy his case, one central feature of the restructured health service under the current Administration became clear. It was much in evidence in the way in which the Minister went about his business in the debate.
  If there is any credit to be taken on health issues, it is claimed nationally, but if there is any blame or downside, the information is much too difficult to collect centrally, and the issue has to be dealt with locally. That is the political purchaser-provider split that Health Ministers want to establish. If there are problems, they do not have the information centrally, and we are referred elsewhere, but if there is a good song to sing, the statistics magically happen to be at hand. People outside the House who read the text of the debate will see through that.
  Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Gentleman talks a lot about statistics, but one important statistic is missing from the Liberal Democrats' presentation. How much money are they committed to spending? We have been listening carefully. They have invented a hypothecated tax on tobacco to pay for all the extra spending, but they did not put a figure on it. Can the hon. Gentleman give us a precise figure for exactly how much the Liberal party is pledging itself to raise in new taxation for health spending in the first year, and in the second year?
  Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening with sufficient care, or he would have heard both my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, when he opened the debate, setting out in crystal clear fashion specifically what the commitments are. The hon. Gentleman will find them in the columns of Hansard tomorrow.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the proposal for extra revenue to be raised from tobacco. As my hon. Friend has said many times, including this afternoon, that will be specifically earmarked for the pledges or recommendations in respect of optical, dental and prescription charges that we have made in the debate. All that has been categorically set out, and it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it has not.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to touch on some of the points made in the debate.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want hon. Members who, for whatever reason, may not have been here for the whole debate to think that there is any doubt about the figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland and I, together with our Treasury spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), have made the figures very clear.
  There is a £200 million commitment to be raised by putting 5p on 20 cigarettes, a £350 million per year commitment to be raised by closing the employers'
  1054
  national insurance loophole. There is also another commitment to do with keeping pace with national health service inflation. Those three commitments have been clearly costed, on the basis of Government answers given over the past 10 days.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  On the subject of statistics, the Minister for Health showed characteristic brass neck when he talked about the use of official statistics, in view of the fact that, in the past few days, we have seen the unprecedented withdrawal by the Office for National Statistics of the official Government health spending statistics, as a result of some apparent confusion over the application of the NHS deflator.
  That does not fill the rest of us with confidence that the ministerial touch on the tiller in the production of the statistics is as firm and sure as all that. The whole thing becomes all the more suspicious when one notes that the original version showed that real-terms spending on the health service did not match Government rhetoric, yet, lo and behold, when the error spotted by our sharp-eyed Ministers was amended, the graph was slightly more in accord with the Government's case.
  That shows that the general point that we have argued in the debate is valid. We should have independent statistical advice, free of the Department of Health, which would do a lot not simply to boost public confidence in the information made available to us but to enable debates on health—debates about the kind of priorities that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey described—to be conducted in a more rational and better informed way.
  When my hon. Friend opened the debate, as well as calling for that form of independent assessment, he stressed the need for investment—the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) will be able to read about that tomorrow, too—for planning and for accountability. I do not want to go back over those issues, but I shall refer to one or two of the points that came up in the debate.
  First, I shall reply to the hon. Member for Southport, who paid advance tribute to our friend and former parliamentary colleague Ronnie Fearn, by wishing him many happy returns for his birthday tomorrow. I do not want to be churlish, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that, in the electoral sense, I cannot wish him many happy returns. I hope that Councillor Fearn will be back among us after the election.
  The hon. Member for Southport asked about my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of my party, who was in the Chamber for a brief part of the debate—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, he will hear that my right hon. Friend has spent the afternoon visiting Bart's. When political parties are debating the national health service, it is entirely sensible, fitting and appropriate for a party leader to be visiting such a centre of excellence and listening to the people there at first hand.
  I shall reply to a couple of other points that the hon. Gentleman touched upon. He said that he chooses, as is his legitimate right, to have private medical insurance.
  Mr. Banks: I have never used it.
  Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman happens not to have used his insurance, and I certainly hope that he does

  1055
  not need to. However, the philosophical point that we want to make about our party's stance is that no Liberal Democrat opposes the right of any individual to make private provision out of his or her own disposable income. But we object to the fact that the rest of the tax-paying public should give such a person an additional tax incentive.
  Mr. Banks: What about choice?
  Mr. Kennedy: Choice is entirely open to the individual in the marketplace, but that choice should not be bankrolled by the state via the tax system. It was the former Prime Minister who insisted on allowing that, although, as was well reported at the time, it went rather against the instincts of her then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I note in passing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not used his present office to reverse that policy, although as Secretary of State for Health he made little secret of the fact that he did not agree with it at first.
  The hon. Member for Southport sees the private finance initiative as central to the future delivery of the fabric or infrastructure of health. The jury is still very much out on the PFI in terms of the longer-term accrual of debt that it loads on to future generations, but I should point out to him that, if he thinks that the PFI is the answer to all the problems, he should note that this debate will be answered by the Minister of State, Scottish Office. He is something of a world expert on the subject, having delivered the Skye bridge by means of the PFI. His reputation in Scotland has never, and will never, recover from his involvement in that fiasco.
  I was disappointed—although not surprised—by the timid nature of the Labour party's stance on these matters, but I was even more surprised and disappointed by the general tone of the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). Had one come into the Gallery without being aware of the party politics at work here, one might have thought from listening to the hon. Lady that she was an up-and-coming young Conservative health Minister, speaking in a rather patronising way about proposals to reform and improve the health service, while doing a rather good job of defending the establishment line.
  We should note for the record that the only specific commitment that the Labour party feels able to give in terms of the wording of our motion this evening, which refers to
  "a freeze on all finance-driven bed, hospital and service closures",
  relates to bed closures in London only. There is no commitment whatever from Labour on service withdrawals and bed closures across the whole of the UK.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kennedy: No, I am sorry. I only have a few minutes to speak, and I must move on.
  The Labour party is not in a position to give a commitment on the system of charges to which we drew specific attention during the debate. That has been made clear from the strictures placed by the shadow Chancellor on Labour's overall tax and spending proposals. We need
  1056
  not look with much hope in that direction if we want to see significant improvements in both the administration and the funding of the NHS.
  Turning specifically to charges, there is no doubt, from the surveys and analyses that our party has carried out across the country as to the severe disincentive effect that the current system of check-up charges is having, that it is not just turning people away, but runs against what is supposed to be the central thrust—agreed by all parties—of health care policy, which is in the direction of prevention and promotion.
  One cannot have effective preventive and promotional health strategies when, for example, people are making savings on multiple prescriptions when issued by a doctor, when people are not undertaking the entire range of dental treatment recommended by their dental surgeon, and when serious medical conditions—very serious, in some cases—are going unchecked, or are not being picked up in time, as a result of people not resorting to optical tests when they should.
  I carried out a survey in my constituency, and I was genuinely surprised by the results. Local opticians were asked how many times in the past year they had detected any of the following conditions. [Interruption.] Please let it be noted for the record that Conservative Members are laughing. The opticians discovered these conditions: brain tumours, on six occasions; cataracts, 718; diabetes, 49; glaucoma, 253; detached retina, 12; multiple sclerosis, two. These conditions are slipping through the net on some occasions at GP level, but—thank goodness—thanks to the technology available to opticians, they can be detected when people go in for a perfectly routine eye test. If more people are being turned away from eye tests, more of these serious medical conditions will not be picked up, and the Government must directly address that.
  In respect of general practice, it was alarming to discover the number of doctors—this is a reflection of what is happening nationally—who were contemplating early retirement because of the sheer pressure of the paperwork, the bureaucracy and the demands that have been loaded on to them as a result of the changes that have taken place to their status and to general practice as a whole. The Government will be making a severe long-term error if they do not pay attention to the warnings that are coming from general practitioners, and to the fact that more and more GPs are choosing at an early age to vote with their feet. That is creating long-term difficulties in terms of health care as a whole.
  We must look at the question of the annual year-on-year contract negotiations, and hon. Members will be able to provide many examples from their areas, where, because of the protracted length and complexity of the negotiations between the health authorities and individual NHS trusts and the amount of management time devoted to them, all too often the negotiations spill well into the financial year, with the contracts still not signed. Therefore, short-term ward closures and service downgrading must take place.
  The Minister of State should consider whether we can have a more flexible rollover system to extend the negotiating period from one to three years, and whether we can allow the managers on both sides greater flexibility than the somewhat artificial constraints represented by the need for the annual renewal of contracts, as they presently stand.

  1057
  This has been a useful opportunity to set out our priorities for the NHS on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and to explore the priorities and the scale of the commitment from other directions. If the voters are looking for a real choice in terms of the funding and future of the health service, it is between the maintenance of the status quo—under whichever of the two major parties might be in power after the election—and a genuinely funded and costed improvement. Only the Liberal Democrats will be arguing unequivocally and honestly for the latter at the election.
  6.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): We have heard some constructive speeches in the debate. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to Raigmore as a centre of excellence and, having visited it, I endorse that view. Our whole purpose is to ensure that the NHS is engaged in the pursuit of excellence. I also wish to associate the rest of the House with the expression of sympathy from the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) towards my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland following his recent bereavement.
  The fact that Scottish National party Members and Labour Back Benchers have not attended the bulk of the debate in no way diminishes the seriousness and validity of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office made it clear on 10 December that he was delighted to confirm the investment at Lodge road, Coleraine and the long-standing commitment to replace it. He added that the facilities there, together with the new Antrim hospital, will provide the whole of the north-east of the Province with the most up-to-date acute services available, and that represents an investment of almost £100 million during this decade.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim asked when we expected the project to be completed, and the current estimate is that it should be completed towards the end of 2000. He also referred to the McKenna review, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office has consulted widely on the recommendations put to him by the project steering group. He is considering all aspects of the matter and is hoping to announce his decisions in the near future.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to pressures on rural doctors. I entirely agree with him that rural GPs face particular pressures, and that is why we have schemes such as the inducement practices in the more remote areas of Scotland. The needs of particular practices are best considered locally. Highland health board is well aware of the importance of maintaining a comprehensive and well-motivated network of GPs in the area. I also accept that it is important that GPs are able to take part in audit and to contribute their views. It is particularly difficult, of course, for those who are in practices on their own and we are conscious of the need to deal with that problem.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland mentioned the proposed closure of Migdale hospital. Every closure proposal requires ministerial approval and
  1058
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be considered with the utmost care. At this stage, the health board is consulting. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the shortage of orthopaedic surgeons at Raigmore. I am glad to be able to confirm that there is now a full complement, and he will be pleased that I can also confirm that the hospital is rapidly eliminating the backlog of operations that had built up.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye that we have been able to make a further £2 million available in the current year to Highland health board, under the bridging finance scheme for community care developers. Also, the health board and the Highlands community trust have recently submitted proposals for a new acute psychiatric unit and new continuing care and rehabilitation facilities at Craig Dunain hospital. The preference of the board and the trust is to locate those facilities on the site of the existing Craig Phadrig hospital in Inverness.
  The trust will be exploring the scope for proceeding with the projects under the private finance initiative. We look forward to learning what conclusions are reached. It is in everyone's interests that the outdated facilities there are replaced at the earliest opportunity, but we shall want to be satisfied that firm plans are properly in place to provide new facilities that fully reflect the needs of patients, before agreeing that the hospital should close.
  Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend get the impression from the comments of the spokesmen for both the Opposition parties that they are obsessed with buildings and beds? Conservative Members are concerned about patients. We want waiting lists to drop and treatment to be improved. We want new techniques to be adopted. Is not that Conservative policy?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our policy is driven by the needs of patients. That is our top priority and we shall ensure that that happens. I can make one obvious point in response to my hon. Friend. There has been a demand for an increase in day surgery, and we have increased the amount of day surgery enormously. That is to the benefit of families and, above all, patients themselves. It is a shift in the pattern of care that is in accordance with patients' needs.
  We are supporting some key themes throughout Britain. The time that people have to wait under the health service is steadily reducing. In Scotland, the number of patients who had to wait a year for in-patient treatment dropped steadily from 1,745 in March 1994 to only 126 last month. In England, the average wait reduced from nine months to around four months between 1990 and 1995. That is undoubtedly progress. The NHS continues to treat an increasing number of people year on year, not only efficiently, but producing good outcomes in terms of curing illness and improving health.
  Wherever I go—whether to Raigmore, which is next to the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, or to hospitals throughout Scotland—I invariably find patients saying that the care and dedication with which they are looked after are admirable. We are determined to maintain services free at the point of delivery.
  On resources, we have fully honoured our manifesto commitment to increase health spending in real terms. Planned Government spending on the NHS is more than

  1059
  70 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. Current NHS spending will grow by £1.75 billion in 1997–98—a substantial real-terms increase. In the United Kingdom as a whole, the NHS will spend more than £116 million every day in 1996–97. During my remarks, well over £1 million will have been spent—in fact, the sum will be more than £1.5 million. For the United Kingdom as a whole, spending is £724 for every man, woman or child in 1996–97, compared with £444 in 1978–79 at constant prices. That is, without question, a record of commitment.
  I can confirm to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who is temporarily absent from the Chamber, that we have now been able to make an additional £3.5 million allocation to boards in Northern Ireland in 1996–97, to help alleviate the resources problems arising from emergency admission levels, high-cost blood products and elective activity pressures.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) mentioned winter pressures. All parts of the NHS have experienced additional pressure this winter. They always do, and I pay tribute to the hard work of all involved to cope with the peak in emergency admissions. It is right that trusts should constantly keep the way in which they provide acute services under review. With increased numbers of day cases and of non-invasive surgery, the number of patients treated can be increased.
  The review of acute services planning assumptions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland commissioned last year came to the conclusion that it would be counter-productive to prevent acute hospitals from making changes to the acute services that they provide, including the number of beds, in response to changing needs. The same arguments apply to England and Wales. We encourage all health authorities and trusts to plan carefully to cope with the level of admissions that they are likely to face. We believe that the national health service is performing well.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) mentioned various hospitals in his constituency. Despite comprehensive consultation, the proposed plans remain contentious. They envisage the closure of the Christiana Hartley maternity hospital in Southport—maternity services would be centred on Ormskirk. The Sefton and South Lancashire health authorities are considering the responses to the proposals and all views will be taken into account. As Ministers may be asked to take a final decision, I cannot comment further at this time, but the views that my hon. Friend expressed tonight will be kept in mind.
  Remarkable advances have been made in the national health service. The example that I found particularly moving was when I visited the hospital in Kilmarnock where cochlear implantations are performed. There have been more than 100 operations, and persons who experienced profound deafness—both young and old—were given hearing for the first time. I was able to talk to the patients, whose quality of life had been improved enormously. It is not merely the profoundly deaf who have benefited. Thirty years ago, there were no hip replacements, and keyhole surgery has advanced by leaps and bounds.
  I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye that one advance that we look forward to is telemedicine—when his constituents go to a health centre, they might be able to speak to a specialist several hundred miles away, who will give them the best possible advice, followed by the necessary treatment where appropriate.
  1060
  The use of scanners has enabled much quicker and more effective diagnosis and treatment. Heart transplant units are performing effectively and well, as are the liver transplant units that have come into existence throughout Britain. We are developing cancer services steadily and ensuring that there are specialist cancer centres, where expertise and skills can be concentrated and patients assured that they will get the best possible treatment. Similarly, we are ensuring that specialist palliative care is developed throughout Britain. We support the extension of palliative care for conditions other than cancer, and its introduction as soon as possible after diagnosis.
  We are determined to ensure that our health service becomes the best in the world. We want to make certain that, when GP fundholders have remarkable pioneering innovations, those should be spread throughout the national health service. We want better access, responsiveness, information and continuing care, and more emphasis on prevention.
  The NHS has an overall record of success, with more patients treated, shorter waiting times and improved treatments. We are determined that it should be the best in the world.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 44. Noes 309.

  Division No. 69]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Beith, A J

  Maginnis, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Chidgey, David

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Dafis, Cynog

  Rendel, David

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Salmond, Alex

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Simpson, Alan

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Steel, Sir David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Thurnham, Peter

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Trimble, David

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Livingstone, Ken

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Loyden, Eddie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Maclennan, Robert

  Mr. Paul Tyler.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bates, Michael

  Amess, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Ancram, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Biffen, John

  Ashby, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  1061

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Garnier, Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butler, Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Hague, William

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Cash, William

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Channon, Paul

  Hannam, Sir John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Conway, Derek

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Cope, Sir John

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Curry, David

  Howard, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hurd, Douglas

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jack, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jessel, Toby

  Dunn, Bob

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  King, Tom

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Faber, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Kynoch, George

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lamont, Norman

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lang, Ian

  Forman, Nigel

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Legg, Barry

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lidington, David

  Freeman, Roger

  Lilley, Peter

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Luff, Peter

  1062

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacGregor, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Madel, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Major, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marlow, Tony

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  Mellor, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Needham, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomason, Roy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Newton, Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Trotter, Neville

  Patten, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pawsey, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waldegrave, William

  Pickles, Eric

  Walden George

  Porter, David

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Portillo, Michael

  Waller Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Ward, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wardle, Charies (Bexhill)

  Redwood, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Renton, Tim

  Watts, John

  Richards, Rod

  Wells, Bowen

  Riddick, Graham

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Willetts, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ryder, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfld)

  Sackville, Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Yeo, Tim

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Young, Sir George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 246.

  Division No. 70]

  [7.13 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Devlin, Tim

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dicks, Terry

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dover, Den

  Amess, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Ancram, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dunn, Bob

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Eggar, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Faber, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Biffen, John

  Forth, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  French, Douglas

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bowis, John

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Gallie, Phil

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gorst, Sir John

  Burt, Alistair

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Gummer, John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hague, William

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clappison, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Heath, Sir Edward

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Cope, Sir John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Cran, James

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Curry, David

  Horam, John

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howard, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  1064

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Porter, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Michael

  Hurd, Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Redwood, John

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Renton, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  King, Tom

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Richard

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knox, Sir David

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Kynoch, George

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lang, Ian

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Legg, Barry

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Sims, Sir Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lidington, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Lilley, Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lord, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  MacGregor, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Maclean, David

  Sproat, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Madel, Sir David

  Stephen, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stern, Michael

  Major, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marlow, Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Mellor, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Trend, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trotter, Neville

  Needham, Richard

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Waldegrave, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, John

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Pawsey, James

  Whittingdale, John

  1065

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Allen, Graham

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Alton, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashton, Joseph

  Fisher, Mark

  Austin-Walker, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barron, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  Battle, John

  Fraser, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beith, A J

  Galloway, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Garrett, John

  Benn, Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Tony

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoey, Kate

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clapham, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

  Darling, Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dixon, Don

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dobson, Frank

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan

  1066

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Randall, Stuart

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Reid, Dr John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rendel, David

  Loyden, Eddie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Salmond, Alex

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKelvey, William

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Maclennan, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steel, Sir David

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Martlew, Eric

  Straw, Jack

  Maxton, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Timms, Stephen

  Milburn, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Miller, Andrew

  Trickett, Jon

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Trimble, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dennis

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Vaz, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mudie, George

  Watson, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Welsh, Andrew

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Olner, Bill

  Winnick, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  Pearson, Ian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pike, Peter L

  Pope, Greg

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Mr. Paul Tyler.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House is committed to the National Health Service as a public service, promoting health and offering increasing volumes of high-quality health care on the basis of need regardless of the ability to pay; and welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to real terms increases in NHS spending year by year.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At Scottish questions this afternoon, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) asked me a question and in my answer I said that the hon. Gentleman had been to Libya and referred to him as Labour's man in Libya. The hon. Gentleman has written to me stating that he has never been to Libya. I withdraw my remarks and apologise to the hon. Gentleman for any embarrassment that I may have caused him.

  Education
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move.
  That this House believes that the Government has consistently failed to invest sufficient resources in schools to ensure a high-quality education service; and believes that any incoming Government should make a commitment to increase spending on education — if necessary by increased taxation — to pay for high-quality early-years education for all three and four year olds whose parents want it, extra resources for schools to invest in books and equipment and continuing professional development for teachers, a reduction in class sizes and extra support for pupils with special educational needs and to tackle the backlog of repairs to school buildings.
  It has become somewhat of a cliché for politicians to declare that education is their first priority, but for Liberal Democrats that has not suddenly become a priority; it always has been. Liberal Democrats seek a society made up of self-reliant individuals who are able to take control of their own lives, to make their own choices and to fulfil their own potential. We seek a society in which each person is valued, each person is different, each person is respectful of others and each person is entitled to be heard. We seek a society in which each person accepts responsibility for his or her actions and each person contributes to the nation's worth, self-confidence and success.
  We believe that it is to education that we must turn for the key, because education equips all people with the knowledge and skills that they need to live free and fulfilling lives and to escape from poverty, ignorance and conformity. It must be admitted, however, that, with the mystic milepost of the millennium just three years away, we have a great deal to do.
  The forthcoming general election, whenever the Prime Minister has the courage to call it, will provide the people of this country with the opportunity to make choices about the way forward. They will, for example, be able to choose which view to support—that of the Home Secretary, which is that prisons work; or that of Stephen Tumim, which is that the solution to prisons lies in pre-school education. They will have the opportunity to choose which is more important: a genuinely critical thought in each child's head, or a grammar school in every town; a computer for every child, or an income tax cut; an education system based on partnership and co-operation, or one based on competition and market forces.
  Despite the excellent work in many of our schools, much more needs to be done. In Germany and France respectively, 62 per cent. and 66 per cent. of young people achieve the equivalent of grades A to C at GCSE in mathematics, the national language and one science subject. Sadly, the figure for Britain is 27 per cent. English pupils are often two years behind their Swiss and German peers at number work by the time they leave primary school. Our national targets for education and training for 2000—which many of us believe we are unlikely to meet—have already been surpassed by

  1069
  Germany and Japan. Standards must rise if we, as a nation, are to have any chance of competing internationally in the 21st century.
  Against that background, it is hardly surprising that, as Nigel de Gruchy of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers said recently, people throw up their hands in despair when politicians propose merely a string of education gimmicks designed to produce media soundbites rather than to address the real issues that confront the education service. There is perhaps one advantage of some of the gimmicks that have been announced. Sometimes they show politicians' willingness to change their minds.
  The House will be aware that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently made a pronouncement on the importance of school uniform. The House may be further interested to know that a motion was passed by Sheffield city council on 7 October 1981, which was supported by the hon. Gentleman. It banned all Sheffield schools from punishing, suspending or barring from school any pupil for not wearing school uniform. I hope that he will apply the same willingness to change his mind on the issue of increased funding for education.
  Improving standards in our schools is not merely about increased investment. We should also recognise that raising standards depends on high-quality teachers. We could begin to increase teachers' enthusiasm and raise their morale as well as their school's level of achievement if we dropped the blame and shame approach, or the three-course diet for teachers of criticism, criticism and criticism, as the chief executive of the Teacher Training Agency recently described it. We could certainly make better use of existing resources.
  As the recent Audit Commission's report "Trading Places" showed, the Government's education policies—particularly their reliance on market forces—have led to millions of pounds being wasted, and thousands of parents being denied their first choice of schools. The nursery voucher scheme is bureaucracy gone mad: the Conservative party would have been breathing hellfire had it been proposed by Brussels. According to local authorities, nursery voucher administration alone is estimated to cost about £43 million a year.
  More and more power has been handed to educational quangos. More than 50 per cent. of the Department's educational expenditure is now administered by one or other of them. The average expenditure on salaries and benefits to the chief executives and the chairmen of those quangos has rocketed since 1987.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The hon. Gentleman knows that two of the larger quangos are the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council. The logic of what he says is that they should be funded directly by Government. Is that really what he means?
  Mr. Foster: No. The Minister should look at our policy documents, because we have made it clear that the work of the Higher Education Funding Council is vital. We have, however, called into question the work of the Further Education Funding Council. We have proposed a
  1070
  different mechanism for the funding of further education, which would enable strategic planning to take place locally. Sadly, strategic planning has now disappeared, which has led to much duplication and a waste of money in the FE sector.
  The Minister did not refer to the Funding Agency for Schools. We would definitely abolish that quango and save the administrative costs. I am sure that the Minister would be interested to see the figures that I recently received on the cost of education quangos, particularly the cost of their senior employees. The annual payment to the chief executives of education quangos has risen by a staggering 165 per cent. since 1987: they now receive £1,451 a week on average. The payments to the chairmen of those quangos have risen by 146 per cent. during that period to £452 a week for an average week of only 1.6 days. If we want to find further questionable rises in central expenditure, we have only to look at the Department's education publicity and advertising expenditure. From 1987 to 1994–95, it rose from only £1.7 million to £11.1 million.
  Notwithstanding the better use of resources, if educational standards are to improve significantly—as I believe that they must if we are to compete in the increasingly global market—we must increase our investment in schools. The Government will no doubt argue that they have increased investment. If we take into account changes in legislation and increasing pupil numbers, such a claim falls far short of reality.
  On the ground, parents, teachers and governors see no evidence of improved funding. Even if the Cabinet failed to hear her words, parents, teachers and governors agreed with the leaked memorandum from the Secretary of State in September 1995, in which she said:
  "Insufficient resources now threaten the provision of education in the state school sector".
  In recent years, those people on the ground have seen a massive rise in class sizes. The number of primary pupils in classes of 31 or more has risen to more than 1.28 million, which is an increase of 9.1 per cent. Almost six out of every 10 local education authorities experienced a rise in the number of pupils in classes of 37 or more in just one year—1995–95. In more than one in 10 local authorities—which is 14 per cent.—there was a rise in the number of classes of 41 or more.
  Teachers, parents and governors have seen evidence of a shortage of books and equipment. They do not even have to take my word for it. The chief inspector's annual report, which was published yesterday, shows that one in four secondary schools and one in eight primary schools
  "have shortages of books which adversely affect teaching and make the setting of homework difficult."
  He went on to point to the one in six schools that have
  "insufficient books to meet the needs of the curriculum."
  Increasingly, school buildings are crumbling and overcrowded. The chief inspector's report identified that almost one in five secondary schools have significant weaknesses in some aspects of accommodation, and that, in one in six of those schools, it has a direct impact on specialist teaching, especially in science, design, technology and art. He also pointed to the one in seven schools that have difficulties with accommodation, which he says has
  "a detrimental effect on teaching and learning."

  1071
  He also says that the shortage of space is a feature of almost one in three schools.
  Mr. Nigel Forman: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about the desirability of extra investment in our schools, particularly those catering for the younger end of the age range. Does he agree, however, that it is equally important to ensure that the money is spent to best effect? The management of local education authorities, and the way in which they handle such matters as admissions policy, are important in that context.
  Is the hon. Gentleman aware, for instance, of Barrow Hedges primary school in my constituency, which comes under local management of schools in a Liberal-controlled authority? Many parents are worried about the fact that their children, having been allocated places in the nursery class, are now being excluded from the reception class in the primary phase. Will the hon. Gentleman convey a message to his colleagues in local government—that they should sort out those problems as well?
  Mr. Foster: That is an interesting point, which was the subject of some debate today. The Select Committee was discussing the problems caused by the nursery voucher scheme, and the way in which some schools are changing their admissions policies. The hon. Gentleman, however, makes an even more significant point about the crucial importance of efficient use of existing resources. I entirely agree with him about that. He may be surprised to learn that all the surveys that have been conducted show that Liberal Democrat-run local education authorities use resources most efficiently, and have the smallest amount of money held back centrally. They delegate the most to individual schools.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am rather perplexed about the Liberal Democrats' claims about extra resources for education. They talk of crumbling schools, the need for more books and the desirability of smaller class sizes, but a total of more than £4 billion would have to be spent to deal with the problems, and I cannot equate that with the imposition of just 1p on the basic rate of income tax. Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us where the money will come from?
  Mr. Foster: I am delighted to learn that the figure on the hon. Gentleman's briefing note, calculated by his friends in Conservative central office, has dropped so dramatically from the £7 billion to which they referred on a similar briefing note only a year ago. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, by the time of the general election, he will have sight of the detailed costings for our education proposals, as, indeed, will the whole country. The fundamental difference between the Liberal Democrats and the other political parties is that we believe in being honest with the electorate—telling them what our policies will cost, and where the money will come from. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will contain himself for a moment, I may touch on a few of the issues that interest him.
  Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I want to make a little more
  1072
  progress; I will happily give way to him later. He cannot deny the problems that exist in our schools, and the cuts that we have seen—and I hope that he would not deny the comments of the chief inspector of schools.
  Having drawn attention to the deficiencies in school premises, the chief inspector would presumably accept that other figures show capital expenditure on schools to be around half what it was 20 years ago. More than 600 primary schools still have outside loos, and two fifths operate in temporary buildings: three quarters of a million pupils are educated in such buildings. The backlog of repair and maintenance that is needed just to make our schools safe amounts to some £3.2 billion.
  Why is that? First, despite their claims to have improved education spending, the Government should acknowledge that, according to their own figures, the percentage of gross domestic product spent on education since the last general election had fallen from 5.3 per cent. to 5.1 per cent. by 1995–96. Secondly, if we look at the figure that the Government believe local authorities need to spend on primary and secondary education, the standard spending assessment—I refer to figures provided by the Library—we see that the primary SSA per pupil fell by 0.4 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1996–97, while the cut in the secondary SSA has been a staggering 9 per cent.
  If the Minister and other Conservative Members are not happy to use the SSA—they acknowledge that it is not necessarily the same as the amount actually spent in schools—they may wish to look at the most reliable estimate of what is actually spent "on the ground" by LEAs—the potential schools budget. According to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, over that same post-election period—1992 to 1996—the primary PSB per pupil in England and Wales fell by around 3 per cent. in real terms, while the secondary PSB fell by 9 per cent.
  When, 14 months ago, the Chancellor announced his Budget for the present year, I warned that tax cuts would mean school cuts. Sadly, I was proved right. Despite all the gloss from the Government, there was no extra money for our schools, and many had to make significant budget cuts. The Government have tried the same con trick this year. It is all very well to announce that SSAs are to be increased, but if there is no real-terms growth in Government funding for local authorities, and if local education authorities are spending above SSA—as almost all are doing already—the only way in which to avoid cuts is to impose a massive hike in council tax, which is often prevented by the capping regime, or a disproportionate cut in other council services which have already been cut to the bone. In many cases, both will be necessary.
  The effect is clear: there is no such thing as a free income tax cut. The latest income tax cut will mean further cuts in our schools. In my constituency, Bath and North East Somerset council has no choice but to make savings of £10.4 million, and, even with such cuts, the council tax will have to rise well above the rate of inflation. Education must inevitably take its share of the cuts. Plans for cuts in music provision, discretionary awards, information technology support, school meals and other support services are being considered, alongside a cut in the schools budget of 4.1 per cent. this year and

  1073
  7 per cent. in a full year. Plans for a major literacy programme may well have to be put on hold, as may plans to raise the quality of education for under-fives.
  Not surprisingly, my postbag has been full of letters expressing concern about the proposed cuts. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis of Combe Down in Bath recently wrote to me:
  "We were appalled to learn of the proposed cuts to the Education budget for 1997–98",
  cuts which they found "totally unacceptable". They argued for increased spending to ensure that
  "our schools can continue to function without having to resort to drastic measures which would jeopardise the education of our children, and lead to blight in the economy of our country in future years."
  Another of my constituents, Mr. Tim Heiden, wrote to the Prime Minister:
  "Your Government maintains that education is a high priority and that standards must improve. How can this be when schools are faced with further cuts in their finances?"
  On Monday night, a packed public meeting in Bath started what the local media described as
  "a crusade for education, rallying opposition against proposed swingeing … cuts."
  At that meeting Annita Wright, head teacher of Culverhay school, warned that some schools could face cuts of up to £100,000 in their budgets, which would have a direct impact on staffing levels. She said:
  "Any cuts to teaching and teaching staff are going to impact in the classroom. There is no way to avoid that."
  As a report about the meeting in my local newspaper, The Bath Chronicle, made clear, all present knew where the blame lay. The report stated:
  "Last Friday Education Secretary Gillian Shephard washed her hands of the cash crisis, claiming the local authority had 'perfectly adequate and substantial funds' to spend on schools.
  But people at last night's meeting laid the blame for the crisis squarely at the Government's door.
  St. Gregory's headteacher David Byrne said: 'Take no notice of what Gillian Shephard said. Right from the start this authority has been under-funded.'"
  Bath and North-East Somerset's budget, he said,
  "has not increased in line with its responsibility."
  No wonder an action group, Parents Against Cuts in Education, has now been formed in my constituency.
  The situation in Bath is replicated across the nation, but the people of the nation know who is to blame. They will have listened with incredulity to the Secretary of State for the Environment when he told the House that if
  "council tax bills increase, it will be because Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors choose to increase them. If services are cut, it will be because Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors choose to cut them. No one is forcing them to increase council tax bills or to cut services."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997; Vol. 289, c. 682.]
  Like the burglar caught red-handed with the stolen goods, the cry, "Not me, guv," goes up. That, however, is nowhere near the mark. The people know that that will not wash. They know that further cuts in education are the price to be paid for the Tory's cynical attempt to buy votes at the general election. When they come to vote, they will know to avoid any candidates with the word "Con" written after their names.
  1074
  The electorate will be looking with caution at the Labour party, which has announced no change to the Government's figures. Further, it refuses to join the Liberal Democrats in voting against an income tax cut that will lead to school cuts. It will be difficult for Labour activists to campaign against education cuts when Labour Members fail to vote against the very measure that will give rise to them.
  Mr. John Marshall: It is remarkably generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way, bearing in mind that he has been talking about the need to spend more money. Will he explain why Liberal councils spend much less than Conservative councils on education?
  Mr. Nick Harvey: There are no Conservative councils.
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes the point from a sedentary position that we are not sure which Conservative council is being used to judge us, given the few Conservative councils that now exist. People know that education in the areas that the Conservative party used to control was extremely badly damaged.
  Unlike the Conservative party, which starved education of the money that it needed, and unlike the Labour party, which was too timid to promise more, the Liberal Democrat position on funding is clear, simple and unchanged. An under-funded education service is a false economy. That is why Liberal Democrats remain committed to increased investment in education and training. If necessary, we shall increase the level of taxation by 1p in the pound to pay for that increased investment. That is the equivalent of half a pint of beer a week for the average taxpayer.
  That is hardly too much to ask for the future prosperity of our nation, especially when that increase in taxation can fund increased investment to provide high quality early-years education for all three and four-year-olds without using a cumbersome and bureaucratic scheme. It will fund more books and equipment, smaller class sizes and effective support for children with special education needs. It will also provide increased investment for decent buildings.
  Unlike politicians of other parties, Liberal Democrats believe that those who will the ends must also will the means. The gimmicks and the soundbites are not for us. Only the Liberal Democrats offer radical policies backed by clear funding proposals. Under-investment in education is tantamount to condemning future generations to the scrapheap, along with this failing Government. Education is vital and increased investment is essential. If we fail to meet the challenge, we fail the nation.
  7.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the substantial extra investment which the Government has made, and continues to make, in early years, primary and secondary education, the reforms that the Government has introduced to allow that investment to be used to maximum effect and the improvement in standards in schools which has been the result."

  1075
  I judge that the debate is about resources for education and standards. I shall show that the Government have invested heavily in education and that, as a direct result of our policies, standards are rising across education.
  It is especially disappointing that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who moved the motion, is not ready to recognise increased spending on this occasion, bearing in mind that he has done so in the past. He told the House in 1994:
  "I do not deny … that in recent years the Government have increased expenditure on education."—[Official Report, 1 March 1994; Vol. 238, c. 848.]
  His speech this evening was the predictable gloom and doom that we have come to expect, wrapped up with his famous promise that there will be a penny on income tax for education.
  Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, that is soundbite politics, not serious policy. Let us consider the commitments that the hon. Gentleman's penny is expected to pay for. Some have been mentioned by him this evening and others have been mentioned in Liberal Democrat documents.
  The list is virtually endless. The commitments include providing pre-school education for every three and four-year-old, education or training for 16 to 19-year-olds in work, retraining and education for adults, £500 million of capital expenditure on schools, unstated additional resources for higher education, increasing funding for all schools, abolition of student loans, extra funding for pupils with special education needs in addition to the delegated schools' budget, the reduction of all primary school class sizes to no more than 30, investment in new equipment and teaching aids, including information technology, increasing funding for in-service training for teachers and giving all students, full time and part time, entitlement to social security throughout the year.
  The Liberal Democrats claim that that amazing list of pledges could be paid for by a 1p rise in the rate of income tax. That is unutterable nonsense. To coin a phrase, based on audience observation:
  "Never was a penny spent more often than during a Liberal Democrat speech."
  Let us not just say a penny, for that sounds nice and small. The average family, which earns £21,400 a year, would find itself paying £18 extra tax every month as a result of the penny increase.
  Even that is not the end of the story. The House may recall that the Liberal Democrats have been promising their 1p for at least a couple of years. In November 1996, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer again reduced the standard rate of income tax by a further 1p. I assume, therefore, that the logic of the position of the hon. Member for Bath is that his party now supports a 2p increase in the standard rate of income tax. That helps a bit with the arithmetic of the pledges, but it increases the pain, especially for those on below average earnings. I judge that the hon. Gentleman's party is rather coy on this issue, and coyness is a rather unnatural position for the hon. Gentleman to adopt.
  We know, of course, that the hon. Gentleman could spend money, given the chance. After all, anyone can spend money. Even the Liberal Democrats concede that
  1076
  point. I quote from the internal Liberal Democrat document entitled "Towards 1996—Ideas for Research and Campaigning", which was no doubt given a wide circulation. Within it is the statement:
  "Lib-Dems just want to throw money at education."
  The real point is to spend money wisely, as the Government have done and will continue to do.
  The prescriptions of the hon. Member for Bath are pure fantasy politics and, of course, are based on the assumption of a Liberal Democrat Government—more fantasy politics. Let us turn to the real world in which the Government have been investing in education.
  Two months ago, in his Budget statement, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £129 million more for nursery vouchers, £15 million more for grant-maintained schools and £22 million more for the assisted places scheme—all investment in education. Of course, the Liberal Democrats would abolish nursery vouchers, destroy GM schools and deny to bright children from poorer families the opportunity to be educated in some of our best schools by eliminating the assisted places scheme. Here, as in virtually every other aspect of education, they are "little Sir echoes" of the main Opposition party.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How much money would be saved by abolishing the assisted places scheme, and how many teachers would that abolition put into other schools?
  Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question. For the moment, I shall base my response on the Labour party pledge, for reasons to which I have already alluded. The Labour party has made it clear that it is talking of a phasing out of the assisted places scheme. I judge that, as a result, there will be less than £5 million available in the first year of the assisted places scheme. Frankly, that will provide 100 or so primary school teachers. Compare that £5 million with an estimated cost of meeting Labour's pledge on class size—which is possibly what my hon. Friend was alluding to—of approaching £200 million. The House and the country should be aware of that discrepancy.
  Also on Monday, as the hon. Member for Bath mentioned, the House debated the local government finance settlement. It allows £633 million more for local authority spending on schools—a 3.6 per cent. increase. That makes £1.7 billion more for schools in just two years. That is investment in education, and it is not a one-off.
  In 1979, the start of the Conservative Governments, £515 was spent per pupil. In 1994, that figure had grown to £1,890. In real terms, after adjusting for inflation, that is half as much again. In real terms, per pupil, spending on books and equipment has risen by 56 per cent. and spending on support staff by 156 per cent. Perhaps that, above all, finally sets the record straight. Despite all the hand wringing, the reality is that actual spending per pupil has increased by almost 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
  Mr. John Maxton: I have to confess that I listened to such mathematics under the previous Labour Government as well as under this one. If the number of school pupils declines in a school,

  1077
  spending per pupil inevitably rises without extra expenditure, because structural, cleaning and other costs remain constant, whatever happens. As a result, total spending is divided among a smaller number of pupils. That is how the Minister arrives at the increases per pupil.
  Mr. Squire: To a very small extent, the hon. Gentleman's point is valid, but he cannot seriously be suggesting that that accounts for a virtual 50 per cent. increase in real terms. It does not, and I urge him to recognise that the prime factor is that we have been prepared to continue to fund education.
  We have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Bath about what other countries spend on education. Perhaps we should consider a couple of facts. Although international comparisons can be difficult to make, we know for certain that public expenditure on education in the UK, which, as he said, is 5.1 per cent. of gross domestic product, is higher than in Germany or Japan; that public spending in the UK on primary and secondary education, as a proportion of GDP, is among the highest in Europe; and that the UK spends more per pupil on pre-primary education than France, Japan and most other countries. Whichever way hon. Members examine it, the Government have been investing in education. We have a record of which we can be proud.
  As I have said, however, investing in education is not about throwing public money around indiscriminately; it is about spending more, as the Government have done. However, if it were only or even primarily a question of more money, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and Hackney would be achieving among the best examination results in the UK. All are in the top 12 local education authorities for spending per pupil, but all are in the bottom 12 in terms of GCSE results.
  If that sounds a little distant for most Liberal Democrats, let me take East Sussex and West Sussex. Both are controlled by Liberal Democrat and Labour coalitions—the old one-two, as we have come to describe them. East Sussex spends more per pupil at both primary and secondary level, yet when we turn to the latest GCSE performance tables, we find that West Sussex is just in the top 10, while higher-spending East Sussex is some 40 places lower.
  In truth, it is more about efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. The Government's record of encouraging greater value for money is second to none—so substantial that I have time to cover only some of the highlights.
  As all hon. Members will recall, we introduced local management of schools, allowing schools themselves to decide where their money is best spent, not some bureaucrat sitting in town hall or county hall. Schools have found that, having acquired that freedom, they want to keep it. Few, if any, want to go back to pre-LMS days. After all, why should they? Now, they spend their money on the services they want; they buy goods from the suppliers they trust. The supplier is often their LEA; but now, rather than saying, "This is what you get—take it or leave it," the LEA has to
  1078
  offer what the school wants, so the school can obtain the best deal around and the best use can be made of our education investment.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Before the Minister leaves local management of schools, which Liberal Democrats pioneered in some regions and which I strongly support, I hope that he will recognise that the picture he has painted would simply not be recognised by many school governors. In my county of Northumberland, they talk about mass resignation, not because they do not like the freedom to choose where the school's money goes, but because they cannot make the budget work on the figures available to them. The job of being a school governor has become burdensome because it is a job of managing cuts.
  Mr. Squire: I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the role and work of governors throughout the UK. All hon. Members on both sides of the House would do that, but, as it happens, today, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and I met a deputation of head teachers from the right hon. Gentleman's local education authority. I listened patiently to what they said, but in the end I had to say that I still could not understand how an above average SSA increase for next year in their LEA—from memory, it is some 4.2 per cent.—was translated into a projected 2 per cent. cut in school budgets. However, I suggested that some of the answer lay in county hall. Most right hon. and hon. Members would be pleased to receive a 4.2 per cent. increase.
  Mr. Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but this is important. Does he not understand that the SSA increases, however large they might be, are not related to the amount of money that is provided by the Government? The Chancellor's Red Book for the last Budget makes it clear that the amount in real terms made available to local government this year is exactly the same as the amount in the forthcoming year. There is no real-terms increase in the money. In effect, the Government can say to LEAs, "Spend as much as you like," but if the Government do not give them the resources, and if they then put a capping limit on LEAs as well, the LEAs simply cannot do it. The Minister surely understands that.
  Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the extra millions and millions of pounds that I am describing and that go into SSAs—not just education SSAs—are being met by taxpayers. He also knows—I am happy to have a separate seminar on local government finance, but possibly on another occasion, lest I incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the freedom that local authorities rightly enjoy to determine how they use that money and at what level they spend, allows them either to continue to give priority to education or, in a few cases, not to do so.
  We have also introduced greater parental choice, so that parents have a better say on which school they want their child to go to. Under LMS, popular schools attract more money as they become more popular. That is the market mechanism which, on other occasions, the hon. Member for Bath has accused us of being obsessed with, but I am not shamed by that accusation. Why be ashamed of the

  1079
  market, which rewards good, popular schools and provides an incentive for all schools to improve their performance? It is another way of ensuring that the Government's investment in education leads to the high standards that parents demand.
  I have mentioned the assisted places scheme and I do not intend to return to the subject in detail, beyond confirming that, last summer, assisted pupils recorded pass rates of nearly 97 per cent. at GCSE grades A* to C. Independent research shows that assisted pupils do better than those of similar ability in maintained schools. They take more A and AS-levels and achieve better grades. That is another example of our wise investment in education.
  The next step on from LMS is allowing schools that choose it to opt for grant-maintained status. That means additional freedom to run themselves, to own their buildings, to control their admissions and to manage the whole of their budget—not just the proportion that the LEA delegates to its own schools. With this margin of flexibility—money for the school to spend itself rather than for the LEA to spend on its behalf—GM schools do wonders. The key point is that, when schools are given responsibility for their own destiny, their energy and imagination are released. They start to look afresh at what they do with their resources—money, staff, buildings—and they target their resources where they will have most effect.
  The system works. GM schools get results—look at the performance tables. Look at any list of top schools. Listen to what the schools say themselves. They say that they have been able to put more money into staff, buildings and books since going GM. They say that staff morale has improved and applications per place have gone up. Their truancy levels are half the national average.
  The GM route taps schools' energy and imagination to make our investment in education work harder. So too does the private finance initiative. On top of the £700 million that we have allocated from public funds for capital projects in 1997–98, schools and LEAs can now use the expertise, efficiency and investment strength of the private sector. This Government have given them both the freedom to do so and direct help—more than £50 million of additional revenue support.
  This represents more wise investment in education—the money to do the job, and the freedom to do it efficiently. It has been a real success: in Dorset, where the LEA is using the PFI to replace Colfox school; in Manchester, where Temple primary school is to be rebuilt using the PFI; in Norfolk and Shropshire, where LEAs are considering how the PFI can help them increase the number of nursery units; and in Lewisham and Ealing, where the PFI is being used to improve catering facilities. Many other LEAs and schools are working with the private sector on PFI projects. They mean more wise investment, and real benefits for schools.
  Over the next three years, we will be investing some £435 million more in nursery education. Through the introduction of nursery education vouchers, parents will gain the opportunity better to choose the right pre-school education for their child. The inspection regime will guarantee that, in the public or the private sector, children
  1080
  will be receiving high-quality nursery education. That means that our investment will once more be going to where it does the most good.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the past two years, Government spending on schools has increased by £1.8 billion, which represents 1p in terms of income tax? Have we not therefore already achieved what the Liberal Democrats are calling for?
  Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is spot on. We intend to continue that record during the next Parliament, when we are returned at the forthcoming election.
  Finally, the Education Bill currently before Parliament and the other measures outlined in our White Paper build on the success of LMS and the GM programme by offering schools even greater freedom.
  Of course, success is also a question of school effectiveness. That is why we have introduced a system of rigorous inspection. As the House is well aware, Her Majesty's chief inspector published his annual report yesterday. I very much welcome the report. It contains much that schools can be proud of—especially the 167 schools that are commended as excellent. Teaching is satisfactory or better in the majority of lessons, and the proportion of poor-quality lessons has declined.
  It was not as large an improvement as I would have liked, and more remains to be done; on literacy and numeracy; on improving the quality of the minority of lessons which are not satisfactory; and in information technology. Overall, the report is good news, and if the Labour party were in power we would still have only 100 inspections a year—rather less than the 12,000 that have now been carried out.
  Throughout its programme of reform, the Government's strategy has been to concentrate on the outputs—higher standards, better qualifications. I should like, for instance, to take this opportunity to welcome the splendid news that Phoenix high school in Hammersmith and Fulham has today joined the number of failing schools that have been turned around and are now certified as delivering a good education. I pay tribute to the LEA, which has supported the school, to the Office for Standards in Education for its regular and thorough monitoring, and above all to the school—the head teacher, governors, staff, parents and pupils who have worked so hard to achieve this improvement.
  By concentrating on the essentials, we are sticking to the big issues, not on arbitrary limits to class size, meaningless minimums for homework or even parental ballots on school uniform. If that latest wheeze from the Labour party truly meant that it was listening to parents' views, Labour would drop its proposals to destroy GM schools, where parents—having voted for freedom from their LEA—would find that freedom lost without any question of a second ballot: "So parents, you can have the consolation of a vote on school uniform if you like—but we're taking back your school." By contrast, our strategy has worked. The facts clearly demonstrate that standards have been rising. That is corroborated by HMCI.
  To sum up, the Government have invested money in education: 48 per cent. more, in real terms, per pupil, since we took office. We have allowed schools to make the best use of that investment, through LMS, through GM status and in early years education funding; and we

  1081
  have ensured that schools will make the best use of the investment: through inspection and through greater parental choice, much as that discomfits Opposition Members.
  The result has been rising standards across education—a record of which any Government would be justly proud. I therefore support the amendment and oppose the main motion.
  8.15 pm
  Ms Estelle Morris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on persuading his party to give an Opposition day to the subject of education. I notice that the motion is couched mainly in terms of investment, which is of course important, but I want to start by talking about what I might crudely term output—the word the Minister used.
  I recognise, as did the Minister, the many achievements of our young people, schools and teachers; and I add my congratulations to the others offered to the Phoenix school in Hammersmith. I also congratulate the eight schools described in the Ofsted report as having been taken out of "special measures" over the past 12 months. That is a major achievement—a great recognition of their efforts. We wish them even greater success in the future.
  I do not think that there is any doubt that our young people who achieve at the highest level are comparable with those anywhere else in the world; yet, over the past 18 years the Government have failed to tackle the continuing and growing problem of under-achievement. The result is that, as we approach the millennium, we are failing to reach even the modest targets that we have set ourselves as a nation.
  Let us look at the evidence. This year's results showed that about 45 per cent. of pupils gained five or more GCSE passes at grade C and above. That falls well below the target of 55 per cent. of young people achieving that much by the year 2000. The proportion of young people gaining advanced-level qualifications is smaller in the UK than it is in our competitor nations: 80 per cent. of young people in Japan qualify to university entrance level, and in Germany, 75 per cent. of 25 to 28-year-olds have an advanced-level qualification. A smaller proportion of our population qualifies at level two or above in vocational skills than in countries that compete with us.
  This under-achievement at 16 and into adulthood must be a cause for concern, but perhaps of greater concern is the fact that, lower down the age range in the years of compulsory school, it looks as though we are not likely to catch up with our competitors before 2000 or even beyond it. Yesterday's Ofsted report pointed out that, in the schools inspected this year, literacy rates at key stage 1 were lower than they were in the schools inspected last year. I agree that the sample of schools was different, but we tend to draw conclusions from chief inspector's reports.
  We have known for a while that the number of 11-year-olds not achieving the literacy skills that could be expected of them is above 40 per cent. It is thus not surprising that among 16-year-olds there is still a long tail of under-achievement. One in 12 young people did not gain a single GCSE pass in last year's examinations—the figures for boys are worse than for girls. So the problem
  1082
  we face amounts to a pattern of poor literacy at seven and 11, no examination passes at 16, and a failure to stay in education and training beyond the years of compulsory schooling.
  I do not want to take away from pupils' excellence and achievements or from the percentage rise in last year's GCSE passes, but, as a country, we have a cultural problem because the divide between achievers and under-achievers is greater than in other countries. That must be a great concern. Let us encourage excellence, and let us look for it in every child and in every school. But that excellence must include higher attainment levels for all pupils and all young people. In recent years, the divide between achievers and under-achievers has grown so much that it is becoming not only an educational problem but a social problem.
  In this country we have somehow to create a culture in which young people know that to earn they have to learn. To achieve that, however, we will need a Government who understand that we must invest to succeed. I do not think that money is the answer to all our difficulties in the education service, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Bath or any Opposition Member thinks or would suggest that, but money is important, and it is a crucial element. We have a Government who claim, on the one hand, that money is not important; but, on the other, they try to claim credit for increasing expenditure. They are wrong on both counts. Yes, money is important; and, no, the Government have not increased expenditure in recent years.
  The hon. Member for Bath quoted some figures from the Library, according to which, since 1992–93, the standard spending assessment has fallen in real terms in both the primary and, more particularly, in the secondary sector. That is what the officials say; but the Government claim otherwise. This financial year, Ministers claim to have invested an additional £878 million in schools. They also said that they were making available an extra 4.5 per cent. In the overall settlement for local authorities, however, there was no real increase over the previous year.
  The truth is that, if local authorities managed to protect or increase their education budget this year, as many did, they did so at the expense of other services. They juggled the money in the bank, but the money in the bank did not increase by one jot.
  Mr. David Rendel: Is the hon. Lady aware—I learned of it today, on a visit to the Wirral—that, next year, Labour-controlled Wirral council is planning an education cut of £1.2 million, but that, if it chose to, it could spend that money? It is planning a budget for next year which, unlike those of most authorities, will be £4 million under cap.
  Ms Morris: The Liberal Democrats are beginning to sound a little like the party in government, because, when they attempt to fight Labour at the local level, they manage to find imagined money in the budget to spend on education. They do exactly the same thing in Birmingham. I do not know the exact breakdown of expenditure in Wirral, South, although I thought that there was an agreement between the hon. Member for Bath, who leads on education for the Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Front Bench that there is no extra money for

  1083
  education. I cannot imagine how on earth the hon. Member for Newbury supposes that Wirral, South has somehow—above and beyond every other local education authority in the United Kingdom—managed to make available extra money, unless it has something to do with a forthcoming parliamentary by-election.
  This year the Government have tried the same trick on expenditure as they tried last year. They claimed in the Budget that an extra £830 million would be made available for education—but where is it? Where is the cash? Where is the money? When Ministers talk about an increase, they are not talking about real pounds and pence or about real money; they are talking about the standard spending assessment, which is the amount that they think that local authorities should spend. So it is all words. It is not cash, but words, and it is certainly not an increase in grant. It is a con trick. It is also a rather silly con trick, because, from current budgets, councils would have to cut spending by £41 per pupil if they were to spend at the level advised by the Government.
  So there we have it there is no extra 4.5 per cent. for education next financial year, and local authority associations have estimated that the grant appears set to rise, in real terms, by as little as 0.5 per cent. I do not know whether Ministers believe what they say about expenditure, but I can assure them that no one in the real world believes a word they say about increased education expenditure.
  Parents do not believe the Government, because they can see class sizes rising. In the past four years, the percentage of children in classes of more than 30 pupils has risen from 24.9 per cent. to 31 per cent. Teachers do not believe that there is an increase in expenditure, because they know that there is comparatively less money for books and equipment. Local governments do not believe that there is more money for education expenditure, because they know that there is less money for capital expenditure and repairs.
  What about the great Conservative conversion to nursery education and the great flagship policy—the "clear blue water"—of nursery vouchers? The scheme has not even got off the ground, and £56 million has already been cut from the Budget. The same difficulties exist in further education.
  Mr. Robin Squire: After the hon. Lady's repeated comments, I should say that the figures that she has quoted are the result of updated estimates on four-year-olds. Not a single parent will be denied their voucher or the opportunity to use it.
  Ms Morris: They may not be denied their voucher, but they will be denied their place, and I think that they will be far more concerned about places than about vouchers. I am always staggered that the number of four-year-olds changes as they change from being three years old to four years old. I do not know where they have all come from—perhaps they are born rather late in life. However, if the Minister has managed to secure sufficient places for four-year-olds within the current Budget, why did he not use £50 million to extend nursery provision to three-year-olds rather than cutting it from the Budget?
  Mr. Squire: The simple answer—although I do not think that the hon. Lady will discover it for herself in the
  1084
  next few years—is that, when the Government present their Budget each year, they make their best estimates for the subsequent two years. Those estimates are invariably updated, in many ways. That figure is simply one example, which she has latched on to.
  Ms Morris: I am still staggered to think where all the four-year-olds have gone to. However, the Minister did not answer the question that I asked. As he has been able to cost the policy at less money, perhaps his commitment to nursery education would be more credible if he had transferred that money to expanding nursery provision for three-year-olds.
  Further education has been badly treated in recent weeks. It has been thrown into confusion and chaos by the Government's refusal to meet the Further Education Funding Council's claim for demand-led student enrolments beyond the end of last term. No commitment will be made to fund the demand-led element in the remainder of this year, or in 1997–98. That is a clear breach of promise. Those enrolments have been used to stimulate growth in further education, and at comparatively low cost. However, now the Government refuse to pay, and thousands of students across the country are likely to be affected.
  Mr. David Congdon: I am intrigued by this passage on funding, because presumably—if the hon. Lady is upset about it—she will make a spending pledge to make that funding available, which she says is not there.
  Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating comments that I will make later in my speech. Perhaps he will wait, and I will make those comments.
  Ministers have not only failed to invest sufficiently in education, but they have wasted some of the resources that they have spent. Millions of pounds were wasted because the Government got the national curriculum wrong; £220 million has been spent on propping up the assisted places scheme; £3 million has been wasted on advertising the nursery voucher scheme; and £10 million has been wasted on administering that scheme. Millions of pounds have been spent on wrong priorities or on waste, and that money could have been spent on raising standards for children in our schools.
  We need to invest more money in our education service—but we need more than money: we need to invest in people. We need to ensure at that all our head teachers have appropriate qualifications so that schools get the leadership that they need and deserve. We need to invest in our children under five, so that they get the benefit of nursery education. We need to concentrate and target early literacy, so that children do not transfer to secondary schools without the levels of literacy necessary to cope with a secondary school curriculum.
  The hon. Member for Bath was honest enough to say that his party wishes to increase income tax by 1p to cover increased spending plans. The only problem with that is that it is the Liberal Democrats' solution to everything. They make more uncosted pledges than the Home Secretary has court judgments against him. Education, health, you name it—they put a penny on income tax to pay for it. In fact, the cost of some of their major pledges would mean increasing income tax by 5p in the pound.

  1085
  Were the Liberal Democrats ever in a position to set the level of taxation, they might reflect that it would be wholly irresponsible to increase income tax by that amount.
  Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Lady believe that it would be irresponsible to increase it by just 1p?
  Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman cannot change his policy in an intervention—[Interruption.] But then again, he is a Liberal Democrat. His party's policy is to increase income tax not by lp but by 5p in the pound. If we are to have a bargain basement in which I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman to drop his proposed income tax increase by 4p, let him produce new policy documents so that we can have another debate. But I am happy to argue with the Liberal Democrats about their costings and their commitment to increase taxes by 5p in the pound.
  The hon. Member for Bath knows that people are taxed more heavily now than in 1979, and that 22 new taxes in the lifetime of this Government is enough. To them, however, he proposes to add a Lib-Dem special tax. That is easy to say, but when people are already reeling from the Tory tax increases of the past five years, it does not make sense to suggest another. The public would not buy it.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's wish for more resources to be spent on priorities on which I suspect he and I agree, but the first course of action must be to use the existing money, and to use it more wisely. Switching money from the assisted places scheme and using it to reduce class sizes to no more than 30 for five and seven-year-olds will give a better start to thousands of primary school children. By using the money spent on nursery voucher bureaucracy, we can make sure—this is the Government's own costing—that every four-year-old has a pre-school place. By taxing the excessive profits of the privatised utilities, we can provide employment and training to 250,000 young people who are currently unemployed and claiming benefit.
  We will invest in people by making sure that all heads are appropriately qualified; we will invest in school buildings by bringing together the public and private sectors; we will invest in the under-fives and in the primary years; we will invest in out-of-school learning and in education and training—
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Where will the money come from?
  Ms Morris: I have just explained where it will come from.
  We can make a difference by changing priorities and cutting waste. Over the lifetime of a Parliament, we will make a further difference by getting people back to work and reinvesting the money that is currently paid in benefits.
  Mr. Nigel Evans rose—
  Ms Morris: I have given way several times already and I am keen to make progress. I have nearly finished, so I will not give way now.
  1086
  The Government insult people by pretending that they have invested more in education. The Liberal Democrats make extravagant, uncosted promises in the sure and certain knowledge that they will not be called on to implement them. What we need, however, is a switch in resources to benefit the many, not the few, and to create an economy that uses the skills and talents of our people and gets everyone off benefit and back to work. That is what will make the difference in education standards, and it is exactly what a Labour Government will do.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: I rise to speak a few minutes earlier than I had expected as I was waiting for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) to say what Labour party policy was. However, like my hon. Friend the Minister, she dealt very effectively with the Liberal Democrat policy of putting an extra 1p on income tax. It is worth pointing out in passing that the justification for the tartan tax in Scotland is extra expenditure on education. In other words, under the Liberal Democrats, the poor Scots would pay twice as much as the English and Welsh.
  Mr. John Marshall: Three times as much.
  Mr. Stewart: Almost certainly, but I wish to give the Liberal Democrats the benefit of the doubt on this point.
  It has rightly been said that education standards are not dependent on money alone—that is common ground between the parties—but it is worth noting some of the figures for Scotland as well as those south of the border.
  Between the period just before the Conservatives came to power and 1993–94—the last year for which the figures are available—expenditure per primary pupil in Scotland rose in real terms by 50 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's commitment to improving standards, although people such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) might argue otherwise. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the levels of achievement in England and Wales. In Scotland, the comparable figure is three or more highers. The percentage of pupils obtaining that number rose from 18 per cent. in 1979–80 to 29 per cent. recently. That is proof of a real improvement in standards under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Maxton: Why is it that any improvements in education in Scotland are down to this Government even though education in Scotland is run almost entirely by Labour-controlled authorities? When any blame comes to be apportioned, it rests on those authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more even-handed?
  Mr. Stewart: On education matters, I always listen to an expert such as the hon. Gentleman, especially as, earlier in his career, he exercised his choice to teach in a Scottish school in the private sector. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's party wishes to deny many parents in Scotland the ability to choose to send their children to such a school.
  The Government have set an effective framework within which those who deliver education in Scotland and across the country are able to improve standards. I wish

  1087
  to tackle the three controversial aspects of education policy in Scotland: total expenditure, the assisted places scheme, and nursery vouchers.
  From the hon. Member for Yardley we heard cries about the lack of expenditure and the need for more investment. On hearing those cries, it is not unreasonable for people to say, "Well, the Labour party claims that it will be in government in a few weeks' time; what would it do about expenditure?" I asked that question on Monday in Selkirk at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee. I asked whether a Labour Government would increase the aggregate external finance or the capping limits or do something about distribution, as they are the only options. I received no answer.
  The question has been asked not only by Tories but by teachers and local authorities across the country. Perhaps the answer has wended its way to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)? Has Labour told him what it would do? Answer comes there none.
  Reference was rightly made to the assisted places scheme. The hon. Member for Yardley suggested that abolishing the scheme would in itself provide the resources for nirvana in education. Of course, the Labour party is against the assisted places scheme because it provides choice. Labour was also against the right-to-buy scheme for council house tenants. The scheme works in Scotland. Let me give the House an example of a Glasgow boy whose mother worked as a domestic cleaner. He has represented Scottish schools in sport. He got six highers and two A-levels. He is studying law and French at university. That outstanding achievement was made possible by the assisted places scheme. It is important to retain and develop such opportunities.
  Labour Members have talked about phasing out the assisted places scheme and the resources that that would release for reducing class sizes. Of course, reducing class sizes does not guarantee an improved education. As the House knows, classes in the London borough of Islington are smaller than at the London Oratory. Abolishing the assisted places scheme—I am indebted to the Scottish National party for this analysis, which has not been challenged by the Labour party—would provide less than one thousandth of Scotland's total education expenditure, corresponding to about one teacher per school. Leaving aside the merits of the scheme and the philosophy, the idea that abolition would release resources that would enable anything significant to be done for the rest of Scottish education or for education south of the border is nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Yardley referred to nursery education vouchers. The position in my constituency is clear. Under Labour-held Strathclyde regional council, we were deprived of resources. There was a huge unmet demand for nursery education in my constituency. It is now a pilot area for the vouchers, and everyone who wants a nursery place has one.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in danger of appearing in "The Guinness Book of Records". He has introduced a major Government initiative in my constituency and no one has complained. Everyone is happy. I hope that any nonsense peddled by the Opposition parties that the scheme does not work will be firmly sat on. It works in practice. It has brought about
  1088
  an increase in local authority provision, in private provision and in voluntary provision in my constituency. The authority is Labour-held, but the scheme works.
  My constituents would like to know what would happen if there were a Labour Government. I have asked on many occasions and there has been no answer. What would a Labour Government do? Labour Front Benchers told us on Monday at the Scottish Grand Committee that "in the medium term" there would be places for all four-year-olds. What about the short term? There are nursery education places now under the Conservatives for everyone in my constituency who wants one, but Labour would abolish the scheme. Ordinary people in Eastwood want to know what would happen. The Labour party cannot get away with ignoring the detailed questions while claiming to be an alternative Government.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) sat down without any real ending to his speech, so I was taken slightly by surprise. I do not intend to follow his arguments, except to say that I know his constituency and in my view it was relatively easy to introduce the nursery voucher scheme there. In other parts of Scotland, particularly rural areas, people will be wandering round with a voucher in hand, but no nursery to spend it in. That will not give four-year-olds the necessary nursery provision. Money must be spent in specific areas, to ensure that nursery schools are available.
  I do not want to spend much time talking about what is happening in Glasgow, because I know that this will be an English-dominated debate, even though the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), is winding up and the hon. Member for Eastwood has just spoken. I was proud to be part of the recent 20,000-strong demonstration of teachers, parents, local government workers and Members of Parliament in Glasgow against the cuts in education that are happening not just in Glasgow but throughout Scotland. They are real cuts. I was talking to teachers on that demonstration who have already been given their notice of redundancy, which is a statutory right, by the local authority, because it has no choice but to reduce the number of teachers.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): When the hon. Gentleman intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), he asked for credit to be given to Labour local authorities. Will he now give the same credit to those Labour local authorities? It is Labour local authorities that are making cuts in education. The Conservative Government have passed on more money for education for next year than last year. If the hon. Gentleman wants Labour authorities to get the credit, they must also take the stick when they make the cuts.
  Mr. Maxton: As I tried to say this afternoon during Scottish questions, the local elected councillors are not alone in saying that there is a crisis in education in Scotland—they are joined by the director of education, his deputy and the head teachers. Everyone involved in running education in Glasgow is telling us that there is insufficient money. The Minister may be calling them all

  1089
  liars, but I know whom the people of Glasgow will believe when the election comes. They know that there has been a real-terms cut in the money for education in Glasgow.
  However, that is not the main point of my speech. I have put on record my feelings about what is happening to education in Glasgow. What depresses me—it depressed me when I chaired the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday in Selkirk; it depressed me when we considered education during the debate on the Loyal Address last November; and it depresses me tonight—is how little attention is paid to new technology in education.
  I am the fifth Member to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) mentioned the idea of a computer for every child. I thought, "Good, at last someone will talk about new technology in education." But that was it. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has now disappeared, made passing reference to the inspector's report on information technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) did not mention the subject, and neither did the hon. Member for Eastwood.
  In the rest of the world, a learning and information revolution is taking place, of which we in education seem unaware and which we are ignoring completely. No office—not even those of most Members of Parliament, who are not the most technologically minded people in the world—lacks a computer. Our researchers use them; the Table Office uses them; the Department of the Serjeant at Arms uses them; every solicitor's office uses them; and in the supermarket, every item that is bought is scanned, not just to show the price on the till, but to help with stock control by telling the supermarket that it has to order more produce.
  The world is becoming computerised, but when I went into a school in my constituency recently to take a modern studies class, the classroom could have been the same one that I sat in when I was at school, or one that I went into in the 1970s, when I was in teacher training, or one that I taught in at a school—yes, a private school—in Glasgow. There was one 1980s BBC computer at the back. Of course, upstairs there was a computer room with up-to-date networked computers, but computing is considered a separate subject. It is still taught as if it were somehow different from everything else. Surely, in this day and age, it is time that we appreciated that the computer is not separate from the rest of education. It should be as much a tool for every child as books, pens or any other learning device.
  Mr. James Wallace: I shall be interested in the hon. Gentleman's answer to my question, as he is an educationist. Earlier today, I was discussing a similar matter with an educationist, who drew my attention to a table showing that the United Kingdom was about three quarters of the way down the list in mathematics and science, yet we were virtually at the top in respect of computer provision per child. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more computers should be provided. Perhaps he can explain the reason for that imbalance.
  Mr. Maxton: I also fail to understand that. A recent "Newsnight" programme covered education in Minnesota.
  1090
  It was not about computers, but was about the organisation of schools in Minnesota. Every shot showed children sitting at computers. They were not learning about computers, but using them to learn. We need a major shift in education, from learning about computers to using them to learn. Unless we do that, we shall be way behind other countries.
  There are several reasons why we need a simple education policy—a computer on every child's desk within the next five years. First, we need it as a country. The United Kingdom will fall behind economically if we do not have a computer-literate population that understands computers—in every walk of life.
  Secondly, for the first time ever, we could switch our education system from one where the teacher teaches, to one where children learn. Children would be able to learn at their own speed, depending on their ability. As anyone who teaches knows, that does not happen in the classroom. When one teaches a class of 30 kids, one has to aim at the norm. Bright pupils fall behind and so do poorer ones, because none of them is getting what is needed. With a computer-led system, at last children could learn at their own pace. If they could not do something, they could try again. Brighter children could move ahead faster, learning more and developing at their own speed. Surely that is what is required.
  Such a system would also help children with learning difficulties. My son is dyslexic and it would have made a great difference to him to have a voice-activated computer, so that he did not have to worry about spelling or writing. It would have been a great boon and he would have done so much better at school if he had not had to toil with what I would term the mechanics and the tools of learning rather than learning itself.
  Equally, such an approach would be a great incentive to children and would solve some of, but not all, the problems of discipline and truancy in schools. The evidence in the States, particularly in Los Angeles, where universities have adopted sink schools and given every child a computer, is that truancy rates have fallen and the indiscipline problem has almost disappeared. Kids want to go to school.
  There are three reasons why children learn in school. First, parents give them the incentive and motivation to learn. Secondly, in the 1950s and 1960s, we could all get jobs when we left school, so the motivation was to do well and get a better job. Thirdly, education can be made into something that children actually want. They want to go to school because they want to learn. Surely that is what education ought to be about. For the first time, we can achieve that by giving children computers.
  What about the cost? I have done a quick sum in respect of Scotland. I appreciate that it refers only to Scotland. A new wave of computers is coming in the next few months. They will be linked to a network. It will not be necessary to buy big boxes costing £2,000 or £3,000; the computers will be in the computer stores for £250 each. There are 750,000 pupils in Scotland, so it would cost £187 million to provide each pupil with a computer. That is 8 per cent. of the total Scottish education budget. Of course, if we were buying 750,000 computers, the price would be considerably less. If we could do it at half price, it would cost 4 per cent. of the total education budget in Scotland. It would be a one-off purchase as the computers do not need upgrading; the upgrading is done at source.

  1091
  I know that some of my colleagues think that I am obsessive about new technology. Sometimes it seems to me that I am the only person in the House who is prepared to stand up and talk about what really matters in education—children learning—and how we can best improve the way in which they learn. I feel that that can be achieved by ensuring that everyone has access to modern technology.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on the timing of today's debate, which enables us to draw attention to the report of the chief inspector of schools, which has shown that more lessons are good, there are fewer poor teachers and head teachers and there has been a significant improvement in standards in the past 12 months.
  Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bath and the frequency with which he spent that famous penny, I could only surmise that he must be rather incontinent. Listening to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), I decided that the Brown straitjacket did not fit her either. She seemed to want to spend the £5 million saving from the phasing out of the assisted places scheme many times over.
  Ms Estelle Morris: Just once.
  Mr. Marshall: No, many times over.
  As the House knows, I have twice introduced Adjournment debates over the past 10 months on standards in education, and I make no apology for concentrating on that subject again. Education is the escalator of opportunity, which provides poor children from inner cities and children living in squalor on some of our rundown council estates with the chance to escape from that background and make full use of their skills and opportunities.
  One of the tragedies in the United Kingdom is the way in which local education authorities, such as the late and unlamented Inner London education authority and Islington council, have failed entire generations of children. They have condemned them to life in squalor because they have not allowed them to leave school with a full and complete education. That is a scandal. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is not here in sackcloth and ashes to apologise for her record as leader of Islington council.
  I have expressed my fear in many speeches that standards have dropped over the past 30 years. If we look for the reasons, we can see them. They include the abolition of many grammar schools, the decline of traditional teaching methods, the refusal to stream and set in comprehensive schools, and calculators taking the place of mental arithmetic. Some schools do not believe in homework. I met a headmistress who said that she did not believe in setting homework, because it was unfair on the children who were not given it, as they did not have the opportunity to benefit from it.
  Ms Estelle Morris: Why then does the hon. Gentleman not support homework for everyone, which is the Labour party's policy?
  Mr. Marshall: Everyone should believe in homework.
  Ms Morris rose—
  Mr. Marshall: I have only a few minutes, so I am not giving way.
  1092
  We have seen a decline in discipline as a result of the abolition of corporal punishment We need a drastic rethink in the way in which some of our comprehensive schools work, because they have failed many of the bright pupils and certainly many of the not-so-bright pupils, who want not necessarily an academic education, but an education that will fit them for life outside school.
  I always remember going to a school in Israel, where children were being taught hairdressing and how to become a motor mechanic. The head of the school said, "You may wonder why we are teaching those skills, but we can guarantee that every child who leaves this school will have a job," and pointed out that nearly all the small garages in Jerusalem were owned by graduates of the school. We fail some of the less bright children by saying that they need an academic education, when in fact a practical education would be much more suitable.
  It is important to emphasise the role of grant-maintained schools, which have had a tremendous record in increasing staffing and spending on books and teaching equipment, and in widening the curriculum on offer. Hendon school, one of the first grant-maintained schools in London, has become a language academy and now offers a much wider choice to its pupils. Indeed. 60 per cent. of schools have improved their position in the league tables since they became grant-maintained. The reason why they have done so is that, instead of spending 12 per cent. of their budgets on administration, as local authority schools do, they spend only 6 per cent. Less administration is good for education. That is where grant-maintained schools have succeeded and local authority schools have failed.
  Why is the Labour party opposed to such schools? It is because it puts dogma before democracy and socialism before standards. The sheer hypocrisy of the Labour party sticks in the gullet of the people of this country. The leader of the Labour party sends his children away from Islington to a grant-maintained school, yet seeks to deny that freedom to others. Those are double standards. When one hears the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) say that the education of Southwark local education authority is suitable for her constituents but not for herself and her children, one believes that double standards are alive and kicking in the Labour party today.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is currently considering applications from three schools in my constituency for grant-maintained status: from Pardes House, Menorah Foundation and Torah Teminah, all of which teach the children of many parents in my constituency. I hope that he will listen to what I say and grant those applications in the very near future. I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to look favourably on an application for a voluntary aided school in Hertsmere that is sponsored by the most excellent and go-ahead Rabbi Plancey.
  I am surprised at the Labour party's opposition to the assisted places scheme. I suppose that one needs only to have a party led by an old Fettesian to prevent poor children enjoying the same benefits as he did. It is surely wrong that bright children of low-income parents should be denied the opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition was given by his parents. I suppose that that is called socialism today, but most of us call it humbug and hypocrisy of the worst sort.

  1093
  We have seen the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) rush around the Wirral saying that the Labour party is interested in standards. Let him visit Wirral grammar school again and remind those there that the only reason why it is still a grammar school is that my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher saved grammar schools in 1979. If she had lost the election that year, there would not be a grammar school left in the country for the Conservative party to defend. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say now about standards to the parents of Wirral, South, he should say that Labour local authority after Labour local authority has shown itself to be quite indifferent to standards.
  There is only one party committed to standards, and that is the Conservative party. Every measure that the Government have introduced to improve standards has been opposed by both main Opposition parties. The Opposition prattle on about spending more money, but have done nothing to improve education standards one jot or tittle.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: How distant all the talk of grammar schools, opting out and grant-maintained schools seems to the majority of my constituents. I live in and represent a constituency in which the schools, for the most part, went comprehensive under a Conservative Government and a then Conservative-controlled local authority. There is only one grant-maintained school in the entire constituency, and that became grant-maintained because the Labour-controlled county council threatened to close it. In other schools where the grant-maintained issue has been raised, the proposal has been heavily defeated. The assisted places scheme, too, has a limited impact in the area, and what the vast majority of parents want to know is how the schools to which they send their children can be enabled to do an adequate job.
  I shall talk about the situation in Northumberland in particular because, as the Minister will be aware from his meeting earlier today and from many other representations, people are greatly concerned about it. However much he may disagree with them on the implications of the figures, he must know how great that concern is.
  I must declare an interest, in that my wife is employed by Northumberland education authority as a teacher, and both my children are in further education in Northumberland, having received the whole of their previous education in the county's schools.
  Northumberland has particular difficulties, because it is such a thinly populated county. It has the smallest population, yet the largest area, of any mainland county in England. That creates serious problems, because of the number of schools that need to be maintained in remoter communities and the transport costs of getting children to school, especially if some schools are closed as an economy measure.
  Northumberland has also had problems with education settlements over the years. It lost about £7 million when the standard spending assessment replaced the previous scheme of education funding. The authority was especially disadvantaged by two factors.
  1094
  First, the additional educational needs factor cost the county £5 million. It was a big factor in the standard spending assessment formula, and reflected needs different from the main needs in Northumberland. For example, it stressed needs connected with ethnic minorities, but not those connected with sparsity or with some of the social problems of the county.
  Secondly, the area cost adjustment was increased substantially when the SSAs were introduced, and that affected Northumberland badly, too. The problem has continued, and as a result there have been cuts year after year in Northumberland schools and in the overall education budget. The cuts have been mitigated to some extent by making savings in other parts of the county's budget and in central education administration costs, and by drawing on reserves. But one cannot go on drawing on reserves, as has happened in recent years.
  The way in which the Government discuss the figures has a fairyland quality. They talk about additional money, when all they mean is permission for local authorities to spend more, whether through their SSAs or their capping figures. They refer to substantial increases this year compared with last year, although last year's figure was so much higher than the SSA that this year's "increase" does not even completely cover it.
  That is a factor common to many local authorities. Were the authority to spend next year what the Government now, with a great flourish, say that it can spend, it would be spending only what it actually spent in the current year. That has been the problem for Northumberland, as for several other authorities, and, for the reasons that I have given, it has been especially acute there.
  Far from providing for a 3.4 per cent. increase, Northumberland's SSA for the coming year represents no more than current spending. The cap allows an increase of only 2.4 per cent., whereas even a standstill budget would have required 5 per cent. That means a £10 million gap. So schools face a possible 2.5 per cent. budget cut, and central services a much bigger one.
  Year on year, the county has drawn heavily on central services for cuts, to try to protect school budgets.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I understand the problems that Northumberland faces because of its sparsity, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, nevertheless, the county has the highest SSA, and the highest capping level, per head of population of any shire county? It gets the largest grant per head of population of any shire county, too.
  There might be greater sympathy for Northumberland county council if it were not, for example, wasting £1 million fighting the Army, and wanting to hold a public inquiry into the plans for Otterburn training area. If it had withdrawn its objections, it could have saved £1 million, which would have meant much more money for schools.
  Mr. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to his constituents in Ponteland his view that they cannot have a public inquiry into the substantial increase in traffic through the town, which they are concerned about, because to do so would impair the education budget. That is not the way in which we are supposed to run the local government system.

  1095
  Public inquiries into major planning decisions are held if there are legitimate objections and matters of concern that have not been resolved by negotiation beforehand. The county should not be told that it has to choose either education or democracy in planning but cannot have both. That is not the way in which the local government system is run.
  The hon. Member for Hexham must be well aware that the Conservatives on the county council share the concern about the current and previous settlements, and have been involved in regular representations to Ministers on the issue.
  The Secretary of State wrote to me before Christmas;
  "Northumberland does not get as much as some other authorities, because it does not serve an area of high socio-economic deprivation and it is not a high cost area in which to work."
  I think that she is wrong on both counts. There are areas of very high deprivation in Northumberland, some of which are in my constituency. Some of the wards in Berwick and Alnwick have the highest socio-economic deprivation in the county, and rate high by national standards. It is also a high-cost area in which to run an education system because of the high cost of sparsity, involving the school size issues and transport costs that I have mentioned.
  Mr. Robin Squire: These are well-trodden paths, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to put it on record that sparsity is the only element within the entire SSA system which includes what I think is called a judgmental uplift—in other words, a greater value is applied to it than the evidence alone would suggest was justified. That, in part, recognises the sort of difficulties that he is outlining.
  Mr. Beith: We could get into a complex statistical argument about whether there is such a thing as super-sparsity, and whether the sparsity factor fails to reflect the extent of sparsity in Northumberland. Sparsity is a significant problem in the education system in Northumberland. It makes it difficult for the authority to meet some of the obligations that the Department seeks to impose on it in terms of reducing surplus places, for example. Normally, the surplus places in a remote rural school cannot be removed without taking the school away from the area altogether.
  The end results of the budget cuts that we have had in recent years—and which we look likely to face this year—are serious for the schools. There will be cuts in staff numbers, and senior staff will be retired to enable the recruitment of cheaper, more junior staff.
  Much of the pressure which fuels the problem of early retirement that the Secretary of State is seeking to address—in an unsatisfactory way, in my opinion, although they need to be addressed—arises because schools cannot afford their present staff structure, and have too many good experienced teachers. The schools have to let some of those teachers go by early retirement so as to get people straight out of college who are lower on the salary scale.
  When new appointments are made, governing bodies have to look at staff from the standpoint of what they will cost. It is not a case of whether this is the right person to fill the particular vacancy, but whether this
  1096
  is a cheaper teacher—that is to say, someone at the bottom of the salary scale. That cannot be good for the schools.
  In addition, spending on books, equipment and maintenance is being abandoned. Educationally important activities are being curtailed, and there is an excessive dependence on business sponsorship and parents for the basic essentials. Clearly, the involvement of parents in fund raising is enormously valuable, and we want to encourage it by giving charitable status to schools—such as the private sector already enjoys. But when that becomes necessary for the basic essentials in schools, something has gone wrong with the funding system. All of this has gone on year after year, and schools as well as authorities have drawn on their reserves.
  Northumberland is seeking to make bigger cuts in its central education expenditure to try to protect the schools budget, but the threat is significant. Facilities such as Ford Castle in my constituency—which provides residential environmental education—are now threatened. I hope that there will be a way around this, so that the institution can be floated off. But that will work only if schools can continue to make use of the facilities it provides. It would be a failure if the very facilities that it provides cannot be used by schools in the future, and if a new system for running it cannot be set up with reasonable starting finance.
  The learning support team for first schools provided by Northumberland is one of the items that may be removed entirely under the current cuts. Small schools cannot expect to have all the expertise required for special needs purposes, and the support provided by this team is enormously valuable in those schools. To quote St. John's Roman Catholic first school in Alnwick:
  "Prior to our recent inspection by OFSTED invaluable advice and support had been given to the staff and, as a result, this was recognised in the report for the provision of SEN pupils in the school. For some schools post inspection assistance has also been given. This help can only lead to more successful schools in the authority who are working with the 'Code of Practice for Special Education Needs' outlined by the LEA, which has been approved by OFSTED. However, if such important services are not maintained, then working with the 'Code of Practice' becomes increasingly difficult."
  In addition to those problems, we have the funding problems in further education, to which hon. Members have referred. Kirkley Hall college, which many of my constituents, including my son, attend, has been badly hit by what has happened over the demand-led element, which was introduced to encourage colleges to grow on a marginal cost basis, improving efficiency and increasing the number of students benefiting. The FE sector was led to believe that DLE funding was uncapped.
  Now colleges have been told that they are unlikely to get that funding even for the spring and summer terms this year. That places them in an impossible position. In contractual and staff terms, they planned to provide training services, for which they will not now be funded. That poses severe dangers to the further education of many of my constituents.
  I argue for an improved system of distributing funds in education, but I also strongly support the case for additional funding made by my hon. Friend the Member

  1097
  for Bath (Mr. Foster). I can tell the Labour Members who are present that the argument that we have been putting forward has been supported by the Labour party in Northumberland. The Labour-controlled county council passed a resolution just before the Budget statement, which said:
  "this County Council believes that safeguarding the quality of the Education and Community Care services should take priority over tax cuts in the forthcoming national Budget, and urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to protect these services by … investing at least the equivalent of 1p on income tax for Education".
  Labour county councillors voted for that. Labour Members should therefore support our motion tonight.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. David Congdon: When the debate started, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) rightly outlined some of the principles or objectives of education in terms of wanting to ensure that all youngsters who came out of education were valued, respected and able to contribute to our society in its various forms. All parties would, in general, echo those principles. We all recognise the need for a well-educated work force.
  A lot has been said this evening about the need for high standards in education. I would certainly agree, as would all hon. Members, I am sure. The problem is that higher standards in education cannot merely be wished. They have to be achieved by having the measures in force that will enable those standards to be delivered. As the Ofsted inspectors' report outlined, the challenge is to ensure that all schools come up to the level of the best, and deliver a first-class education for the children in them.
  There are too many poor lessons—too many lessons in which teachers are unprepared and unsure of what they are trying to achieve. The real task is to ensure that those lessons are improved. Indeed, if teachers do not deliver over a certain period, they should be rooted out of the profession. No one should shy away from that. Children get only one chance in education.
  It is crucial that we ask why, in the 1950s, our inner-city schools were apparently able to achieve a great deal more for some of the children of lower ability than similar schools today. Was it to do with the organisation, particularly in primary schools? Was it to do with the teaching methods used? We do not hear much of that sort of talk. We heard nothing about the Leeds report, which showed how much time was wasted in primary schools with children sitting around in clusters trying to work out what to do in their lessons. We have all visited primary classes and seen evidence of far too much noise, and a lack of purposeful work.
  Once and for all, we need to nail the excuse that any failure in education is to do with funding, which appears to be the thesis of both Opposition parties. If that were the case, why was education able to deliver as much as it did in the 1950s?
  My hon. Friend the Minister was right to mention the increase in funding per pupil since 1978–79 of about 50 per cent. in real terms. It is also significant,
  1098
  although it is not often appreciated, even by hon. Members, that, in the coming years, we as a nation will spend £38 billion on education. I mention that because I was amazed a couple of weeks ago to hear a couple of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen alleging that this country now spent more on unemployment than on education.
  I thought about that, and was sure that it could not be right. I now realise what trap they had fallen into: they had looked at the Red Book and seen only what central Government spend on education, without taking into account the vast amounts spent by local education authorities, which of course appear on another page. Let us nail that once and for all. We spend £38 billion a year on education, and that spending has reached 5.2 per cent. of gross domestic product. I welcome that.
  The evidence from schools throughout the country is that there is no correlation whatever between spending and results. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned Islington—a favourite borough these days—with its high expenditure and poor results. There are many other examples. There were problems at Hackney Downs school, but investigations showed that there was one teacher to every eight pupils there; that was hardly a funding problem.
  We have heard many arguments about standard spending assessments. I served on the local education authority for most of my 16 years on Croydon council. It is fair to say that, when considering spending on particular services, most council committees consider the needs, rather than simply deciding to spend to the limit of the SSA; the SSA is completely irrelevant. That canard is mentioned too often in the House. Local authorities do not work like that. Of course the authorities have to take into account their capping limits—that is only right—but we have not heard how much more the Opposition, and especially the Labour party, would make available for education.
  One of the most interesting things about the funding of education in this country is the significant difference in funding per pupil in local authorities throughout the land. There are bound to be differences, because some areas have greater social problems and some schools have more pupils who are statemented, but the scale of difference between some authorities that spend a small amount per pupil and others that spend a large amount is excessive.
  I looked for the lowest and the highest spending in the 1994–95 figures. Gloucester—I apologise for mentioning Gloucester—spent £1,305 per pupil in primary schools; Doncaster spent £1,478; and Lambeth £2,635. It is also interesting to note that results were in directly inverse relation to those figures. The difference of more than £1,300 per pupil between the lowest and highest figure for a typical two-form entry primary school would mean that one of the schools would get just over £500,000 and the other just over £1 million.
  In the longer term, we must consider, as is being done in the case of grant-maintained schools, some form of common funding to iron out some of those disparities, because in my view they are too great. If authorities such as Gloucester can deliver a first-class education on £1,305, why cannot others, especially when they spend £2,635? Funding is a red herring in terms of education.

  1099
  We have heard about all sorts of funny ways in which the money can be spent; it is important to come to grips with standards and to be prepared to use the published results and inspection reports to drive up standards in both primary and secondary schools.
  I look forward eagerly to seeing the results of the standard assessment tasks for 11-year-olds, which I understand are due to be published on a school-by-school basis next month, despite great opposition from teacher unions and educationists. There was opposition throughout the 1980s to the publication of results in any shape or form.
  I strongly believe that it is only by publishing results that we can put a spotlight on low standards and force schools to improve them. I urge the Government to resist any and every attempt to prevent publication of results, which is one of the best ways to drive up standards.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I have an excellent 20-minute speech, and a less good six-minute speech However, beggars cannot be choosers, and not even a penny on income tax will buy me the extra time that I need to make all my points.
  I speak as a former councillor, and chairman of a governing body. I know the excellent work of our teachers and governors, who give up their time to help youngsters and ensure that they get good-quality education. I am grateful for the extra money that the Government have provided, especially in Lancashire. I plead with Labour-controlled Lancashire county council to ensure that all the money gets through to the schools, and that none is retained at the centre for bureaucracy, which does not benefit youngsters.
  I represent a rural area with some good small rural schools. One such school, Brennans endowed school in Slaidburn, is under great pressure. It has two full-time teachers and one part-time teacher. It risks losing the part-time teacher this year, because it is already using its reserves. All the reserves will have gone. We must pay more heed to ensuring that our small rural schools get the resources they need to provide the necessary teaching staff. In such schools, classes must be larger, and they contain more than one age group, so they need extra attention. I hope that we can pay more attention to them.
  Ribble Valley is particularly blessed with excellent schools, whether in the state sector or outside it. I want to discuss the assisted places scheme, so I shall mention one or two schools in the private sector.
  One such school is Queen Elizabeth's grammar school, a quarter of whose youngsters benefit from the scheme. At Stonyhurst college, 35 youngsters are on it. If the scheme was abolished, youngsters from the poorest backgrounds, and others from not so well-off backgrounds, would miss the life chance of going to such schools. We know from the educational standards they attain that they do better than some children from wealthier backgrounds. We must not deny them that life chance.
  My constituency includes Clitheroe royal grammar school, a grant-maintained school with 1,100 youngsters. It was three times over-subscribed this year, because parents want their youngsters to go there, and the youngsters want to go, too. The school would dearly like
  1100
  to expand, but the Opposition parties have denied it that opportunity. I hope that we will address the problem of popular schools that should be allowed to expand. Less popular schools should be punished.
  Parental choice is important, and not only in my constituency. For some reason, Wirral, South has been mentioned during the debate. I shall mention it, too. It has two grammar schools, the Wirral grammar school for girls, a county local education authority school, and the Wirral grammar school for boys, a grant-maintained school.
  Of course, had it been up to the Opposition parties, those schools would have lost their grammar school status years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, it was the intervention of Margaret Thatcher that allowed them to keep their status, by ensuring that parents were consulted. They said, time and again, that they wished to retain that status.
  The future of both schools is now in jeopardy. Already, the chairman of the council's education committee has stated:
  "I hope that in time we'll see the end of selection. There are already murmurings here, and I think it is only a matter of time before this leads to action."
  The writing is on the wall for those schools. I hope that the parents and the electorate of Wirral, South make their voice heard when the by-election is held. It is not just there are good grammar schools in Wirral, South; there are good comprehensive and secondary modern schools there that are to be commended. We should remember the old adage: if something is not broken, why fix it?
  There are many issues that I should like to have spoken about this evening if I had had the time. Such issues include new technology in schools, in which I have a great belief. British Aerospace in my constituency is assisting some schools in a partnership to ensure that youngsters have an opportunity to use the state-of-the art technology they desperately need. As has been said, computers can be used not just in computer classes, but throughout the curriculum and in all lessons.
  I cannot overstate the importance of ensuring that our youngsters are taught about the dangers of all sorts of drugs, particularly so-called designer drugs such as Ecstasy. They should be taught at an early age, not just about the dangers, and the fact that one pill can kill, but of the long-term damage that such drugs can cause.
  I am proud of our contribution and commitment to education in this country. Expenditure is an investment in education, not merely a means of spending money. The Liberal Democrats have not learnt the lesson. One penny can buy many things; it can even buy thoughts. But we need a massive investment in maths education in our schools, because there are Liberal Democrats in this country who believe that 1p can buy £4.4 billion-worth of expenditure in our schools. It simply cannot.
  9 30 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I do not know whether it can be described as common ground, but, at some time or another in recent months, all the parties have suggested that education is their priority. This has been a useful debate to measure the degree of commitment of the respective parties, with the obvious exception of the Scottish National party, none of whose members has been present for any of the debate.

  1101
  The motion contains an element of common ground. All parties would subscribe to the principle of the importance of quality early-years education. It is interesting to consider what commitments the various parties have made in terms of implementing that principle. Most educationists talk of the value of early-years education. We are all familiar with studies from the United States that show that $1 spent on pre-school education saves $7 in later life.
  Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such provision is more important in the poorest and most deprived areas, where the need is greatest? Some of us were brought up on the great book of Peter Townsend, "Born to Fail", which was so true. Such provision is necessary for children from deprived areas, rather than those from the leafy suburbs of the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart).
  Mr. Wallace: All pupils can benefit. I would hate to say that some children should be deprived of nursery education, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point—such provision is particularly important in areas of deprivation.
  Early-years education also provides an important opportunity to pick up at an early stage learning difficulties and other special needs. If those problems are tackled early, the pupil involved often has much greater chances later in life.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to commitments made by the Labour party at the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday, when the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) said:
  "In the medium term, we would seek to extend that provision to every four-year-old, and in the longer term to three-year-olds."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 3 February 1997; c. 19.]
  The hon. Member for Eastwood said that that did not seem to be much of a commitment. Perhaps I can give him an explanation.
  On my calculation—which will depend on the quality of the education system in the 1960s when I was learning arithmetic—in Scotland it would cost an additional £90 million above the sum invested before the voucher scheme to implement nursery education for every three and four-year-old. When challenged in the Scottish Grand Committee, the hon. Member for Monklands, East was able to find only £30 million, the money used for funding the nursery voucher scheme, so the Labour party is still a long way short in terms of that funding commitment.
  I take issue with the Government over nursery vouchers. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will wax lyrical about that subject when he replies to the debate, as he did on Monday. The scheme has many deficiencies. The commitment is only to four-year-olds. In some areas, three-year-olds may lose out as four-year-olds take their places.
  There is no provision for capital build in the local authority sector. If new capital units are to be built, they must be paid for through private sources. The budget set by the Scottish Office does not allow for the training of nursery teachers. When the Secretary of State was challenged about that a year ago, he said that he did not think that high-quality trained teachers were necessarily required to implement the nursery voucher scheme.
  1102
  The value of the vouchers will be inadequate, and the scheme will be bureaucratic. In Scotland, we are about to have an expensive advertising campaign. The Secretary of State justified the higher cost pro rata than in England by saying that perhaps the Scottish media charged a bit more, but he was not very convincing. More significantly, I challenged the Secretary of State at Scottish Question Time today to explain to parents who see the adverts that tell them that they will receive a £1,100 voucher why there is nowhere to cash them in. It is important to make the point that the voucher will have a value only if a nursery place is available for which it can be cashed in.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Rather than asking my right hon. Friend that question, has the hon. Gentleman asked his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) how the parents in her constituency, which is one of the pilot areas, are coping, because 97 per cent. of them are using vouchers?
  Mr. Wallace: I have indeed asked her that same question. Even if there is provision, there is no choice, and we are told that choice is the key. Many parts of Scotland will not have provision. We still have not received an answer to our question: the Minister cannot answer it by asking another question.
  There is a growing body of evidence from the pilot schemes south of the border that the voucher system neither expands provision nor extends choice. In some areas south of the border, local education authorities try to retain the money by encouraging early entry into reception classes. That is not what was intended, but that is what has happened.
  The Select Committee on Education and Employment has had evidence that, in Norfolk, eight playgroups closed in November, and six more are expected to close by the end of March. Some playgroups have had their numbers reduced due to the local authority's policy of taking children into school early. We do not believe that that is the way forward.
  The report of the Commission on Scottish Education, which was published last year, concluded:
  "If the monies the Scottish Office intend to devote to the voucher scheme were allocated to local authorities instead—with an obligation to deploy them in the pre-five sector in conjunction with the other partners—a planned expansion which took account of the wishes of parents could more readily and fairly be achieved."
  It remains my party's position that the first claim on the revenue raised by the 1p increase in income tax would be for high-quality education for early years.
  Even where we had high-quality education, it is essential to build on what has been achieved. The quality of schools varies, but generally it is right to say that inspectors have praised the quality in many of Scotland's schools. A recent inspectors' report says:
  "The picture is one of schools which are performing effectively overall. Much that we report is of high quality and justifies a continuing pride in the Scottish education system".
  We do not want to throw away that achievement, but we are concerned that we are in danger of doing so because of the cuts that are being imposed on many local authorities. It is no use Ministers talking about standard spending assessments, or saying, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said when he intervened on the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), that the

  1103
  Government have passed on more money for education. In the global budgets—the money allocated to local authorities—once inflation has been taken into account, and even before all the other responsibilities of local authorities are taken into account, less money is available.
  Across Scotland—it was obvious from the debate that it applies to England as well—concern is growing about the effect of the cuts. Catalogues of concerns were expressed when we debated this issue on Monday in the Scottish Grand Committee held in Selkirk. My concern is that the Government will start to believe their own propaganda that there are no cuts, until the cuts that were very real in 1996–97 become even more real in 1997–98.
  As many as 1,500 teaching posts could go, on top of the 1,200 that have been lost this year. That will lead to bigger class sizes. There will be less support for children with special needs and less breadth in the curriculum, and the delivery of highers will be even more difficult. The number of peripatetic teachers will be cut. Spending on books and equipment will also be cut. An average of £35 per primary school pupil is spent on books and equipment, but reading schemes can cost £28 per pupil, and it is therefore almost impossible for a school to change its reading scheme in one year. The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke of the importance of using information technology in education, and of using computers as a learning rather than a teaching tool, but it is clearly not possible to embark on any such provision with budgets that have been cut rather than increased.
  The lack of repair and maintenance is causing more and more difficulties. An average of £15,000 per school is available for repair and maintenance in Scotland, but, in 1995, the Public Accounts Commission reported that an average of £150,000 per primary school and £350,000 per secondary school was necessary to bring those schools up to scratch. That does not take into account the upgrading that was necessary as part of curriculum development, or the cost of replacing old, battered accommodation.
  Charges will be made where they do not currently exist. There will be charges for music tuition—if, indeed, such tuition continues in some parts of our country. There will be charges for transport. At present, councils are sometimes generous in providing free bus transport for pupils who live within a statutory distance. In return for the 1p cut in income tax which the Conservatives supported—while Labour Members sat on their hands and acquiesced—many parents will be faced with increased costs. They will pay higher council taxes, and receive fewer education services.
  The hon. Member for Eastwood had some fun at the expense of the hon. Member for Monklands, East. He recited a penetrating question that he had asked in the Scottish Grand Committee, which elicited no answer. He asked whether Labour would spend one penny more in the aggregate external finance for local authorities in Scotland. He received no answer because the Labour party has no answer, but he himself has not said how he would deal with the concerns of those who campaign in Selkirk, the 20,000 who marched in Glasgow the other weekend and the 40,000 who marched through Edinburgh last year to complain about education cuts.
  Much of the debate has come down to the basic question of finance. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, it is all
  1104
  very well to talk about standard spending assessments, but this year's SSA for Northumberland is no higher than spending was in the year that has just passed.
  Mr. Congdon: It has always been like that.
  Mr. Wallace: It has not always been like that. The SSAs are lower today than they were at the time of the 1992 general election. While I believe that there is a good deal of agreement on the fact that money is not the whole answer, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman honestly believes that things were so much better in the 1950s than they are today. In the 1950s, many children who were branded as failures after failing the 11-plus were denied achievements that would have been possible if they were being educated now. The number of people proceeding to further and higher education was much lower then than it is today We have moved forward immeasurably in the past 40 years, but that also costs money.
  The Labour party has accepted the Government's expenditure plans. I think it rather odd that a party whose members were saying, "Enough is enough," in November should now be saying, "Two more years of the same." It does not really stand up.
  When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) berated my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the Liberal Democrats, she sounded like an aspiring Conservative junior Minister. Her figures were even more inflated than those of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Oddly enough, in the earlier debate on health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) said the same about the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell). It is like Tweedledum and Tweedledee: there is no difference.
  Perhaps the only difference that we shall see as we go into the next general election will come in the form of a party that is prepared and bold enough to say that it will make a difference, and is prepared to say that, by investing an extra 1p on the standard rate of income tax in education, there will be the necessary investment for our country's future and for the aspirations and opportunities of our young generation.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. In opening on behalf of the Government, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment clearly set out the Government's position. We fully recognise the importance of education. We are committed to ensuring school education of the highest quality, and we are making resources available to achieve that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary set out the Government's plans and priorities for England and Wales. In summing up, it is my intention to show how that same commitment is taking effect in Scotland.
  The Government's amendment draws the attention of the House to the investment that we have made, and continue to make, in early-years primary and secondary education, and to the reforms that we have introduced that ensure that available resources are used to the best effect.
  I take particular pride in the evidence of those commitments in Scotland, and I wish to set them out clearly. The House well knows how we in Scotland pride

  1105
  ourselves on our education system. It knows that we are not shy of blowing our own trumpet when it comes to education achievements. The House knows also that we have good schools, a highly proficient teaching force and a proud record. It knows further the priority that the Government have attached to education in Scotland. The House will share my surprise, therefore, at the speeches of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Members from south of the border may be asking:
  "Stands Scotland where it did?"
  I am glad to reassure the House that a system described as in collapse and bled dry is nothing more than a travesty. The House may find it helpful if I remind it of a situation that will be found if it focuses on the good work that is going on in schools throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman did so, he would find evidence of the additional resources that have been made available and the achievements and the progress that they are bringing. The Government's reforms have stimulated quality, diversity and choice in our system, and some simple facts might help the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Wallace: The problem with the Minister reading his prepared speech is that he fails to take account of the fact that I quoted from a recent report of the inspectorate that praised the quality of Scottish schools and acknowledged it. We must build on that quality and not destroy it through spending cuts.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman spent 30 seconds praising that quality and about 14 minutes running it down, as anyone who listened to his speech will know.
  Spending per pupil in Scotland is over 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. That is hardly a system being bled dry. Class sizes are smaller and teachers' salaries are higher in real terms than in 1979. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of how favourable spending figures are in Scotland when compared with those in England. Again, it is hardly a system being bled dry. There is more and better equipment in schools, despite what the hon. Member for Cathcart said.
  The growth in information technology equipment has been especially impressive. The number of computers in primary schools has tripled over the past seven years and has quadrupled in Scotland's secondary schools. In real terms, more has been spent on books and capital maintenance. Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools commented positively on resources available in schools for learning in his report entitled "Standards and Quality", which was published last year.
  I am not making a casual observation but producing hard evidence that has been gathered during many school inspections throughout Scotland. Local authorities have more resources available to them next year, and our investment is huge and growing.
  Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I, together with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, launched a White Paper on education entitled "Education—Raising the Standard". The title of the document was chosen carefully. The paper sets out clearly where our priorities have been and where
  1106
  they must remain. It sets out also the true measures of our achievement since 1979, and the achievements of the education system in Scotland.
  Opposition Members have said that they are concerned with standards and quality. They will find in the White Paper evidence of just how far we have come and where we intend to go. "Education—Raising the Standard" reflects rising achievement. Examination results have improved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said, 35 per cent. of school leavers gained five or more ordinary grades in 1980, and in 1995 more than 50 per cent. of pupils were awarded five or more standard grades. The percentage of pupils who left school with three or more highers increased from 18 per cent. in 1980 to 29 per cent. in 1995. In 1995, 8 per cent. of school leavers left with no Scottish certificate of education qualification; in 1980, the figure was 31 per cent.
  Mr. Maxton: I understand that the Minister is talking about the Scottish system, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment made similar points about the English system, and the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) spent the whole of his time talking about declining standards in schools. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland perhaps explain that dichotomy?
  Mr. Robertson: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are talking about different time scales. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) was talking about a time scale of 30 years. I have been going over the past 18 years, which coincidentally coincides exactly with the Government's period in office.
  Between 1979–80 and 1995–96, the number of pupils in nursery schools increased by 55 per cent. Many more young people stay on in full-time education post-16—82 per cent. in 1994 compared with 60 per cent. in 1980. In higher education, between 1980 and 1993, the total number of students increased by 64 per cent. and we have one of the highest participation rates in higher education anywhere in Europe.
  Choice has increased. Eleven thousand children have benefited from assisted places, and nearly 27,000 placing requests were granted last year. We are modernising all stages of the school curriculum through the five-to-14 programme standard grade and the higher still development programme.
  We have focused on quality and the need for schools to take responsibility for improving their performance. That has been recognised internationally. We ask schools to look carefully at themselves, to ask, "How good is our school?" and to set out the way in which they will improve.
  Devolved school management has put decisions on the use of resources where it should be—at school level and not at town hall by bureaucrats. People who run the school on a day-to-day basis know what its needs are and they should be allowed to decide its spending priorities. As a result, resources are being used more effectively. They can be targeted to where they will deliver most for an individual school's performance.
  Self-governing schools have even more ability to make the best of their resources. Our White Paper gives the example of Dornoch academy, Scotland's first self-governing school, which managed to save £10,000 on

  1107
  its heating bill, which it could then spend on classroom equipment. We shall make further progress on those initiatives to put control into the hands of the people who know best how to use the resources.
  We have opened up the education system to give parents much more information about schools and their performance. We have introduced a better and more open school inspection system. We have given parents the opportunity to participate through school boards or by seeking self-governing status.
  I shall deal with some of the more far-reaching of our proposals, but let me first address some of the particular points that have arisen. Quality is central and I have illustrated our approach in Scotland through our quality initiative and the drive to self-evaluation and improvement, but we can go further. Her Majesty's inspectorate are closely engaged with schools to assist them, to identify good practice and to ensure that it is shared.
  We propose to increase the focus on quality through a new excellent schools award. Schools that perform well should be recognised as such and all aspects of performance will be relevant. What will be of most importance is the drive to improve and the planning and monitoring for improvement. We are not frightened to look for excellence or to reward it. Our programme of change has been guided by a radical vision of an education system in which schools, colleges, universities and teachers focus on quality and standards; a system where schools and colleges are responsive to the needs and wishes of the society and the individuals they serve.
  The demands of international competitiveness mean that we must continue to raise achievement levels to ensure that our young people are able to take their rightful place in the world. The principles in the vision that I have outlined will remain valid and increasingly so. "Raising the Standard" shows how we can take that vision forward to continue the remarkable progress that has been made and to meet the major challenges that lie ahead.
  In winding up, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made much of the level of resources that he thinks are required, but he has not said how he would spend the money or what his party's priorities would be. He conveniently forgets that the White Paper sets out proposals that carry additional money and that will contribute directly to the continued improvement in performance that we seek and require. They include extension of the nursery voucher scheme, bringing £30 million of new money year on year; a new £9 million programme on early intervention; a new £3 million programme on alternatives to exclusion; the doubling of the assisted places scheme; and making £25 million available for the improvement of school security to ensure that our pupils learn in as safe and secure an environment as possible.
  That is hardly a system that is being bled dry or run down. As I have said, our highly successful pre-school voucher scheme will be extended to the whole of Scotland from August 1997. Parents will be looking forward to 27 February, the date when application forms will begin to be issued.
  The pilots that are under way in four authorities show the success and popularity of the scheme. Ninety-seven per cent. of eligible parents applied for
  1108
  vouchers; 93 per cent. of parents with vouchers have been using them. Parents actually like having the ability to make the choice of what facility their child will attend.
  Many new centres are coming into being. The number of local authority centres has multiplied, from 21 to 63. Eighty-seven private nurseries and playgroups have had their educational quality endorsed by HMI for the first time ever.
  The pilots also prove that vouchers are a convenient way of arranging for pre-school education. I have had not one representation from parents or from providers in the pilots complaining about the mechanics of the voucher system. As I have said, 97 per cent. of parents have applied for vouchers, and 93 per cent. have used them.
  Moreover, the issue and redemption of vouchers cost less than 1 per cent. of the cost of the entire scheme, so where is the elaborate bureaucracy that we keep hearing about? It is in imagination of Opposition Members. Vouchers are efficient and simple to use. The reality of the growth of provision that vouchers can offer is clear enough from the pilot areas. It is a growth right across the board, and the pilot authorities deserve credit for the part that they have played in encouraging it both in their own provision and elsewhere.
  The best opportunities have been offered to parents. In an area of traditionally low provision, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood, East Renfrewshire was able to claim even before the beginning of the first term that a place was available for every eligible child for the first time ever. The vouchers have had a startling effect in the other pilot areas, and from August they go nationwide.
  I have dwelt on pre-school vouchers because they are such a major development in our education service, but many of the other proposals in the White Paper are equally innovative. The importance of teachers in securing higher levels of achievement is fully recognised. We have a high-quality teaching profession which we are committed to continuing and improving. We therefore made a number of proposals designed to improve their status.
  We shall remove the statutory basis of the Scottish joint negotiating committee and design legislative proposals to establish a teachers' pay review body. Teachers are respected members of the community and undertake a highly professional job. They deserve to have their pay professionally determined in the same way as doctors, dentists and other professionals. A pay review body is the answer.
  I have set out clearly the progress that our focus on standards has brought us in Scotland. I have shown how we have funded it over many years and how we propose to increase funding to develop certain initiatives. However, what has been missing from Opposition contributions to this debate has been any recognition of the generous extent to which Scottish local government is financed. Therefore, in closing, I must make the position clear.
  We are used at this time of the year to all sorts of scaremongering from authorities and teachers' unions, and parents rightly get very concerned—but they are being misled. Let me set the record straight. Contrary to all the talk of cuts, the local government settlement in Scotland provides for an increase in expenditure next year. That

  1109
  increase is £132 million, before any account is taken of the scope for efficiency savings across the full range of council services.
  The level of Government support for this expenditure has also been increased by over £60 million. For the second successive year we have, in determining the local government finance settlement, improved on the plans that we announced in the preceding year. Yet we continue to hear that councils are facing a budgetary crisis and are having to make massive cuts in education. I find that scaremongering irresponsible. Let me make it clear that no council in Scotland has a lower spending limit for next year than it has for the current year.
  Parents must therefore ask authorities what their priorities are. We have made ours clear; progress is being made. We have set out our proposals for maintaining that progress. The Government's commitment to investment in early, primary and secondary education is clear and unequivocal. We are investing in quality, we are investing in people, and we are investing in equipment and buildings. We are raising opportunities, we are widening choice and we are improving levels of achievement. In every way, as the title of our White Paper puts it, we are "Raising the Standard". I therefore ask the House to reject the motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 31, Noes 300.

  Division No. 71]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beith, A J

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Chidgey, David

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Rendel, David

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Salmond, Alex

  Dafis, Cynog

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tyler, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Welsh, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Mr. Don Foster and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. James Wallace.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bates, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Booth, Hartley

  Ashby, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Bowis, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  1110

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Brooke, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, William

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Congdon, David

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cope, Sir John

  Howard, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Kynoch, George

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lidington, David

  Forth, Eric

  Lilley, Peter

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Gallie, Phil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Madel, Sir David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Major, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Malone, Gerald

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mans, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marland, Paul

  1111

  Marlow, Tony

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spring, Richard

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Merchant, Piers

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stephen, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stern, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart, Allan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sykes, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Norris, Steve

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Thomason, Roy

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Page, Richard

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Paice, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Patten, John

  Tracey, Richard

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Tredinnick, David

  Pawsey, James

  Trend, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trotter, Neville

  Pickles, Eric

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Porter, David

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Portillo, Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waldegrave, William

  Rathbone, Tim

  Walden, George

  Redwood, John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Renton, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Richards, Rod

  Ward, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Wells, Bowen

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Whittingdale, John

  Rowe, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Ryder, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Willetts, David

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Wilshire, David

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Young, Sir George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 253.

  Division No. 72]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Ancram, Michael

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Ashby, David

  1112

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Bates, Michael

  Fowler, Sir Norman

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Freeman, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  French, Douglas

  Biffen, John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gallie, Phil

  Booth, Hartley

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Sir Rhodes

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brazier, Julian

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brooke, Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butler, Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Channon, Paul

  Hayes, Jerry

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Sir Terence

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Michael

  Cope, Sir John

  Howell, David (Guildf'd)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jessel, Toby

  Dover, Den

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Dunn, Bob

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Kynoch, George

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Ian

  1113

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sackville, Tom

  Legg, Barry

  Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

  Leigh, Edward

  Scott, Sir Nicholas

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lidington, David

  Shephard, Mrs Gillian

  Lilley, Peter

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacGregor, John

  Speed, Sir Keith

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Spring, Richard

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sproat Iain

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Malone, Gerald

  Steen, Anthony

  Mans, Keith

  Stephen, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mellor, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Merchant, Piers

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Needham, Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Newton, Tony

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Sir Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Viggers, Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waldegrave, William

  Page, Richard

  Walden, George

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waller, Gary

  Patten, John

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Waterson, Nigel

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Redwood, John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Renton, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Richards, Rod

  Willetts, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Wilshire, David

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Roberts, Sir Wyn

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Young, Sir George

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rumbold, Dame Angela

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Ryder, Richard

  Mr. Roger Knapman.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Alton, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Allen, Graham

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  1114

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ashton, Joseph

  Foulkes, George

  Austin-Walker, John

  Fraser, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Barnes, Harry

  Galbraith, Sam

  Barron, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  Battle, John

  George, Bruce

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gerrard, Neil

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Beith, A J

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bell, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Benn, Tony

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Berry, Roger

  Gunnell, John

  Betts, Clive

  Hain, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Hall, Mike

  Blunkett David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hattersley, Roy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Henderson, Doug

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Heppell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cann, Jamie

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

  Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Chidgey, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)

  Keen, Alan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Darling, Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Dewar, Donald

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dixon, Don

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McFall, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Ennis, Jeff

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Faulds, Andrew

  McWilliam, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Madden, Max

  Flynn, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  1115

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Chris (Islington S)

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Alan

  Spearing, Nigel

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliot

  Strang, Dr Gavin

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thurnham, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Orme, Stanley

  Turner, Dennis

  Pearson, Ian

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vaz, Keith

  Pike, Peter L

  Walker, Sir Harold

  Pope, Greg

  Wallace, James

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Watson, Mike

  Prescott, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Randall, Stuart

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wilson, Brian

  Reid, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Salmond, Alex

  Mrs. Diana Maddock.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the substantial extra investment which the Government has made, and continues to make, in early years, primary and secondary education, the reforms that the Government has introduced to allow that investment to be used to maximum effect and the improvement in standards in schools which has been the result.

  Education

    POLICE (HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police (Health and Safety) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenditure attributable to the Act incurred by the Secretary of State, and

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

    SEXUAL OFFENCES (PROTECTED MATERIAL) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

    SEXUAL OFFENCES (PROTECTED MATERIAL) BILL [MONEY]

      Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill
      Ordered,
      That, during the proceedings on the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, the First Scottish Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

  Higher Education
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. George Walden: I have instigated this somewhat intimate debate—[Interruption.] It will be intimate in a moment. I have instigated the debate since it is one that would not occur naturally. That is because the condition of our universities is something that Parliament instinctively avoids. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I ask hon. Members to carry out their negotiations elsewhere.
  Mr. Walden: Higher education faces severe problems—the students know it, the academics know it, the vice-chancellors know it, the media know it and Members of Parliament know it. But the subject cannot be openly debated in the House of Commons, because the solutions are as unpalatable to the public as they would be to their parliamentary representatives. The public are not anxious to hear the truth about higher education, and we in this House are in no hurry to tell it to them. In that sense at least, the cover-up over the state of our universities is fully democratic.
  I have seen the recently published Government evidence to the Dearing review—published, I believe, only yesterday—and I see no mention there of what I consider to be the realities about funding. Yet whatever they say in public, I doubt whether either the Government or the Opposition believe that the present position on funding is sustainable. The Dearing review will be a handy means of procrastination and obfuscation during the election period—which is why, it can be assumed, it was welcomed by the Opposition.
  I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for using the existence of the review to postpone, rather than to seek to answer, questions. In his position, I would no doubt do the same. But someone has to win the election—whether or not they come to regret it—so it is worth putting on record the position as one Back Bencher sees it. Should my hon. Friend the Minister chance to agree with any part of this speech, let me assure him that I fully understand why he will not feel able to say so.
  Schools need more money. Universities need more money. It goes without saying that neither of them will become better at education merely by having it, and that cash is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition of their prospering. Nothing I say this evening should be seen as distracting from that self-evident central truth. Nowhere can so much money be spent to so little effect as in education. Yet that assuming we know what we are about in the classroom or lecture hall, adequate funds are needed for reasons to obvious to spell out.
  It can safely be assumed that the Dearing review will not be so irresponsible as to conclude that the Government of the day should give the universities the cash they ask for. In any case, that would be a waste of breath, since no Government would do so. Nor is there a case for any more state money. Seen internationally, our universities are far better funded than our schools.
  1118
  If money is to be made available for education, it should go to the schools, and be made conditional on changes of educational practice and philosophy. Our universities would then benefit to the extent that they would not find themselves in the position of acting as remedial institutions, which they do now to a far greater extent than they are ready to acknowledge in public.
  My preferred solution to the cash crisis in universities is for students to contribute to tuition fees, through a graduate tax of some description. I see no long-term alternative. When, as Minister with responsibility for higher education, I was asked whether loans for maintenance were the thin end of the wedge, I was wary of denying it, because that is exactly what it seemed to me that it would be.
  The debate has moved on since then—outside Parliament, at least. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has come up with imaginative and realistic proposals in its evidence to the Dearing review, which includes the words:
  "It may therefore be necessary for all students to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition as well as their maintenance. This private payment would be in addition to funding council grants and tuition fees made to Universities under current funding arrangements."
  Since I was a little rude about the vice-chancellors in a book that I published recently, I should like to take this opportunity to retract those criticisms, and to praise them for their contribution to the Dearing review.
  Not so many years ago, I was spat at while selling the notion of loans for maintenance. Now, opposition to the principle of loans has dried up, along with the expectoration. It is encouraging that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was not mobbed or vilified for taking the logic of loans to its predestined conclusions.
  When I spoke at a recent debate at the London School of Economics on the subject, the atmosphere was as civilised as the treatment of the issues was constructive. Nicholas Barr and Iain Crawford especially are to be congratulated on their work in this field, as is Professor John Ashworth, the former director, for daring to put the issue on the agenda.
  I do not approach the problem in a spirit of market dogmatism. I have no metaphysical belief in the market—like democracy itself, it is simply the best way that anyone has thought up for getting things done—and am happy for Government to subsidise the arts, broadcasting and higher education to the extent that is sensible. But to promise to pay full tuition fees in perpetuity for a million or more students at the level necessary to maintain the traditional quality of our universities is not sensible, because, given other priorities, it cannot be done.
  The consequence of spreading available funds increasingly thinly will be a dilution of standards in what was once, by international comparison, the best part of our educational system. We have done two things that, taken together, will prove a terrible blow to the quality of our higher education: we have tripled the number of students without providing the means, and we have expanded universities on the basis of inadequate schools.
  Despite a more mature debate outside the House, student contributions to fees are still treated by many as immoral. By that yardstick, many of the best foreign universities operate on an unethical basis. The best moral

  1119
  guide to the question is still that provided by Lord Robbins. When he rejected loans as undesirable in 1962, he made an important proviso. As higher education continued to expand, he said, and more women entered, the time would come when there would have to be an experiment with student loans. He gave three reasons: social equity, distributive justice, and the need to encourage a sense of financial discipline and self-reliance among the students.
  Contrary to folklore, for that is all it is, there is no ethical difference between loans for maintenance and contributions to fees. Lord Robbins's wise arguments about equity apply to both. In his time, there were 200,000 students. Now there are over five times as many, of which nearly half are women. A fivefold expansion is surely enough to trigger what could be called the Robbins caveat on student finance in an era of expansion.
  The same arguments that applied to loans apply to contributions to fees. Yes, higher education benefits society, but it also benefits the individual. Seen that way, the equitable solution is simple. Why not split the cost?
  We are told that many people would be prepared to pay more taxes if that meant ensuring for themselves and their children a better quality of higher education. Such a position is presented as evidence of civic virtue; it is nothing of the kind. The minority would get more money for themselves from the public, the majority of whom do not, and will never, receive a university education.
  For those who insist that people would be only too ready to pay more taxes, a graduate tax would be the ideal opportunity to do so. Not only would their itch to swell Treasury funds be assuaged, but they could be assured that the proceeds would go directly to higher education rather than, say, to nuclear submarines. For that reason, among others, the case for the tax knows no natural political frontiers.
  At this point, the objection is made that a graduate tax would dissuade people from aspiring to higher education. The middle classes are notoriously resourceful in defending their interests, but that is one of the most cynical and least intelligent defences of the status quo that I have heard.
  The idea that the overwhelmingly middle-class student body must continue to receive free tuition out of solidarity with its less fortunate brothers, many of whom do not make it to university at all, is cant of a high order. There is something a little indecent about students and parents from well-to-do families using the poor as a human shield against contributing to the true cost of their own privileged education.
  The argument does not wash. The point of a graduate tax is that it would be payable only after a graduate had secured a job that was well enough rewarded to enable him or her to contribute, and the objection that the tax would put off the poor neglects the real source of inequality in access to higher education: poverty of aspirations and inadequate education at lower social levels. Children who are born in dismal places tend to go to dismal schools, with dismally low expectations of what they can achieve. People at that level of society are not privileged enough to get into a state about university fees.
  It will nevertheless be maintained as a last line of defence that some people from modest backgrounds have an in-built fear of getting into debt. Such people exist, and one understands their fear, but the force of that argument
  1120
  depends on our readiness to base the entire financial structure of our universities on the irrational apprehensions of an unfortunate minority. We should not base policy on such fears; we should try to dispel them.
  Student contributions to fees would have academic as well as material benefits, of a kind alluded to by Lord Robbins. At a time when there appears to be some uncertainty about what higher education is for—that, too, needs to be addressed by Dearing—a graduate tax would concentrate minds usefully.
  I am sure that the Opposition would agree that the tax would give students a stakeholding in their institution and make them more demanding about the teaching and quality of their courses, and their intellectual content and utility. Few students will get indignant about a mediocre course of dubious use to themselves or the world if someone else is paying. Many more would wake up to their responsibilities if they were contributing to the cost.
  I will not say that things cannot go on as they are. Things are going on as they are, and can go on as they are pretty well indefinitely. There is no reason why British higher education should not go on sliding gracefully downhill for many years to come, assuming that we are prepared to contemplate a mass, low-quality system of the kind that the French have found themselves historically saddled with.
  Not all academics feel it politic to tell the truth about what is happening to standards, but there are distinguished exceptions. On his recent retirement from Manchester university, Sir John Mason said:
  "The present system which allows any student with minimal qualifications to follow any course or mixture of courses without regard to intellectual or vocational quality, utility, social or economic need, and at the taxpayers' expense, is unsustainable … The decision to expand higher education before attending to the schools was like adding an extra storey to a house with crumbling foundations."
  Baroness Warnock recently said openly what everyone knows to be true: that A-level standards are at risk, to the point where some of our universities could end up as little more than sixth-form colleges.
  As a former Minister with responsibility for higher education, I must accept my mite of responsibility for some of what has gone wrong, but one should never forgo the luxury of being right after the event.
  In fairness to myself, and, above all, to the late and sincerely lamented Lord Joseph, it was understood at the time that the question of student fees would one day have to be faced. He made a typically gallant and naturally foredoomed attempt to do it.
  At that time, about a decade go, neither Parliament nor the country was ready to contemplate the truth. Everyone favoured expansion as a matter of conscience, and to ask who was going to pay for it was to sully their ideals with base materialism. Now that we have seen the results on our campuses of the peculiarly distasteful brand of high-toned evasion that afflicts much of our national debate on education, perhaps it is permissible to raise the question again.
  10.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on bringing this important debate to the

  1121
  House, and on the way in which, through his writings and speeches, he has persistently sought to focus attention on the issue. He has made an important contribution to generating debate on the difficult issues involved in the funding of higher education.
  My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I cannot agree with all that he says about the state of higher education. In many ways, we can be justifiably proud of our higher education system and its achievements over the past 17 years. Hon. Members know the figures, because they are often quoted, so I shall be brief. The number of students has doubled since 1979; some one in three of our young people enjoy the privilege of higher education, compared with one in eight all that time ago; our spending plans allow for that record level of participation to be maintained.
  Nor can I agree with what my hon. Friend said, or perhaps hinted, about the possible adverse impact of expansion on standards. I believe that it can be shown that expansion has been achieved without evidence of a loss of quality. For example, on entry standards, the average A-level points score for students entering with GCSE A-levels has remained the same for the past six years, at 18 points.
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England's quality assessments confirm that quality is being maintained. Universities and colleges have continued to offer a high-quality service, while achieving significant reductions in unit costs. New patterns of teaching, new methods of organisation and increased use of technologies offer scope for further productivity improvements. Those are achievements for which our universities, colleges and students deserve great credit.
  The UK has the highest graduation rate for bachelor degrees in the European Union. That reflects lower wastage, and greater efficiency in our higher education system. The skills audit commissioned in the second competitiveness White Paper confirmed the UK's strong international position on higher education qualifications.
  I do not say that we can be complacent—the skills audit also showed that our competitors are not standing still—but it is worth noting that the number of newly qualified graduates gaining first degrees each year has doubled since 1979. More than one third of those are the science, mathematics and engineering graduates who are so vital to our international competitiveness. The UK is near the top of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league for science and engineering graduates entering the young work force, ahead of Germany and the United States.
  My hon. Friend has talked about expanding universities on the basis of inadequate schools. I contend that standards in our schools are improving all the time, with more young people than ever getting good school-leaving qualifications: 1996 saw the best ever GCSE and A-level results. We are determined that GCSE standards should be maintained, and have introduced a wide range of measures to secure rigour and standards.
  Sir Ron Dearing's 16-to-19 report mapped out an agenda of action to strengthen the rigour and standards of A-levels still further from 1998. We have placed the quality of teaching and learning and the standards of qualifications at the very centre of our education polices.
  1122
  We accept that it is paramount that quality in higher education is maintained, and that standards remain of the highest.
  My hon Friend expressed concern about the prospect of what he has called a "mass, low-quality system" of higher education, and has written:
  "degrees rain down like confetti in a mass, underfunded system of suspect quality".
  I am sure that he would not expect me to agree.
  My hon. Friend will recognise that universities are responsible for maintaining degree standards. The available evidence suggests that they take that responsibility seriously. Last year, with our encouragement, the Higher Education Quality Council embarked on a series of studies on academic standards known as the graduate standards programme. The HEQC has published a number of reports of specific studies within this programme during 1996, and will be publishing an overall report on the programme next spring. We have also been working with the CVCP and the HEFCE towards a single quality assurance agency.
  I turn now to funding. My hon. Friend says that schools and universities need more money. Let me remind him that, notwithstanding the generally tight controls over public spending, the 1996 Budget allows for an increase in planned spending on schools, colleges and universities in 1997–98 of £875 million compared with 1996–97. That includes an extra £100 million in each of the next two years for higher education.
  Total public spending on higher education in the United Kingdom, including student support, is now more than £7 billion. Total support for students through grant and loan increased by 2.5 per cent. for the year 1997–98, in line with forecast inflation, following rises of 2.6 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. in the previous two years.
  But my hon. Friend is right to identify funding as a key issue for the future. Total public spending on higher education—more than £7 billion—represents 20 per cent. of total education spending, which is a substantial share of available resources. As my hon. Friend said, there is a limit to what the taxpayer can be asked to afford.
  The future funding of higher education is, of course, one of the issues currently being considered by the national committee of inquiry into higher education led by Sir Ron Dearing, which is due to report this summer. The committee is considering questions such as: what are the purposes of higher education, and how have they changed? We have encouraged the committee to consider how higher education's links with the wider community, and in particular its role in lifetime learning, can be enhanced.
  How should the appropriate participation rate in higher education be decided? Do standards acquired by graduates meet the requirements of the modern world? Crucially—this was the key question raised by my hon. Friend—who should pay for education, and how? I shall say more about the committee's work later.
  The Dearing inquiry will be looking at a range of proposals for meeting the future cost of higher education, including my hon. Friend's proposal that the cost of tuition should be met by students themselves through a graduate tax. I am aware that there are many proposals on the table—including the CVCP's, to which my hon. Friend referred. It would be wrong for me to try to

  1123
  pre-empt the inquiry's recommendations. At this stage, nothing is ruled out, nothing is ruled in. But I should like to offer a few comments on my hon. Friend's thoughts, by way of points that should be borne in mind.
  My hon. Friend said that the concept of student loans has been widely accepted. The Government's policy is to seek to spread the cost of student maintenance more equitably among the taxpayer, parents and graduates themselves.
  The student support package has more than held its value since 1990, when loans were introduced. Grant and full-year loan together are 59 per cent. higher in cash terms, and about 16 per cent. higher in real terms in 1997–98 than they were in 1989–90. The arrangements remain generous on any international comparison. But I also contend that there is no evidence that the introduction of student loans has had a deterrent effect on participation. The introduction of loans has, if anything, improved the position of students, by reducing their reliance on assessed parental contributions and replacing those with a guaranteed loan facility.
  Whether or not charging for tuition would have any deterrent effect on participation requires further examination. Student income and expenditure surveys show that the majority of students now in higher education now come from social classes C1, C2, D and E, in contrast to the position in 1988, when students from those groups were in the minority. It is important to consider the likely impact on such entrants of any move towards charging students the cost of their tuition and collecting it through a graduate tax.
  We need to be clear about the difference between a graduate tax and a system under which student loans are collected through the tax or national insurance system. Under a graduate tax, graduates would pay additional tax throughout their working lives, regardless of the cost of their education. The complexity of administering a graduate tax and the resultant cost would be significant for employers as well as for the Government. Without careful structuring, it is possible that such a tax regime could act as a disincentive to participation in higher education.
  The option of collecting loans via the tax or national insurance system was looked at in some depth when the current loans scheme was being set up. The Government concluded that the current system of payments by direct debit to the Student Loans Company was superior.
  Current repayment terms are income contingent: those earning less than 85 per cent. of national average earnings pay nothing. We must expect the Dearing inquiry to consider the implications of this and many other proposals for meeting the costs of tuition in future, and to make recommendations.
  In the short term, the Government do not believe that top-up fees are either necessary or desirable, particularly in the light of the additional funding I mentioned. I am
  1124
  glad that the CVCP has encouraged its institutions to defer any decisions about charging top-up fees until after Dearing has reported.
  I said that I would return to the Dearing inquiry. Much has changed in the 30 years since the Robbins committee completed the first major review of higher education, and we can no longer rest on the old assumptions. It is recognised that we now need to consider afresh the purpose of higher education, what its objectives are, and how it should best develop to meet those needs.
  Those fundamental questions prompted us to start a public debate. We wanted a broad national perspective, so we consulted widely on the purposes, size and shape of higher education for the year 2000 and beyond. We sought the views of the higher education community, its students and those in industry and elsewhere who employ graduates and use the findings of university research.
  Responses to the review showed a shift in emphasis towards the role of higher education in providing skills for employment, and exposed the full scale of the choices facing higher education. That is why, early last year, the Government set up the Dearing inquiry. We have asked the committee to make recommendations on how higher education should develop to meet the needs of the United Kingdom over the next 20 years.
  I know that many people see future funding as the principal issue for the inquiry to deal with, but it will be important for the committee to consider how the shape, structure and size of higher education should develop before looking at funding options. Indeed, a proper consideration of funding issues can only be predicated on a full and prior analysis of the purpose of higher education, of what proportion of young people should receive initial higher education, of how long it should last and what form it should take, and of how the needs of mature people and of employers should be addressed.
  Our economic success will increasingly depend on improving our knowledge, understanding and skills. Higher education has a vital role to play in raising the levels of the nation's skills and competitiveness, thus enhancing our capacity to generate wealth and to improve our quality of life. That is why issues of the future size, structure and funding of higher education are so important, and why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising them tonight.
  I doubt that I have entirely satisfied the purpose of the debate. I hope that the content and spirit of what I have said show my hon. Friend that his questions have in no way been ignored or dodged. We are taking a structured approach. We have entrusted Sir Ron Dearing and his colleagues with the enormous responsibility of responding to the questions that we have posed them. In that way, we can take the issue forward and approach the questions raised by my hon. Friend, albeit at a slower pace that he may wish.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coroner Procedures (Muslim Communities)
  Coroner Procedures (Muslim Communities)
  Gilbert McNamee
  Gilbert McNamee
  Probation Service (Mid Glamorgan)
  Probation Service (Mid Glamorgan)
  Oncomouse
  Oncomouse
  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Dangerous Dogs Act
  Drug Misuse
  Drug Misuse
NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  London Marathon
  London Marathon
  Royal Parks
  Royal Parks
  Caravan Parks
  Caravan Parks
  Windsor Castle
  Windsor Castle
  British Academy of Sport
  British Academy of Sport
  Charities Act 1992
  Charities Act 1992
  Sporting Activity
  Sporting Activity
LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
  War Pensions Appeals
  War Pensions Appeals
PRIME MINISTER
  Travel Costs
  Travel Costs
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Social Chapter
  Social Chapter
  Exports (Iraq)
  Exports (Iraq)
  Business Links
  Business Links
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Publicity
  Publicity
  Visas
  Visas
TREASURY
  Profit Sharing and Share Option Schemes
  Profit Sharing and Share Option Schemes
  Taxable Incomes
  Taxable Incomes
  Monetary Growth Rate (M4)
  Monetary Growth Rate (M4)
  "Social Trends 27"
  "Social Trends 27"
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Pedal Cycles
  Pedal Cycles
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
WALES
  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mixed-sex Wards
  Head Injuries Rehabilitation
  Head Injuries Rehabilitation
  Lone Parents
  Lone Parents
  Teachers (Deeside)
  Teachers (Deeside)
  School Homework
  School Homework
  Acid Rain
  Acid Rain
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Railtrack Depot (Cardiff)
  Railtrack Depot (Cardiff)
  Pupil Referral Units
  Pupil Referral Units
  Cancelled Operations
  Cancelled Operations
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  Spiritual and Moral Training
  Spiritual and Moral Training
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Training and Enterprise Councils
  School Merger (Cheltenham)
  School Merger (Cheltenham)
  Eltec Training and Enterprise Council
  Eltec Training and Enterprise Council
DEFENCE
  Water Cannon
  Water Cannon
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  HMS Cromwell
  HMS Cromwell
  United Arab Emirates (Visit)
  United Arab Emirates (Visit)
  Royal Flight
  Royal Flight
  Colchester Garrison
  Colchester Garrison
  Hawk Jets
  Hawk Jets
SCOTLAND
  Private Care Homes
  Private Care Homes
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Brain Injury
  Brain Injury
  European Council
  European Council
  Law and Order
  Law and Order
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Blind Workers
  Blind Workers
  Dundee City Council (Finance)
  Dundee City Council (Finance)
  Local Taxes
  Local Taxes
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Automatic Life Sentences
  Automatic Life Sentences
  A96 Keith Bypass
  A96 Keith Bypass
  Scotland and Northern Ireland (Joint Projects)
  Scotland and Northern Ireland (Joint Projects)
  Coronary Heart Disease
  Coronary Heart Disease
  Health Service Funding
  Health Service Funding
  Glasgow (Economy)
  Glasgow (Economy)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Food Poisoning (Report)
  Food Poisoning (Report)
  Export Prospects
  Export Prospects
  Activity Centres (Safety)
  Activity Centres (Safety)
  Health Service Finance
  Health Service Finance
  Electricity Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
  Operation Cancellations
  Operation Cancellations
  Peregrine Falcons
  Peregrine Falcons
  Cold Weather Protection
  Cold Weather Protection
  General Practitioner Fundholders
  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  Development Corporations
  Development Corporations
  Newcastle Disease
  Newcastle Disease
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Private Finance Projects
  Private Finance Projects
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Income Support (St. Helens)
  Income Support (St. Helens)
  Pensioner Incomes
  Pensioner Incomes
  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Benefits Agency Medical Services
HEALTH
  Dentistry (Children)
  Dentistry (Children)
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  GP Fundholders
  GP Fundholders
  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Butane Gas Lighters
  Butane Gas Lighters
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Heart Disease
  Heart Disease
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body
  Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body
  Voluntary Groups
  Voluntary Groups
  Prescriptions
  Prescriptions
  GP Principals
  GP Principals
  Operation Cancellations
  Operation Cancellations
TRANSPORT
  M6
  M6
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
  West Coast Main Line
  West Coast Main Line
  Cargo (Gibraltar)
  Cargo (Gibraltar)
  Royal Train
  Royal Train
  Driving Examiners
  Driving Examiners
  Freight Aircraft
  Freight Aircraft
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Hammersmith Bridge
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Public Disturbances
  Public Disturbances
  Anglo-Irish Conference (Public Bodies)
  Anglo-Irish Conference (Public Bodies)
  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Beef Export Ban
  Beef Export Ban
  Polling Stations
  Polling Stations
  Water Service (Donaghadee)
  Water Service (Donaghadee)
  Waste Disposal Strategy
  Waste Disposal Strategy
  School Examination Candidates
  School Examination Candidates
  Roads (Development)
  Roads (Development)
  Angling
  Angling
  Farms (Negative Equity)
  Farms (Negative Equity)
  Suckler Cow Premium
  Suckler Cow Premium

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

European Exchange Rate Mechanism
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they would support a two-tier European exchange rate mechanism.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government have no intention of re-entering sterling into the new exchange rate mechanism which will operate in stage 3 of EMU linking the euro with currencies of non-participating member states. Membership of the mechanism will be voluntary, and no one can be forced to join.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I believe that is a completely rational approach. I believe that there are many unanswered questions and uncertainties in this very important question. Not least, how are we going to extricate ourselves if this whole scheme is a failure? What about the fudging of criteria and under-funded pensions? And not least again, how are we going to reconcile ourselves with our disproportionate non-EU trade?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes some good points in his questions. Frankly, we do not go into it if it is likely to be a failure. That is the position the Government have taken for some time. We shall enter only if it is in the national interest to do so and only if it is soundly based—in other words, if the convergence criteria have been genuinely and honestly met and are likely to be sustained. The noble Viscount makes a good point about the fact that we have a considerable amount of non-EU trade. It is essential that the competitive position of the whole Union, especially that of the United Kingdom, is maintained in world trade. That will be but one of the very many aspects we shall be considering towards the end of this year and into next when we come to decide what we should do with regard to EMU.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that no decision on a matter of this kind can possibly be taken until we know not only the certainties of our own economy but the uncertainties or certainties of those of our European partners?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are two quite different aspects. There is the position of our own interest and the position of our economy in relation to
1666
the situation later this year and in the early months of next year, and there is the second and just as important point that the other member states, which may or may not decide to join, must have properly met the convergence criteria. As I have said on a number of occasions, the worst thing for us all would be an unstable euro, which would actually bring huge damage to the economies of all the countries in Europe.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, instead of fiddling around with the exchange rate mechanism, would not the Government—and indeed for that matter the official Opposition—be wise to learn the lessons of the past and, if the conditions are right, go into the new single currency at the beginning instead of waiting for two or three years and then joining, which in the past has proved to be the worst of both worlds?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly do not think that we could possibly take a decision to join right now. It is interesting that the official Opposition have come round to that view after mocking me for many months at the Dispatch Box for taking that position. I am not in the least surprised that the Liberal Democrats want to join regardless. They would be anyone's poodle in Europe. This Government will be no one's poodle in Europe.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is not part of the trouble that all mechanisms inevitably break down and there are no skilled mechanics in this field able to repair them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure where that motor car leads us. One important point is meeting the convergence criteria. The other important point, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions, is maintaining sound economies after the euro has been joined by whoever joins it, whether we do or not. That is just as important as the convergence criteria.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the importance of the convergence criteria. Clearly, Britain must use all her influence to ensure that countries meet the criteria and do not fudge them. On the assumption that they may well not meet the criteria, would it not be possible to have a two-stage EMU in which the first stage was somewhat like the hard ecu, which had some popularity some years ago? We would certainly stay out of that but it would give the others the opportunity of seeing whether it worked and us the opportunity of keeping our options fully open.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. However, if the convergence criteria were not being properly met by the majority of the member states, it would be better, as the Government have made perfectly clear, to delay the start of the single currency until circumstances were such that one could have confidence in its ability to be sustained.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, what effect would our successfully joining a common currency have on sterling as an international currency?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether I heard that question correctly. If we do decide to join then sterling would cease to be a currency. The euro would be the international currency in which we traded.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for missing his opening 10 seconds. Is he aware how upset I am? I for one have never mocked him at any time and he has really hurt my feelings. As the noble Lord rightly said, there are technical questions involved here. Can he confirm to your Lordships a view that he has expressed before; namely, that it is still the view of Her Majesty's Government that we could exercise the right to join EMU even though we do not meet the Maastricht criteria of being two years within the exchange rate mechanism? I know that the noble Lord has been asked that question before, but can he tell us that the Government's advisers have not shifted their position on that view?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, our position on many of these issues has remained firm over very many months and years, unlike the shifting position of the party opposite. Perhaps I may be both helpful and consistent and make it perfectly clear that the operation of the ERM has indeed changed since Maastricht. The treaty refers to the observance of the normal fluctuation margins. At that time, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, knows, the treaty was dealing with margins of 2.25 per cent., which are no longer followed. It has now been agreed that the issue is to be decided by Heads of Government when they meet early in 1998 and not before.
Lord Peston: My Lords, that is where we differ slightly. Can the Minister confirm that were we to decide that it is in the national interest of this country to join EMU the question of the ERM will not be brought into play? Is that how Her Majesty's Government see the question at this time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, I believe that that is the position. If, in the next Parliament, the Government decide that it is in the British interest to join, in that event we do not believe that the question of membership for two years of the ERM beforehand would have any relevance.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in answering the question of my noble friend Lord Thompson of Monifieth the Minister misrepresented totally the view of the Liberal Democrats. Our view is that we should maintain an open mind—which we thought was also the Government's view—and that if the situation were such that we could join then we would do so. My question relates to the Question on the Order Paper, which is not about monetary union, but the exchange rate mechanism. On the assumption that we do not join in the first phase, are the Government working out the arrangements with the euro currency if we refuse to join the exchange rate mechanism?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the Liberal Democrats have joined my train on this particular issue. As regards what will happen if we do not join, we shall obviously have a close relationship with the countries that did join and formed the euro. I imagine that we would then have a normal exchange rate relationship between sterling and the euro.

Engineering: Top Flight Bursaries Scheme
2.47 p.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reinstate the successful Top Right Bursaries Scheme to encourage some of the best aspiring undergraduates to study engineering.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government set up the bursaries scheme on the understanding that it would last for only a period of three years. It has served its purpose in emphasising the importance of high quality students choosing courses in engineering and in attracting a limited number of such students into engineering. The on-going cost of providing bursaries for all suitably qualified students is, however, considerable and we have no plans to re-instate the scheme.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me on 4th November stating:
"A review was programmed for 1996 because it was recognised that there might be a case for a more permanent scheme if outstanding results emerged".
There is a conflict, and perhaps the Minister can explain it. Is he also aware that in most cases it is necessary for boys' and girls' schools to make career choices two years before sitting A-levels and that, therefore, a review in the second year of the scheme was both precipitate and ill-advised?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord will be aware, when we set up the scheme we were aware that there would be a certain amount of dead weight in such a scheme, which would attract people who were already going into engineering anyway. He will also be aware that we agreed to review the scheme after two years because that was the appropriate time. To review it after three years, when the scheme had ended, would have caused a hiccup before a new scheme came into operation, should a new scheme be considered wise. Having evaluated the scheme last year, we considered that it had not performed effectively enough in terms of attracting new engineering undergraduates. Therefore, it was not serving a valuable purpose for the considerable sums of money—about £13 million over its lifetime—which will have been spent.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as stated in Realising Our Potential, innovative engineers are the most important ingredient of wealth-creating industry? Therefore, it is important to continue to encourage, as the Top Flight Bursaries Scheme did, bright young people to go into the profession of engineering. Does he not agree that stopping the scheme gives the wrong message? Will he consider reinstating the scheme, perhaps on a modified basis, in order to continue to encourage bright young people into the profession?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend about the importance of engineering. However, in the end the prime incentives for attracting an individual into a profession will be the pay and status of that profession. I believe that my noble friend will recognise that those are not, and should not be, matters for the Government; they have to be addressed by the profession itself.
In recognising the importance of engineering, we are involved in a number of other schemes to attract engineering students in order to promote engineering generally. However, we do not believe that this scheme represents good value for money.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, what do the Government think they are at? There is surely no question but that there is a serious shortfall of first-rate engineering students in our universities and colleges and there has been for a long time. How do the Government now expect to attract students to the sciences—by abolishing successful incentives to students to become engineers? Is not the decision to scrap the Top Flight Bursaries Scheme just short-sighted cost-cutting, which will do nothing to meet the problem of dwindling numbers of science graduates for British industry and for the university science base?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I totally reject the rather over-stated point put by the noble Lord. Some third of all students at our universities are now studying engineering, science or mathematics. Further, that is a considerable number, as over the years we have been in power the number of people entering higher education has doubled and doubled again, which is something we can be proud of. As I made clear to my noble friend, we have done a great deal to encourage people into the engineering profession, but even the noble Lord would accept that the prime responsibility for attracting people into any given profession will be the pay and status of that profession—and those are matters not for the Government but for the profession itself.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what discussions has the Minister had with the Engineering Council and other engineering associations on this subject, because they do not tell us the story that he is telling us today?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously we discussed the matter with the Engineering Council. I understand that it was disappointed with our decision to end the scheme,
1670
but it has not lobbied for any reinstatement. We have discussed the matter with other colleagues in government. We have worked well and closely with the Engineering Council over the years. It has been administering the scheme and has agreed to continue to do so for the remainder of its life.

Nuclear Waste: Underground Disposal
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will be able to announce their decision regarding the application by Nirex for a site in Cumbria for the underground disposal of nuclear waste.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Nirex has not made an application for the underground disposal of nuclear waste. Its application is to develop a rock characterisation facility. A decision will be made as soon as possible.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that elucidating reply. Will he give us some assessment of the hazards involved in simply allowing waste to accumulate in temporary storage, as has happened over the duration of the present Administration?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, high level waste is stored in a glass box and has to be kept above ground for some 50 years in order to cool down—rather like the Opposition, if I might say so. Intermediate level waste at sites is solid; some is set in concrete—rather like the Opposition, if I might say so—and remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years—rather like the Opposition, if I might say so.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, in coming to a decision, will the Minister bear in mind the sustained opposition of Cumbria County Council to this proposal, opposition which has not been in any way diminished by the recently leaked memo from Dr. Holmes, which includes these words:
"we conclude that a Basic Under Sedimentary Cover type site is inherently not characterisable to the requisite level",
and that in an area where there is considerable concern about jobs? It is not a matter of jobs at any price.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to the opposition of Cumbria County Council. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is writing today to those who attended the inquiry, inviting them to comment (if they have any comments) on the memorandum. He will take those comments, and the views of Cumbria County Council, into account when he make s his decision.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not a fact that nothing was disclosed in that document which was not the subject of extensive investigation and inquiry at the public inquiry? There is nothing new in it. Is not the purpose of the exercise to establish the truth about the characteristics of the rock formation? Is it not the case that if the rock formation is not suitable, the project will be abandoned, and that if the rock formation is found to be suitable, there will be another public inquiry which will go into the whole question of whether radioactive waste should be deposited there?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously there was concern when the memorandum was leaked. Therefore, it is appropriate that my right honourable friend should ask those who attended the inquiry whether they have any comments to make upon that leaked memorandum. My right honourable friend will take account of the comments that are made as well as the facts of the inquiry when he makes up his mind.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic on this issue, bearing in mind that they made strong representations at the time of the public inquiry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend will also take into account the views of the Irish Republic when he makes his decision.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we must all be indebted to the noble Earl for having explained that the application currently before the Secretary of State is for a laboratory, not a depository. If the Secretary of State decided that he did not want Nirex to go ahead with the construction of the laboratory, would we then be advised of the Government's views on how the problem will be dealt with ultimately?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we should take one step at a time. The application is for a rock characterisation facility. If my right honourable friend the Secretary of State declines to give that consent, Nirex will have to reconsider its position and its proposals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that the rock characterisation facility that is proposed will not contain at any point any radioactive waste or any other radioactive material?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my understanding of the position is that the rock characterisation facility will involve setting into the rock two shafts some 650 metres deep. The rock characterisation facility will be there in order to see what the rock is like and in order to set up a laboratory in order to see what the rock is like.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a director of UK Nirex Ltd. Would my noble friend acknowledge, especially bearing in mind the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, that the purpose of a rock
1672
characterisation facility is to resolve those uncertainties identified by Nirex as part of its research programme at the Sellafield site? Is my noble friend aware that the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, the Government's own committee, known as RWMAC, and the Royal Society, support Nirex's programme?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend, with his experience, makes a helpful intervention. It might be most helpful if I did not continue with such an intervention because my right honourable friend has a quasi-judicial role in the appeal and it would be invidious of me if I were to start commenting on various submissions.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution has said that the present plans would have the effect of contaminating Cumbria? In those circumstances, what do the Government propose to do next?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we propose to consider the views of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution together with the comments of everyone else.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister when the Secretary of State will pronounce on the planning application? The inspector's report went to him in November; we are now well into February and the delay causes everybody a great deal of expense, including the taxpayer.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, delays do cause expense and they are to be regretted. Obviously my right honourable friend has to take a great deal of account of what has been said. The inquiry ended in February. The inspector took some six months to make his report. It would be unreasonable to expect my right honourable friend to come to his conclusions too soon, particularly when there has been such an unfortunate aberration in the middle.

Rail Services: Customer Information
3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the fulfilment of the obligations imposed on privatised railway companies to provide passengers with details of the cheapest fares and most rapid journey times available, including those fares and times relating to a competing company.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, following consultation with the rail industry, the independent rail regulator has issued a policy statement setting out his proposals for action to ensure that train operators meet their impartial retailing obligations. This

1673
statement announced the first ever network-wide survey which will establish current standards of service and pinpoint where specific improvements are needed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the common denominator in the report of the regulator, statements in Which? magazine on behalf of consumers and the Department of the Environment's own round table is to be found in the following statement in the regulator's report:
"I expect the new passenger railway to do much better than it is doing today in providing information about railway services—in telling passengers what the railway network is offering, in prices, in choice, in availability, in making sure information is accurate and in encouraging passengers to use the railway with confidence"?
Does the Minister agree that all of that indicates a very serious lapse on the part of those responsible for the provision of those services? Why does not the Minister for once support his own regulator?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the report shows that the independent regulator is doing exactly what he was set up to do—regulating. Despite concerns raised notably by the party opposite that the regulator would not have power, here he is investigating the impartial retailing of tickets and setting in motion a major survey to determine the situation more accurately. We support the regulator. We note that in his report he says that he is,
"persuaded by the operators' willingness to work with [him] to improve their retailing services. Indeed, their plans to expand their businesses depend on their product being sold better".
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister accept the shortcomings that have been referred to by all three of the organisations I have mentioned? Is the situation that the regulator describes in his report accurate? If his statement is not justified, can the Minister explain why?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we certainly support what the regulator has said. The document is a statement of policy as to how to achieve better results. To establish the current situation he has set up a major survey. That survey is now under way. We look forward to the results of that survey.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at Brighton station, where four different railway companies operate, we have no complaints whatever to make? There is even new rolling stock on the Brighton line. Is it not time that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stopped reading documents and travelled by train for a change?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that would be a welcome development. It is right that there have been many attempts by the party opposite to put down railway privatisation. The fact is that there is now a growing acceptance that rail privatisation has been a success and that there are improved levels of service. For example, the number of complaints, which is quite a good measure, has fallen considerably, in one instance by a third. There are better and more services; there is
1674
more investment, notably investment in rolling stock. All of this is good news, and we look forward to further developments in the rail industry.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, received cheers from his colleagues on the opposite side of the House when he said that the rail service from Brighton was good. Is the Minister aware that a fortnight ago last Thursday a full trainload of people, which included Members of both your Lordships' House and the other place, was dumped on Rugby station at eight o'clock in the evening? Is he also aware that those individuals, including myself, were left in the bitter cold? There was no heat in the waiting room, they could not obtain a hot drink and they had to wait for two hours before a train picked them up. Is that not in flat contradiction to what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has just said? There are two standards which depend on where one happens to be in the country.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no rail network can guarantee that there will never be any maintenance problem or any other problem. The fact is that there are very few people who believe in the good old days of British Rail. Most commentators when looking at the improvements in the services that are now offered contrast them very well indeed with what was provided before. While in the past there were complaints about old rolling stock, now we see investment in new rolling stock which should address the kind of problem that the noble Lord suffered.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that a number of visits are being made to this country post-privatisation by representatives of other European railways who are anxious to learn from the very successful experiment that we have conducted?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. It is the case that whenever representatives come to this country they are very interested in the developments that have occurred here. The move across Europe and elsewhere is very much in the direction that we have pioneered in the UK.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the noble Viscount accept that whereas we may not all look back to a golden age of British Rail, some of us can remember a time when we could buy a ticket to any destination in the United Kingdom through a number of private companies without any difficulty whatever? Why can that standard not be achieved today?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, precisely that can be done now.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am terribly puzzled by what has been said. We hear a great deal of criticism from the Benches opposite about the new railways. Does my noble friend know whether it is the intention of the party opposite to renationalise the railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I spend the odd moment or two scanning speeches from the Opposition

1675
on that issue. One hears of their desire for a publicly owned railway. There has been no clarification on the issue, and certainly I have heard no specific spending commitment this afternoon.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, people may be very happy in Brighton. Is the noble Viscount aware that in most of Wales people preferred the good old days?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is himself a notable supporter of the good old days. But we have to look forward at how to develop the rail network in this country. There are a number of firms who want to invest in the railway network and put their money where their mouth is. That is what we have all been looking forward to for a very long time.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a great pity that I have been unable to take the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with me on a number of recent rail adventures where my experience has been somewhat different from the Brighton line? Does the Minister accept that there is some justification in the criticisms? It is complacent to suggest that they can be just wiped away. They are real. They are experiences that are suffered by many people. It does not apply in every case, but overall the experience is very real. Should it not be accepted by the Government once and for all?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, rail privatisation has been under way for a relatively short time. For example, Railtrack has been in the private sector for only about nine months. Some of the franchises have been running for about a year. It is impressive that people have noticed an increase in the levels of service and that the level of complaints has fallen. A 30 per cent. drop in the number of passenger complaints during the months of July, August and September 1996 compared with the previous year must tell one something. As to the impartial retailing of tickets, we welcome the regulator's report and we look forward to the nationwide survey to determine what the situation is.

Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Political Parties: Funding
3.8 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead rose to move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life or some other appropriate body.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject was raised in a somewhat different form 20 months ago. I make no apology for raising it again. I said at the conclusion of the debate in June 1995 that until there was transparency, this subject would rumble on. I also said that this is an issue on which I have no doubt what the ultimate outcome will be. I do not believe that there is a single noble Lord in this House who seriously considers that secrecy of political donations will exist in 10 years' or even five years' time. It is merely a question of how many rearguard actions are fought on the way.
In the debate in June 1995, there were a number of characteristic speeches from the Benches opposite. Almost all who spoke, except for the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, are not here this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, retreated into slightly irascible self-righteousness, the one explicitly stating and the other implying that it was really rather disgraceful that the subject should be debated at all. Then, as a great relief, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is on splendid form this afternoon, put up a smoke screen of hilarity, of which he has such an infinite supply, happily. And then we came to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House who retaliated—perhaps I might say—with a speech which mingled rodomontade and philosophy in about equal proportions.
It shows that things are serious when a Cecil becomes philosophical. I looked to see whether the noble Viscount's great-great-grandfather, the great Lord Salisbury, had contributed some particular apercu on this issue. He is, after all, rightly credited with being the creator of villa conservatism. I thought that he might have made some remarks about how the Conservative Party depended, if not on pennies of the people at least on the shillings of the bourgeoisie. I failed, but in the course of my slightly superficial research, I came across a short passage which, while I am bound to admit it might have been even more relevant to last Friday's debate than today, is, in my view, such a gem that I do not think that I can resist giving it to your Lordships' House. In 1897—l00 years ago—Lord Salisbury, then of course in office as Conservative Prime Minister, said:
"The federated action of Europe is our sole hope of escaping from the constant terror of war, which weighs down the spirits and darkens the prospect of every nation in this part of the world. The federation of Europe is the only hope we have".
I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not go into the Lobby on Friday afternoon in order to defeat the Bill which is so inimical to the spirit of his great-great-grandfather.
The remainder of the case from that side of the House last time was that the individual should have the right to back the party of his choice, or, for that matter, of his interest, with his money. That applies just as much to a millionaire as it does to a political foot-soldier.
Now, I do not dispute that for a moment. The issue is not whether he should be entitled to subscribe but whether the recipient party should be allowed to keep it secret. That is the simple nub of the matter. As criminal money, semi-criminal money, and the money of foreigners who should not be part of the British political process as such,

1677
but who may wish to influence things here, has a tendency to find its way into political subscriptions, there is an additional need for disclosure and transparency.
There is no need or appropriateness for any party to mount a holier-than-thou horse about this matter. Every party has had in its history faintly embarrassing subscriptions, though it may sometimes not be all that far back in its history. The party opposite appears often addicted to reminding us that, "My father knew Lloyd George" which was at a certain stage a famous catch-phrase in relation to political honours. What it should remind itself is that when that distinguished Welsh statesman was so referred to he was presiding over a government who were at least 80 per cent. Conservative, that the money was shared, that quite a lot of it was devoted to doing down poor Mr. Asquith.
The essential difference is that my party, the Liberal Democrats, and, as I understand it, the Labour Party, recognise the overriding public case for full disclosure, even if that involves a few embarrassments, whereas the Conservative Party thinks that the scale of its embarrassment is such that it must cling to secrecy against the obvious merits of the case until the last possible moment.
The issue becomes more important as we approach what is clearly going to be the most frenzied and probably degrading general election campaign. As if we had not already had enough from Sir James Goldsmith, our poster sites are already being made hideous by conflicting exaggerations which remind one of the old nuclear concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction); but there will not be a balance as there was in the nuclear concept.
The Conservative Party, I am told—it can be denied or alternative figures can be given if it wishes—has about £26 million available. We, my noble friends and I, and our cohorts in the other place, have a fairly negligible sum. The Labour Party, I suppose, has somewhere in between. The £26 million we shall have to live with—we will live with—I think that the electorate, too, will know how to live with it. I am not suggesting that it should be banned, but we should know where it came from. I am perfectly certain that the bulk of it did not come from small rank-and-file subscriptions, not that I doubt for a moment that the Conservative Party is anxious to get as much additional money as it can from small sources. It even wrote to my wife yesterday asking for £20.
Dr. Mawhinney did so himself, or so he purported to do, and with that mixture of the inaccurate and the maladroit which so characterises his style, he addressed her as "Ms M. Jenkins". He said that the Labour Party would say anything to get a vote. It seems that he will approach anyone to get £20.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I take that as rather commendable evidence of my right honourable friend's support of the classless society.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, how does the right honourable gentleman Dr. Mawhinney normally address the noble Viscount?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think that it would be impertinent of me, and perhaps indiscreet, to give
1678
any indication whatsoever to the noble Lord and to the House of some of the more impertinent forms of address which the chairman of my party calls me. I plead the need for privacy in some matters.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: On envelopes, my Lords, does he use these impertinent and derogatory terms? I think that in general Dr. Mawhinney is a good deal more interested in gifts of £20,000 and £200,000 than of £20.
I do not want to stop anyone subscribing, but I want it to be done openly. Nor, may I say, am I in any way obsessively necessarily keen on an elaborate system of state financing of political parties, which was a hobby horse upon which a number of noble Lords opposite rode off on the occasion of our previous debate. I do not want, as it were, to write the rigidities of party politics into our constitutional arrangements or to encourage party machines to get even more above themselves than they already are. Parties are useful, necessary instruments, but they are not tabernacles and should not be treated as such. If they are allowed too much of their head they make monkeys of us all.
Now, my Lords, what form should the inquiry take? I at first thought that the Nolan Committee itself should perform the task. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, has been kind enough to inform me that, while he sticks firmly to his stated view that party financing needs inquiry, his committee is fully committed until his three-year remit comes to an end in October this year.
I am therefore open-minded about the exact form of the inquiry, except that I am sure that a Select Committee of the House of Commons will not do. It never has, from the Marconi case onwards, whenever an issue has been one of direct party conflict. That was overwhelmingly true of the 1994 Select Committee which split down the middle on strict party lines and every issue for decision was carried only by the casting vote of the chairman. A repeat of that would serve little purpose. But it could either be a successor to Nolan, or an ad hoc inquiry, or even a full-scale Royal Commission.
It ought to be worked out and agreed between the parties. There is a lot to be said for as much consensus as possible. But I do beg the Government and the Conservative Party not just to dig in on untenable ground. It will not work in the long or even the medium run and on the way it will further discredit the already battered reputation of politics. I beg to move.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on his amusing and witty introduction and to thank him for bringing forward the Motion. With the greatest respect, I hope that it gives your Lordships opportunity to bury the thought once and for all.
In speaking against the Motion, I do so with some experience of the present system, having been treasurer of my party for the five years to 1993. For this Motion to be put forward indicates that there is uninformed concern, but nevertheless concern, that the present

1679
system is flawed. Suggestions have been made in the media and elsewhere that because some individuals give large sums to political parties, some anonymously, there must be an element of sleaze or unfair advantage being sought. Company giving, of course, is overt, and that is surely up to shareholders.
I can state quite categorically that during the five years when I was treasurer, notwithstanding that quite large sums were involved, not one person—not one—asked me to try to secure for him or her any preferment or privilege. Some who gave, subsequently received recognition not necessarily for their political giving but for what they had done in their public lives. After all, it would be a strange system in which giving to a political party precluded one from receiving recognition for other public works. On the other hand, others who gave, some quite substantially, received no recognition.
I believe that much of the money that came to the party centrally—and I am talking about money which came to the party centrally—came because of the record of various governments in office and because of the fear of very high tax rates being imposed if the party lost an election. That is a perfectly legitimate thought and reason. In answer to a point which was made by the noble Lord, perhaps I may say that, in percentage terms, only a very tiny amount came anonymously, and came from people who liked giving anonymously, whether it be the Church or charities because that is what they believed.
I can think that three substantive reasons for referring this matter to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or to any other committee, would be because of evidence of corruption or advantage; that public funds should be used to fund parties; and to investigate overseas giving. As I have just said, I had and have no evidence of corruption or preferment. I respect the right of people to give anonymously if they choose; it is another freedom. For public funds to be used would seem to me to be a fundamental error—and it has been suggested—putting bureaucracy in the place of democracy. It would take away yet another right of individuals to think for themselves and to apply their money as they see best for themselves and, in their eyes, for the country.
As regards overseas giving—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the noble Lord equally convinced that trade unions, when they give money to the Labour Party, do not wish for anything in return? It has for many years been the Conservatives' allegation that unions are buying influence through giving money and, indeed, the Conservatives have insisted on strictly regulating that. Can the noble Lord explain the precise difference between those two activities of giving money?
Lord Laing of Dunphail: My Lords, I have no definite reason for knowing why the trade unions give to any political party.
As regards overseas giving, we have gone out of our way to attract and have been extremely successful in attracting billions of pounds in inward capital
1680
investment, which has been very good for our economy and recognised as such. It therefore seems quite rational to me for companies or individuals who invest here to have the right to back the party or government whose policies are likely to give them the best return on that investment. Surely the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or possibly any other committee, has more important matters to look into than this matter, which is in a perfectly healthy state.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and to thank him for raising this very important issue. I support the Motion because it is in line with the declared commitment of the Labour Party that in government the question of funding of political parties, including state funding, will be referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life or to some other appropriate committee.
The continual refusal by the Prime Minister to take such action can lead only to the inevitable question: why not? What has the governing party got to hide? The wall of secrecy that surrounds the funding of the Conservative Party makes it inevitable that it should be singled out for particular scrutiny. Indeed, it has singled itself out. The Conservative Manifesto at the last election stated that:
"we will be less secretive about the workings of government".
Surely, the same principle should apply to the workings of the party of government.
It is not axiomatic that good government requires the existence of political parties, but it is difficult to conceive any change, at least in the near future, in our political system. If we believe that democracy depends crucially on the vitality and the integrity of political parties, the principle of transparency in the financial affairs of politicians and political parties should automatically follow.
There is a powerful democratic case for the financial affairs of political parties to be open to public inspection. A representative democracy cannot function without political parties, and political parties cannot survive without money. Political parties are vehicles for social and political action and people who want to effect political change will express their support for parties not just in votes and in voluntary effort but by giving money. Political donations have now become very important and it is a pity that they have become such a controversial part of our political life. The law cannot alter that; nor should it attempt to do so. It can determine, however, whether the process is transparent and accountable or concealed and corrupt.
There has been a long historical struggle for fairness and equity in our electoral process, be it by extending the franchise or in the financing of elections. From the earliest days of the universal franchise, it was seen as an essential principle of a democracy that economic power should not be able to buy political power. The passing of the Secret Ballot Act 1872 protected voters from intimidation but made no attempt to deal with the question of bribery. And with the removal of intimidation, in the election of 1880, bribery came to the

1681
fore when it is estimated that at current prices, candidates spent more than £114 million to bribe the electorate to vote for them.
As a consequence, it was felt necessary to curb the spending of candidates by the introduction of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act. That Act still remains the basis of our election law, at least at constituency level. But the main failing of the Act was that it referred only to expenses incurred by:
"a candidate or his election agent".
It took no account of political parties, mainly because they scarcely existed outside the constituency and the parliamentary caucus, and there was certainly no concept of national campaigning.
In that 100 years, the law has never been amended. There is still a free-for-all when it comes to national spending by political parties. No legislative framework has been established to regulate their financial affairs; no legal obligation to publish accounts; no law requiring disclosure of donors, be they individuals or companies; no restrictions on money from abroad; and no determination of a maximum for election expenses.
It is that vacuum of legal principle which has led to the general level of public disquiet about the financial affairs of political parties and given rise to important proposals for reform, reforms that are supported in principle by all the political parties bar the governing party, and by independent committees of inquiry such as the Hansard Society.
It was a pity that the Home Office Select Committee, no doubt for political reasons, in 1994 failed to take the opportunity to look at reform. It produced a code of conduct on which the Government have relied heavily in justification of their non-action, but that fails absolutely to deal with the real issues of public disquiet, the lack of financial disclosure, donations from abroad and the need for democratisation of company donations.
All those points are dealt with in the Labour Party's legislative proposals to clean up political funding. Every political party will have to declare the source of donations of more than £5,000. No company will make a political donation without first balloting to set up a political fund, with shareholders having the right to opt out. And no party shall accept donations from foreign sources.
It would clearly be an unwarranted intrusion into individual privacy to argue that every financial contribution to a political party is made public. Demands for disclosure do not refer to small contributions to party funds, but there must come a point on the scale where the concern for individual privacy gives way to a concern about influence and secrecy. The Labour Party puts that disclosure limit at £5,000 but, whatever the limit, the legislation must be watertight and must apply not only to donations but also to loans, collateral and the money value of gifts, advertising or sponsorship. Would that not be consistent with the existing principle and practice of MPs having to declare their financial interests?
We shall no doubt be asked to believe, in our naivety, that the £40 million to £50 million which the Conservatives have raised over the last three years has
1682
in the main come from summer fetes and wine and cheese parties. I only wish that I could have raised that sort of money from the events which I organised. But in reality, the Conservative Party has always relied on substantial donations from commercial companies and wealthy industrialists. It is not the giving of such donations which is wrong; it is the method of their receipt and the lack of public declaration that raises concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said, we need to know from where the money comes.
Following the revelation last year of the Tory fund-raising Premier Club, the Prime Minister insisted that no one can buy access to Ministers and that no one can buy favours. But suspicion will remain wherever there is reliance on secret financial gifts and fund-raising activities which are not open to public scrutiny. In spite of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail, it allows for the widespread perception that there is a connection between financial contributions to Conservative Party funds and the award of honours.
Again, I am sure that we shall be told that the responsibility for honours is that of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. However, I would refer your Lordships' House to the words of Lord Shackleton, a former chairman of the committee, in the Observer when he said:
"There is an obvious gap here. It is highly likely that secret donations are by-passing the scrutiny system and that honours are effectively being bought".
Of equal concern must be the allegation that the Premier Club had been advising its members to conceal their political donations in company accounts as entertainment, even though the members were told that the money, possibly up to £100,000, would go to Conservative Party funds. That must be in contravention of the Companies Act which states that:
"companies must declare direct or indirect donations in their Annual Accounts".
The eminent commercial lawyer, Robin Potts, in the Observer on 21st July said—and I paraphrase—'it is plainly the indirect making of a contribution; it seems to me to be plainly wrong'.
Equally, the issue raised by foreign donations is not only ethical but constitutional. Why should people who are not entitled to vote in a UK election be entitled to influence its outcome? At the last election the Conservative Party apparently received £7 million in overseas donations. Although the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, has stated on the record that that money was paid to the Conservative Party through "tons" of offshore and overseas accounts, none of that information is in the public domain. That is another aspect of the mystery which surrounds the financing of the governing party.
In 1989 your Lordships' House carried an amendment to the Companies Act requiring that donations for political purposes should be proposed at annual general meetings of companies. In the other place, the Government rejected that amendment as they opposed also the draft legislation Political Parties (Income and Expenditure) Bill. That freedom of companies, so

1683
stoutly defended by Conservative MPs, stands in stark contrast to the battery of legislative restrictions on trade union contributions to the Labour Party.
Company donations are subject to no such restrictions. There is no political fund; there is no reference to shareholders; there is no ballot; there is no opt-out facility; and the donations are not recorded in Tory Party accounts.
If time allowed, one could also explore the question of offshore accounts, donations to privatised utilities, the alleged role of Ministers as fundraisers or the alleged use of Downing Street for fund-raising events. All of those issues on the way in which the governing party raises money need to be addressed and until they are, there will continue to be suspicions and unfounded allegations about improper influences operating in public life which damage overall the public credibility of the political and electoral system in the eyes of the voters. That will be removed only by new legislation based on an open and frank examination of party financing.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is probably very dangerous to try to cap one's leader's funny stories. However, on to my doormat yesterday fell a white envelope with very striking blue ink addressed to me from the right honourable John Major. Of course, I was curious to receive that letter. It was soliciting my support. But the noble Viscount's explanation of why that skilfully targeted direct mail campaign had been sent to me personally was that the envelope was addressed to Mr. Holme. No doubt it was in pursuit of the classless society which the noble Viscount mentioned earlier.
Of course, that is an extremely sensitive issue everywhere, not just in Britain. This is an issue with which every democratic society must grapple. It is not in some way unique to us or a special British cross that we have to bear. In every democratic country, people want to scrutinise the relationship between money and political parties. That is quite natural and healthy. One way of attempting to do this, which may be doomed because we are close to a general election when partisan spirits rise high, is in terms of what the public interest would suggest rather than the partisan interest. If I may, I shall try to do so for a few minutes and I shall start by trying to define the nature of the issue.
I do not believe that the issue is how the political parties can get hold of more money. That may sound odd coming from a spokesman for one of the poorer parties, but I do not believe that that is the issue. The issue is, first, one of the good name and reputation of the political and parliamentary system; and, secondly, it is an issue of how we encourage participation in our politics, rather than further extending the alienation which has now become a problem in Britain. If we cannot define the public interest in the House of Lords, I do not quite know where we can.
There is probably a third public interest issue; namely, how do we deny special access to institutions and people with a great deal of money which would
1684
trump the access of the ordinary citizen? If we live in a civic democracy, the first requirement is that each citizen should not only be equal under the law but also feel that he or she has equal access to the political process. If that equal access is interfered with by large institutions, not claiming preferment—and I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Laing, said—but seeking special access through their donations, that is at someone's expense. It is at the expense of the ordinary citizen, the ordinary voter, who is denied the very same access.
Therefore, rather than taking a view of the question of party funds—that is, if it is to be referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan—based on the late Wilfred Pickles' notion of "Give 'em the money", or "Let's have some state funding", I should like to suggest another way of speaking about it. I do not believe that we should discuss it that way.
Let us start with the demand side of the equation. For example, why do parties want money and what do they want it for? Of course, there are perfectly proper purposes for which parties need money: they need money for research; they need money to sustain their organisations; they need money to fight elections; and they need money to help them work with public opinion and express it.
However, I wonder whether the public interest is served by massive expenditure on poster advertising of the type that we see at present. How can it be in the public interest to have floods of red crocodile tears pouring on to the streets of Britain because one party or another chooses to spend millions of pounds on poster advertising? I can recommend to your Lordships a book by Mr. Rodney Tyler about the 1987 campaign. He described a great row in the Conservative Party about the last half million pounds that it decided to spend on advertising in that campaign. He concluded that everyone concerned agreed that the last half million pounds was wasted. It may well be that all this political poster advertising is wasted. But if it is, it is at the expense of very great public irritation with its effect on the tone and level of political discourse in Britain. Do parties need to fight general elections, and the run up to them, as if they were engaged in the competitive marketing of, say, soap powder or baked beans?
I suggest that one of the issues that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, might consider is the question of limits on national expenditure at general elections. In the last years of the last century limits were introduced on constituency expenditure. Noble Lords will recall the Eatanswill by-election in the Pickwick Papers with the gross spectacle of money spent to buy votes in constituencies. That was unacceptable and was stopped. Now we live in a media world and elections have moved on. We all know that the general election takes place as much nationally as in the constituencies. Does not the same logic apply? Should there not be limits on national expenditure? I do not ask that from a self-interested Liberal Democrat point of view; indeed, I accept that the limits might be very much higher than my party is able to spend.

1685
However, it is not right that there should be no limit whatever on plutocracy in the pursuit of votes. There should be a limit, and it could be a sensible one upon which I believe the parties could find agreement. It would force the parties to do what they should do in any event—namely, to think harder about how to address the electorate rather than simply overwhelming them with quasi-commercial propaganda. Some people object to that modest proposal by saying, "Yes, but the parties would simply start advertising in advance of the election", just as they are doing now. That situation could be caught quite easily. You could catch governments up to clever tricks about the date of the election by saying that all expenditure for three months before the general election would be caught by those limits. Therefore, any party which chose to start its advertising early would simply find that it had less to spend during the election. Therefore, clever games with the date of the election would not serve at all.
I believe that there is something to be done on the demand side of the equation rather than automatically assuming that the more money that is around for the parties the better. However, on the supply side of the equation, I very much accept the point made by the former treasurer of the Conservative Party about personal probity not only on his part but also in the motives of those who gave. There is no point in implying otherwise. However, I question the latter part of his proposition and would ask him whether he is really satisfied that it is a freedom not to declare that.
Just as every business would declare its source and use of funds in its accounts, I believe that it would be entirely appropriate for parties to declare their sources and use of funds. Why should parties occupy a special place in the law that clubs, associations, and companies certainly do not occupy? Why should they not be required to disclose the names of their donors? If people then decided in those circumstances that they did not want to give, that would be their decision. But if they are proud of the party that they support, why should they not be prepared to come out in public and say, "We support them". I do not think that one would have to take that down to very small donations but, let us say, every donation of £5,000 and above might be declared.
The second aspect to which I have already referred is the transparency and publication of full accounts. I think that there is a particular problem with the party opposite in that respect because, historically, there is not quite an entity that you can get hold of called "the Conservative Party". If I understand correctly, there is the national union, the parliamentary party and the leader of the party, but the Conservative Party itself is almost a metaphysical concept and does not correspond to a legal entity that is easy to nail down. I see that the noble Baroness sitting opposite, who knows a great deal about these things, is nodding her head, so that must be the case.
I should like to suggest that it would be a good start and quite a good idea if the Conservative Party, like any club or association which wants to carry on trade and pursue its humble objectives, were to exist legally. Then we could say to it, "Well, why don't you publish your accounts and let us know where the money comes
1686
from?" I know that there is an admirable group in the Conservative Party—namely, the Conservative Reform Group—which seeks to do precisely that. It seeks to encourage its fellow Conservative Party members to publish full accounts like any other responsible body.
The third question on the supply side of the equation is the desirability of having more small supporters; that is to say, more real people getting engaged in the political process rather than it simply being large institutions which pay the piper. That bears on the criteria of participation, of enthusiasm and of voluntarism upon which civic society depends. That would be a great thing. Indeed, in Canada small donations are encouraged by having a matching tax break for such donations. Therefore, if you wanted to have state funding into parties, that would be a way to do it. You could match small contributions by a matching contribution from the taxman and, in that way, you would encourage people in what all parties depend upon—people's private and enthusiastic activity.
In brief, on the supply side I would say that undeclared donations, overseas donations and very large donations must all at least see the light of day. I personally suggest that it is inappropriate for people who do not live and vote in this country to contribute to the British political process. That is also something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, could consider if he is charged with looking into the matter.
In summary, therefore, I think desirable features of a reformed political financing system would not depend on vast state handouts but on economy and frugality on the part of the parties; transparency in the system so we could all understand what was going on; and a greater reliance on the donations of private individuals and less dependence on large scale institutions to finance the political system.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and at last to know what I am: I am a member of a metaphysical body and that gives me tremendous fortitude to address your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord was dealing with matters really beyond the Motion. As I am about to be critical of the Motion, I, with respect, draw attention to the fact that we are concerned with the funding of political parties but not with the limits of expenditure of political parties, although that is another matter which might be considered.
My noble friend Lord Laing of Dunphail rightly suggested that the only reason for a reference, as proposed by this Motion, could be the issues of secrecy, disclosure and transparency, which are all issues of great importance leading up to the election. But, as my noble friend suggested, there really has to be concern that the present system is flawed, and that is not so. There has to be evidence of corruption or preferment. There is no such evidence. So what is the object of this exercise? Assuredly this is not an appropriate occasion on which to consider suggestions as to misconduct of any political

1687
party in the context of funding. No allegation may be substantiated, answered or fairly decided within the compass of this debate.
To refer to the Premier Club or to the Institute of Public Policy Research as a new front for Labour, or to refer to certain other matters such as the arcane financial relationships between the Labour Party and the trade unions is quite beside the point. There is therefore mere suggestion, mere assertion, no evidence, no firm basis on which your Lordships are invited to refer this question to the Nolan Committee—I see the noble and learned Lord is present—which the noble and learned Lord has wisely declined to entertain before the election. At all events to make a sane, quasi judicial decision in a committee of that kind, one needs time, patience and a considerable amount of care.
Much may be said about the suggestion in the Motion that this should be referred to some other body. What worries me is not that we should debate and discuss—that is fair enough and is usually beneficial—but that we have a resolution to seek in effect to enjoin the Prime Minister to refer this question. It is not only premature; it is utterly pointless. To what profit or purpose are we so to resolve and divide? The hope is that we may as usual follow the Wednesday custom to discuss, debate and then move for the withdrawal of Papers and that we may not be asked to divide. Surely this is not the occasion on which to depart from convention and establish an unwelcome precedent—a departure from a convention which could well one day invite imposed reform.
Why should your Lordships be asked to indulge in this extraordinary exercise? It would seem—I may be wrong—that it is because of something that was said by Dr. Brian Mawhinney last November concerning openness about the sources of opposition funding which touched a raw nerve, as inevitably it would. This appears from the correspondence to which I shall refer but not quote verbatim. A letter was written on 20th November by the Leader of the Labour Party, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats and various other opposition parties to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. They referred to Dr. Mawhinney's remarks. The suggestion to the Prime Minister was that he would remove his objection to the Nolan Committee investigating party funding and that if the Prime Minister did not agree they would assume that he believed there was something to hide over the sources of Tory funding.
My right honourable friend replied in substance on 22nd November suggesting that Dr. Mawhinney had been misunderstood, there was a certain amount of hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party, and that it had apparently been forgotten that these matters had already been investigated by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1994, which set down the guidelines that parties should not accept money with strings attached. He referred to the receipts of the Labour Party from the trade unions—more than half the party's income—in return for 50 per cent. of the votes at the annual conference. Then reference was made to the position of the party which I support.
1688
These matters seem to have been, or may have been the reason why this matter has been brought before us today. In the final paragraph it was suggested that this request was an attempt to pave the way for the state funding of political parties. To be perfectly fair, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, made no reference at all to state funding. I know not whether that is in any sense involved in this debate.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I fear the noble Lord cannot have been listening. I had a paragraph on state funding.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was listening but I do not hear as well as I should. If we are dealing with state funding, the position seems to be that the Home Affairs Committee—at paragraph 2, as the noble Lord knows—did not think it should be extended beyond the confines of current legislation. Without boring your Lordships because your Lordships will know this, I merely refer to paragraph 15 of the summary of conclusions which refers to the recommended code of conduct which covers the situation and which, I understand, has not been breached. With respect, it is well understood that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, would wish to break the mould of a predominantly two-party system and introduce an amalgam of state funding and PR akin to that adopted—
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I sympathise that the noble Lord could not hear, but I said at some length that I was not in favour of state funding, and gave my reasons.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, again I misheard the noble Lord. I can only apologise. If we are not concerned with state funding, I can conclude. The Motion in terms raises no allegation of misconduct as regards funding. If there is some allegation, let it be dealt with. Let it be investigated by some independent body. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for some reason that I do not understand—but then I would not—considers that the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place is not appropriate. It seems to me that it would be. What is important is that on this occasion we should not have to divide and resolve because that serves no useful purpose and, as I have suggested, could create a most unwelcome precedent.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is the first occasion—it may well be the only one—when I rise in this House feeling confident that I am somewhat more informed on this area of policy than many other noble Lords. For many years I was General Secretary of the Labour Party which, although not a metaphysical entity, was until relatively recently quite innocent of the grubbier aspects of fund-raising. During my time we increased the Labour Party's income from £4.5 million to £16 million and at the same time shifted away from a heavy dependence on trade union finance to one which is much less than the 50 per cent. which was quoted.

1689
I am one of the strongest defenders of the links of the Labour Party with the trade unions. However, I believe that the pre-existing dependency to the tune of 90 per cent. of income was unhealthy for both trade unions and the party. We need, therefore, a more sophisticated across the board approach to political funding. I am also conscious that this is the second time in five days that I have supported a Liberal Democrat Motion. I hope that that will not extend paranoia on the opposing Benches. I believe that men and women of good will of all parties recognise that central to the issue is integrity of politics and the way in which politics are seen by the electorate.
There is deep concern among the public about political finances. We all know that the level of corruption in this country is relatively small compared with America, Japan or Italy. But it is there; it is believed to be there, and believed to be growing by the bulk of the electorate. The electorate is aware of the massive sums, for example, given to the Conservative Party by Asil Nadir. The electorate is aware of the "Cash for Questions" scam, foolish and petty though it may be. For many years there have been accusations about the Tory Party's reliance on big business, and the Labour Party's reliance on trade unions. We now have Sir James Goldsmith establishing his own Referendum Party, financed personally at a reported cost of £20 million—more than either of the major parties spent in the last general election. It may be welcome to many of us that Sir James seems to be wasting that money and looks like achieving an outcome that is no better and probably rather worse than his son-in-law achieved recently in Pakistan. But the fact remains that if the Referendum Party were to achieve even a fraction of its aims, it would affect not only the outcome of the general election but of Britain's relationship with Europe.
There was a thorough examination in 1993 by the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place. Unfortunately, the main conclusions of that report split on party lines. I believe that the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, or some arm's length and independent body, is best and most respected in this area. On behalf of the Labour Party, I submitted to the committee a number of inter-related proposals. We dealt with state finance and political parties. I believe that that is part of the debate. But we also dealt with transparency and disclosure; the rules governing donations to political parties; and the issue of donations by non-British citizens and other overseas donations, as has been spelt out by my noble friend Lady Gould. We also dealt with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, of limitations on electoral expenditure and tax treatment of political donations.
We were in favour of a package of reforms. We would be prepared to put much the same message to any other committee which considered the matter. Perhaps that committee will have recourse to report after the next general election but it should certainly report before the election after that. It is an area which needs clearing up. The present system is flawed; I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Laing. Moreover, it is seen to be flawed by a large proportion of the electorate. Political parties are
1690
not charities. They are not church organisations. They are bodies which purport to run the apparatus of the state and are essential to the whole integrity of democracy in our society.
Contrary to what we have heard so far, I believe that many Conservatives recognise the damage done to the Conservative Party image and to democracy by secrecy and non-disclosure. For three or four years before the last election nothing was available in Conservative Party accounts or company accounts to explain from where about 50 per cent. of their finances had come. That is £21 million. It gradually slipped out where quite a lot of the money had come from. It was not from bazaars, garden parties, cheese and wine parties and home-made jam sales in the Home Counties, as we are sometimes led to believe by noble Lords opposite. It came from Greek shipowners, Hong Kong magnates and indeed from Asil Nadir. Those donations were not disclosed by the Tory Party. They were not disclosed in company accounts. In the case of Polly Peck they were almost certainly illegal.
On the other side of the equation, the relationship between the Labour Party and the trade unions may be controversial but I dispute that it is arcane. It is open and above board, and remains so. We believe that we can defend it. The Labour Party has always had in the public arena how much the trade unions give to the party. More recently we made it even clearer by putting it in a single figure. Not only trade union donations but any other donations over £10,000 now appear clearly listed in the Labour Party accounts. Can there be any real objection to a binding requirement on all parties that they do precisely the same? Any donations of over £5,000 or £10,000 should be listed and in the public arena. If the recipient party does not want to reveal how it is being financed, that donation should be refused. If the donor does not want it known that he or his institution is giving money, it should not be offered in the first place.
In some cases we are dealing with institutions which use other people's money. As my noble friend Lady Gould has already said, the rules governing that are somewhat lacking in equity. Trade unions are obliged to set up a separate political fund which they have to re-endorse every 10 years, and allow their members to opt out of, whereas companies do not have to go through such obligations. Some parity is surely required here.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, as regards limitations on electoral expenditure. Possibly we are in an era when that will attract more support. Even so, the electoral extravaganza that we are about to face is nothing compared with American standards. Nonetheless, we have the bizarre situation where limitations on local expenditure constituency by constituency have been rigidly defined since the election of 1880 when effectively £140 million worth (in today's money) of bribes was running around. I think that I am right in saying that the Liberals won that election.
For a hundred years those rules have been applied. But there is no limit on national election expenditure. There are regulations in Canada, Scandinavia and

1691
certain other countries which would limit national expenditure. I believe that we should follow their lead on these matters.
As regards taxation, I am not in favour of blanket tax relief on political donations, but possible tax exemption for small donations should be examined. Preferably a different sort of approach should be adopted. In the United States, one dollar—which I understand is to be raised to five dollars—can be earmarked in tax returns for a particular political party or campaign. Surely £1 of everybody's income tax could be earmarked in a very small box on the tax form for donations to political parties.
Finally, there is the vexed question of state funding more generally. I do not want to go into it in great detail, but in Germany, Scandinavia, France, Italy, the United States, Canada and Australia, the case has been made for many years; and the new democracies of central and eastern Europe are following. They accept state funding as an essential feature of democracy. Democracy should not be valued less by the taxpayers of Britain than it is in those countries; and it would be complacent to believe that democracy is less fragile in Britain than it is in those countries.
I am not in favour of state subsidy for electoral expenses; that just encourages them. In any case, election time is a point in the electoral cycle where political parties find the ability to raise money most easily. However, I am concerned about the health of political parties throughout the electoral cycle and the health of parties, not just at the Westminster level but throughout the country.
Three years ago the Home Affairs Committee estimated that the total level of state funding in Germany was 200 million deutschmarks, and in the free-market United States, 77 million dollars. I do not advocate anything like that amount for this country. But if the recommendations of the committee chaired by the late lamented Lord Houghton of Sowerby 20 years ago were to be updated, the expenditure on state support of democracy through political parties would amount to £14 million a year.
That is not an enormous sum to pay for democracy. It would still require political parties to raise other moneys. However, it would ensure that parties could sustain their structure throughout the electoral cycle. I do not advocate that parties should receive state funding in the present circumstances. We should see this as a package. They should not receive taxpayers' money unless there is transparency as to the sources of funding, openness on how corporations and trade unions establish political donations, and some limitation on national campaign expenditure. Taken together, all those would reduce the temptation to seek undisclosed, potentially illegal and corrupt donations.
The good name of democracy is at stake. I am content to support the reference of all these issues to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, or any similar body which could undertake a thorough and, it is to be hoped, non-partisan approach to these issues.
4.12 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with great enjoyment to the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail. He reminded me of the butler who, one Sunday morning, came to see his employer and opened with the words, "Madam, I was not found dead drunk in a ditch last night". The noble Lord denied a charge that had not been made. He said that of all the people with whom he had dealt who had given money, none had asked for privilege. I think the noble Lord knows that the world is not quite so simple. If the noble Lord were to order a taxi and ask the taxi driver to get him from here to Paddington within 15 minutes, it is unlikely that the taxi-driver would solicit a tip. However, I think the noble Lord would not be surprised if such a thought were not absent from the taxi-driver's mind.
I begin with a confession. I very much hope that my honourable friend Mrs. Maddock will still be prepared to speak to me tomorrow. Fortunately, she is one of the most generous people in politics. The confession goes back to the night of the Christchurch by-election. That was when Mr. Asil Nadir had lived—shall I say?—down to his name, and the tangled story of his financial relationship with the Conservative Party, into whose details I shall make no attempt to enter, was all over the newspapers. Going round the doorsteps on polling night, I was treated to such tirades of apocalyptic indignation about what was going on that even I, at 6 o'clock on polling night in a by-election that we were desperate to win, was moved to say, "I don't think it's really quite as bad as that". Having now proved myself to be no politician, I hope that I am perhaps none the worse a politician for that.
We must be concerned with the legitimacy of our political system. That night I heard that legitimacy called into question. If we care for our own parties, we must be concerned to believe that they are attempting to contribute to the national interest as we see it.
I offer that incident also as an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who said that there was no evidence of any public discontent. I will tell him also about when I first discovered, I think at the age of about 13 in 1950, that companies gave money to political parties. I experienced an utter sense of shock. I understand that people give money to political parties because they have beliefs. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, knows, the corporation is a legal fiction. A corporation does not have a collective political will. So it immediately occurred to me as a 13 year-old schoolboy to ask: if they give money to parties, what do they get for it? If I could ask that question at 13, others can ask it too.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that there was no evidence of misconduct. In a case where our central complaint is about a lack of transparency, that must necessarily be so. He knows that if a court should sit unexpectedly in camera for no apparent reason, it will not be possible to make any specific allegation of misconduct in relation to the conduct of that court. But there will be a very profound doubt as to why that sitting was held in camera. The suspicion may well, as many suspicions are, be misplaced.

1693
In the words of my honourable friend Mr. Maclennan in his submission to the committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, we believe in rule by popular consent, not by private money. Noble Lords opposite may tell me that that aim is Utopian. In a sense it is. But so is the aim of government of the people, by the people, for the people. So is the undertaking to do justice. These are things at which we aim, and at which I hope we shall always continue to aim.
When we complain now, as many Members on the Benches opposite do, about a decline in public morals and diminishing honesty, and debate the Bill dealing with social security fraud, which arrived in this House a little less than an hour ago and about which I hope to say more on another occasion, we should reflect that what we do, preach and even threaten matters a great deal less than the example that we set and indeed, even more, the example that we are supposed to be setting. If, when dealing with people perpetrating benefit fraud, we find that they believe, like the voters of Christchurch, that "they are all on the fiddle", we may legislate until we are blue in the face and we shall not stop it.
We need to consider what impression we give to the public at large. The sense that a suspicion of corruption may de-legitimate a government has been expressed in other contexts. One of my academic colleagues, an American friend of some 30 years' standing, wrote a lengthy book on corruption in the reign of King James VI and I, arguing that that so de-legitimated the government that it brought the Civil War a great deal nearer. I say to her what I said to the voters at Christchurch: I do not think it is quite as bad as that. But there is a case to answer.
The power of patronage, the power of money, in the history of English and of British politics has been a matter of complaint for a very long time. One need only look, for example, at the work of Henry Bolingbroke. What is new is the point where the tide of money is lapping against our defences. It used to be government corrupting individual MPs; now the party system makes that exercise of spending very largely unnecessary; now the key instrument is the party.
My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham said that it was dangerous to attempt to cap one's leader. It is perhaps doubly dangerous to attempt to cap one's leader and one's campaign director both together. However, I cannot resist quoting the Conservative Party's target letter to pensioners during the 1992 election:
"Now that you have retired, now that you are no longer working, now that you have time on your hands, you might begin to think of taking an interest in the Conservative Party".
That letter was delivered to Mr. and Mrs. D. Thatcher of Dulwich. I have not heard of any reply; I should be interested to do so.
As is often said, the power of party has increased quite remarkably. We are in many ways moving towards a presidential system of government and therefore the importance of strengthening a party appears to many people to be great.
In addition, we easily forget how much more expensive the process of electioneering has become in our own lifetime. The first election of which I have
1694
serious memory is the election of 1945, when I was eight. That election was conducted almost entirely by word of mouth and shoe leather. One conducted it by meeting voters and talking to them. In the past voters came to meet us. Indeed, I can remember in rural constituencies real political meetings with real floating voters as late as 1966. Such meetings hardly ever happen now. We have so many more voters and one does not reach them that way. One needs to reach voters collectively and en masse. That is why electronic techniques of electioneering, and particularly television, which we did not have in any real way in 1945, have become far more important than they ever were. That is why the comparative importance of money in electioneering is far greater than it has ever been at any time in our memory or indeed in recorded history.
We live, as King James VI and I also did, at a time of rapid disposal of state assets. There are thus a great many situations in which one may ask, when an asset is disposed of for less than its value, whether there is a quid pro quo. I have asked myself precisely that question on a number of occasions in the course of my own business in this Chamber. I have never raised it in public because I have never known whether my suspicions were justified. I know perfectly well that of 10 suspicions probably only one will be well founded, and I will have no idea which one that may be. But, because I ask the question, a rot of doubt is set at work in my mind which means that I have less sense than I would otherwise have of the legitimacy of what is being done. I believe that any party, at any time, is unwise to leave itself open to such a suspicion. Transparency is a virtue which has a great deal to recommend it.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest, although it is now much diminished. I was deputy treasurer of the Conservative Party from 1988 to 1990 and treasurer from 1990 to 1992 with my noble friend Lord Laing. I do a bit of fund-raising now from time to time and I shall perhaps do some more in the future. I have been responsible for the raising of very substantial sums for the Conservative Party.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for whom I have the highest regard, for initiating this debate on an extremely important subject and one on which your Lordships' House can take a more objective view than is possible in another place.
I am sure my noble friend Lord Laing will agree that, contrary to popular perception, however much we raised for the Conservative Party it never seemed to be enough. The ever increasing cost of running the central organisation of a major political party tends to mean that whatever one raises has already been spent. I am sure that that applies both to the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, though possibly not to the Referendum Party. The noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, who is not in his seat today—I am not even sure where his seat would be—said to me the other day, "Having worked for 20 years for a party with no money and lots of policies, it is rather interesting to be in one with lots of money and no policies."

1695
I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation this morning as to what it costs to fight a general election. The Conservative Party has more than 600 constituency associations, costing an average of, let us say, £25,000 a year. That comes to £75 million over the life of a parliament. If you add central costs of £75 million per annum, that is £100 million over five years, making a grand total of some £175 million. The Labour Party can probably do the same sums with, I would guess, similar results. It is not just a phenomenon of the Tory party.
The lesson is that democracy is an expensive business. So far business and the trade unions have carried a substantial share of that expense. I know that noble Lords opposite would love to meddle with the funds available to the Conservative Party—but for spurious reasons. Today's Motion is no high-minded suggestion for the public good. It is an attempt to insinuate that a problem exists when it most certainly does not. By suggesting that political funding is a matter for the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, implies that shortcomings exist. They do not. No political party accepts money which it knows is tainted. To do so would create a time bomb. If it goes off, it has quite the opposite effect to gaining more votes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I fully accept that no political party would accept money if it knew it was tainted. What does the noble Lord think a political party should do if it discovers that money which it has received is tainted?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I was just coming to that point. By the law of averages there will be the occasional bad apple that goes undetected or turns bad subsequently. Under those circumstances any political party has to consider whether it wishes to return the money. That decision must be made in the light of the popularity that it will lose or gain as a result of its decision.
Tory donors support the Conservative Party because they believe in Conservative policies in the broadest sense. Labour donors support their general policies, I do not doubt. It is a fundamental part of the political party treasurer's job to weed out and fend off any attempt at undue or wrongful influence before it comes anywhere near the political hierarchy of the party.
Having met thousands of Tory supporters, I have only once been approached with an improper suggestion. My noble friend Lord Laing said that he was never approached; perhaps I was thought to be more of a pushover. That one occasion was one too many and is precisely why in the Tory party we rigorously separate the treasurer's department from the chairman's department. The controls are already there. Self-regulation is self-interest, and it works.
Noble Lords have mentioned disclosure. It already exists. Company donations have by law to be made public; that has already been stated today. Private individuals are another matter. We are all free to spend our personal money as we wish. The principle of the
1696
secret ballot must be paramount. I have profound doubts that the individual's right to confidentiality over his or her political intentions should be compromised by compulsory disclosure of personal political financial support. The interests of democracy are not well served by such suggestions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, quoted certain remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, about foreign donations to the Conservative Party at the last election. I do not know from where those remarks could possibly have come. The noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, retired as treasurer in 1990 and certainly was not privy to the working of the treasurer's department at the 1992 election.
Personally, I have had a growing interest in state funding of political parties' central organisations. That may not find great favour with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I assure him that I shall not alarm him unduly, but I know that it interested the Labour Party. Some years ago we had informal discussions. At first glance and at headline level, state funding seems to have certain attractions. Certainly, the job of party treasurer would be less onerous and governments would be less open to criticism of partisan interest. There are many broad arguments in favour and I shall not bore the House with them today. As always, the problem is in the detail. I could see no end to wrangling over the fine print.
More importantly, however, I have grave doubt about the appetite of the taxpayer for another £100 million or so of public expenditure every year. I have even greater doubt that the leadership of either the Conservative or the Labour parties would dare make such a suggestion.
I have mentioned the cost of running a major political party today. It has risen enormously over the past two decades. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made that very point. It has risen not just because of inflation, European elections or higher profile campaigns for local elections and by-elections but because of competition between the parties—tit for tat advertising campaigns, for example. Escalation is rife. Does not my noble friend think that it is time for the parties to discuss between themselves some kind of limit by agreement? As noble Lords have said, there are statutory limits to expense at local level with which no one seems to argue, although I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, quite so far as to suggest statutory limits for central expenditure by political parties. But we do not need to involve the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, or some yet to be created body. We need a dialogue, perhaps when the current political temperature has receded.
I suggest that we reject today's Motion. It is partisan, implying that Tory fund raising is somehow tainted. It was not in my day, and it is not today. The party of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, may indeed envy the success of Tory fund raising but perhaps it should look no further than its party's policies to see why that party

1697
cannot emulate it. I welcome the debate but I sincerely hope that the House will reject the Motion if it is pressed.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down can he confirm that I heard him aright? Did he say that whether or not money which is discovered to be tainted should be given back should depend upon the popularity or unpopularity of giving it back? Is he saying that that is the basis of his party's policy?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I said that money, if it is proven to be tainted, in my view should definitely be returned. That is what I believe I said. On the other hand, often insinuations fly around as to whether or not money is tainted. Under those circumstances I believe that it is up to the party involved. If it wishes to hang on to the money and does so, it will find that the electorate takes a dim view of such action.
Lord Richard: What, my Lords, has popularity to do with it?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the point of raising money for political parties is presumably to be able to afford to spend money on campaigns to get more votes. If that money turns out to be tainted, it will have the opposite effect to getting more votes.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself in a somewhat curious position. I do not know whether it is due to age, coming to this Chamber or something more temporary, but I have become very sceptical about many of the speeches that I have heard this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that we should have transparency. There should be transparency about what political parties as public bodies receive. There should also be legislation about transparency on what companies do just as on what trade unions do. But beyond that, I find it hard to go along with many of the other remarks made today. As I feel I am in possible danger of being thought totally cynical, let me try to explain what I mean.
My noble friend Lady Gould said—the figure she gave was quite startling—that £114 million in today's terms was spent in 1872. If that is the case, politics today is much less corrupt. In terms of sheer numbers, the electorate was a fraction of the size that it is today, people were less active and things were less expensive. So I do not feel that we can say that over the years politics has become more corrupt.
I shall come to the point of my objection. I want to pinpoint the matter. My noble friend Lord Bruce looks very startled. Perhaps I should yield to him and sit down if he would like to ask me a question about it. But the per capita expenditure in terms of the £114 million in 1872, was much more than it is today with 44 million adults on the electoral roll.
I do not believe that there should be a limit on what political parties should spend. There is always the unintended consequence of human action and one must
1698
never bind oneself against that. Once one does so, one has to decide about indexing, what counts as expenditure and so on.
Let me ask one question: what is the real objection to money? It seems to me that the real objection to money is that it is thought that people buy elections. I do not believe that there is any proof of that. It may have been possible in 1872, in a small constituency. We read about it in novels—a hundred voters are wined and dined and can be influenced. But today's couch potatoes are not about to get out and be bought in that way. One has to advertise to them.
I am very serious about this matter. There is a real objection. Two things are being confused. One is that we should like, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said (and I agree with him) lots of people and many voters to participate in elections. They should give money or work voluntarily at whatever they can do. That is fine. I agree about that. The other objection seems to be that companies give a lot of money to political parties and somehow buy influence. Of course they buy influence. What else would they do? I have never thought it bad that trade unions gave money to the Labour Party. I think it is very good that they gave money to the Labour Party. They wanted a certain kind of agenda advanced in politics and therefore they gave them money. Good for them! I entirely deny that it is somehow a very corrupt act when trade unions give money to the Labour Party. I wish they had given more.
We have a large state. Whoever is in power or likely to be in power will have a lot of influence. The kind of influence for which people give money is what would be called in stock market terms "insider information". People want to jump the queue. They want information. But it is not criminal. If people thought it was criminal, they would ask for a law making criminal the passing on of certain kinds of insider information. Would that be effective? Let us say that certain kinds of meetings between businessmen and politicians should be made illegal. The Americans have a law like that, but it has not stopped corruption in America. The Americans also have state funding, but that has not stopped corruption in American politics or private donations.
I do not believe that election outcomes are bought. After all, one could easily say that a good many newspapers are partisan and that perhaps the newspapers ought not to be allowed to be partisan. If we believe that insider information is being bought by companies, and if we can find ways of proving it, we can make that a criminal activity. That is fine. However, I believe that people will give money.
Lloyd George split the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party has been in power on its own for 51 years and the Labour Party for 20 years. I may sound cynical, but I believe that companies give money because they want access to information. I do not know how one would prevent that in a liberal society. There is a symmetry of who gets what money. I believe that any attempt to legislate in detail would run into a lot of problems. I would point to the example of the United States of America. I think we will get legislation because at the very minimum we will have to have legislation for transparency.

1699
Perhaps I may use old fashioned terminology. In a capitalist society you cannot prevent people buying influence. If you do not want that, do not have capitalism. However, I do not think it is easy to do that. Therefore, if we are going to pass a law, we shall have to be quite sure that we do not so hobble ourselves that corruption continues but legitimate activities are discouraged.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I am not entirely sure how far I agree with the speech of my noble friend and colleague Lord Desai and whether he is really in favour of capitalism or against it, but I look forward to continuing that discussion with him on a later occasion.
I remind the House that the Motion specifically asks Her Majesty's Government,
"to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life or some other appropriate body".
The case for doing so rests on the belief, which a number of noble Lords have already expressed in the debate, that political parties are an important part of democracy and are in effect public bodies in that democracy. Indeed, in most other democracies, political parties are part of a framework of regulation and law.
When the Conservative Government took office, they looked at the anomalous position of British trade unions as they saw it and insisted that they should introduce legislation to bring the trade unions properly within a framework of law as regards their political activities. They have therefore left exposed the extraordinary situation of a Conservative Party which is not a legal entity, which does not publish its accounts and is therefore a very important part of the British political system which somehow exists outside the framework of law. That is extraordinarily anomalous and is bending the British constitution in all kinds of ways.
We have seen the Conservative Party over the past 20 years bend the British constitution in a number of other ways. I have never understood why the Labour Party did not more vigorously oppose the extension of voting rights to people who are non-resident in Britain. It was done quite clearly because it was believed that more of them were Conservative and it would therefore increase the proportion of Conservative voters. The principle behind it was quite clear. It was representation without taxation. I am also clear that the poll tax was intended to reduce the number of potential Labour and Liberal Democrat voters by encouraging poor people to cut themselves off from the register. That was clearly part of the intention. Those were matters of bending the traditional conventions of the British constitution.
I have listened to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Laing and Lord Beaverbrook, and others with astonishment at the degree of complacency there is. There is a wide gap between those within the Palace of Westminster who are extremely happy with, proud of and defenders of the British constitution as established and developed from King Alfred to the present day and
1700
those outside who see a political system with which they identify less and less and which seems to them to be sleazy if not actually corrupt. We face the real prospect at this election that a smaller proportion may vote than in any election since the war. We have to address that. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said, that is a question of the interests of democracy. However, having raised the question, it seems to me that the noble Lord did not answer it.
It is extraordinary that the Conservative Party still assumes that while the Labour Party is not entitled to depend upon trade union paymasters the Conservative Party is entitled under all circumstances to depend upon—indeed to demand—the support of the corporate sector. We saw the reaction of various people in the Conservative Party to support for the report of the Institute for Public Policy Research. They thought it was shameful that corporate directors could possibly have put their names to a document which might be closer to other parties than to the Conservative Party. That suggests the extent to which we are in a deeply unbalanced situation; and balance is important for democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, remarked that there is no proof, but we all know that there are plenty of rumours and allegations. Some weeks ago I was sitting with a journalist who asked me, "Have you noticed how many Ministers are going round the Gulf at the present moment? What do you think they are doing there? How much money do you think is flowing from there to the Conservative Party?". I have no idea whether there is any truth in that rumour. All I know is that that is the kind of rumour that floats around.
We are talking about not inconsiderable sums of money—£40 to £50 million—in the turnround in the Conservative Party's funds. It is quite possible that what we have is the very good will of a number of National Lottery winners who have felt so grateful at their receiving £10 million each that they have given half of it to the Conservative Party. That is rather unlikely. I suspect that what we have seen is a substantial amount of money from rich private donors and a certain amount also from abroad, but none of us knows. It is precisely because we do not know that the situation is not fully democratic.
Every time we have discussed the process of privatisation I have thought about the principles of "old corruption" in the late 18th century, about which I learnt as a student. What was "old corruption"? It was the flow of large sums of money to people with political influence in order to buy access, preferred information and, if possible, preferment. What did it influence? Above all, it influenced the Government's choice of contractors—monopolists and receivers of government subsidies. We are now moving back into that situation through the process of privatisation, particularly as we move into situations where the Government provide subsidies to privatised companies, as in the railway network.
I noted, looking at the preferred bidders for the lease of the Treasury building, that almost all of them were already subscribers to the Conservative Party. I have

1701
every confidence that in that instance the Government's attitude to the leasing of the Treasury building or the price which they were prepared to accept was in no way influenced by that. But if the matter were to be referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life one issue that might be raised is whether private companies which were in receipt of government subsidies should not be forbidden from contributing to any political party as part of their contract with government. That is precisely the sort of thing that we should now be investigating because we are moving into this very shadowy relationship between government and private business in a contractual relationship.
Money can buy politics. The American example of the availability of bought advertising time on television shows us the dangers of slipping into a situation where politicians offer privileged access and a nod and a wink—I include not only President Clinton but Speaker Gingrich—with real consequences in terms of popular disillusionment. Popular disillusionment with politics in the United States is at a much more advanced stage than it has yet reached here.
It seems to me that there are many advantages in keeping politics as inexpensive as possible. I declare myself strongly against any move towards state funding. As far as possible, that means that politics remain open for new parties and new movements to enter. No doubt that is very unwelcome to the Conservative Party and fairly unwelcome to the Labour Party as well, but that is what a real, vibrant democracy means.
I have fought five elections in which we have managed to raise £10,000 to £15,000 per campaign. On no occasion was any single donation larger than £500. That seems to me to be the way in which democracy should operate. The donations come in at £20 or £100; one goes out to seek them and one organises rallies. That is the way in which we should be dealing with the matter in an open democracy.
Money is also able to buy more influence in politics as new methods and techniques such as targeting and the use of computers build in advantages for those who have the equipment. That also suggests to me, as a number of other speakers have suggested, that we need to look at the question of national limitations on funds.
There is here a constitutional principle attached. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, note that at least there is a constitutional principle which we have to accept: how open should our democracy be? This is a major respect in which our democracy is closed. One of the most established and important institutions of British politics, the Conservative Party, in this very important and central respect, is closed to public view. That is unacceptable in a mature democracy and something which this House should, therefore, consider. We need to restore public confidence in democratic politics. In this country at the moment we face declining public confidence in politics, particularly among the young. Therefore, I believe that this is a very useful contribution to rebuilding that kind of public confidence.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I wish to add my gratitude to that of other speakers to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for bringing this matter before us today. I have listened very carefully, and with the greatest interest, to noble Lords who have spoken. I wish to make just one or two points. I shall not detain your Lordships for long.
Perhaps I may declare what I call a "non-interest". I am not, and never have been, a treasurer at any level in the Conservative Party. That may be a good thing for my party because I do not really believe that I possess the necessary expertise. It may be just as well that that did not happen. But one thing that I have experienced is that treasurers within the party have all been honourable people and have understood exactly their responsibilities.
However, as a committee member of my association, I have been constantly involved in fund-raising events and now, as a party vice-chairman, I travel around the country. I am deeply impressed by the voluntary side of the party raising money in the branches, the wards and the constituencies. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Russell, say that there are new techniques. I do not believe that any party should forget that elections are won in constituencies, and that a well-organised and well-funded constituency is just as important as any other issue. Everyone understands that running associations is costly. I find it humbling and a privilege to see the generosity of members who support all the small events which, added together, keep associations afloat.
The remarkable thing about donors to the Conservative Party is the broad and broadening range of people who choose to support the party financially. It is no surprise that, set against the background of ever-increasing living standards, an ever-increasing number of people from all backgrounds wish to make a contribution to ensuring the continuance of a Conservative Government.
Over the past seven years more people have, through their own hard work, made themselves millionaires than at any other time in our history. In doing so they have created the jobs that have allowed others to prosper. That is why people wish to support the Conservative Party financially. The treasurers of the Conservative Party operate very strict guidelines. In particular, the guidelines state that no donation should be accepted which has strings attached; which the party has reason to believe contains illegally obtained moneys; or which are from a foreign government or royal family or agents, or from an unknown source.
In contrast to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party has accepted all the recommendations of the recent Home Affairs Select Committee of another place on party funding. Companies are of course required by law to declare a political donation in their annual accounts. Donations from individuals are an entirely private matter and I respect their right to confidentiality. Contributions to the central funds of the Conservative Party are made by those who support conservative principles and who wish the Conservative Party to win

1703
local, national and European elections. Such contributions are an important part of our democratic process. As I have said, the Home Affairs Select Committee has looked into this matter and made recommendations. I see no purpose in the issue being referred to another body, and I urge your Lordships to reject the Motion.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, democracy needs transparency and fairness, as mentioned by a number of speakers. It may be useful to start with what we know and then to go into some of the areas where we have no knowledge although the debate has been quite interesting revealing things which are not necessarily in the public domain. For instance, we know that in all the general elections since the 1970s the Conservative Party nationally has out-spent the Labour Party 2:1. I hazard that that had some effect on the outcome of those elections; it is interesting to debate how much.
If spending more money than the Labour Party was the cause of Conservative victories, the Conservative Party cannot then say that it was because of their policies that people voted for it and that the poor policies of the Labour Party deterred people from voting for it. The Chief Whip is puzzling over that proposition, but he will no doubt get it in a minute.
There is the argument that if money does not have that effect, why spend it? If the Conservative Party argues that spending twice as much as the Labour Party during a general election has no effect on the outcome, then let us indulge in a proper British exercise in fairness. Let there be agreement between the two major parties that they will spend about the same amount of money in the coming general election. I pose that as a question.
There have been allusions to the political scene in the United States of America. I wonder whether we really want to go down that road. The political process there is so dominated by the expenditure of money and concentrates so little on practical politics in terms of principle and policies.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, there are limits on the expenses of individual candidates at local, parliamentary and European Parliament elections. But there is no control at national party level. It is high time there was. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked why we were having this debate and said there was nothing wrong with the system. I suggest that such a lack of control is one of the problems with our system.
I should like to say a few words on transparency. Having been active in the Labour Party at all levels, I can testify to the transparency of our funding—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. He mentioned my name and made my observations sound totally idiotic. Sometimes they are, but I do not think they were on this occasion. Of course, the presentation of a policy, if it is well done, may cost more money than if it is badly done.
1704
But you cannot, by presentation, improve the essence of a policy. If it is not a good policy nobody will vote for it. How does the noble Lord deal with that? I know that he makes me sound ridiculous, but I am asking him for a moment to consider what I say.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in this context, I would say, "If the cap fits, wear it". The noble Lord asked me a question. If one looks at the expenditure by the advertising industry on a whole range of products from soap powder to box office films, one can see that it has an effect on what people purchase. To be honest, it is not necessarily a reflection of the worth of the product. People buy on the basis of the advertising they see on television.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Policies are not soap powders.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Lord says that policies are not soap powders. Unfortunately, that is almost the direction in which we have been heading over the past 20 years.
I want to say a few words about transparency. I was pointing out that I have been active in the Labour Party at all levels and that we know where our money comes from and where it goes. I have to admit that it may not be the most eagerly awaited item on the agenda of party meetings, but I can assure the House that we have a treasurer's report at every meeting and that those reports are made and presented most assiduously. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case in the Conservative Party. Indeed, I can remember a very public campaign waged by some public-spirited activists in the Conservative Party demanding that the party properly publish its national accounts—
Lord Strathclyde: We do!
Lord Monkswell: I am not sure whether that campaign was successful. However, we do have information about certain company donations because, as noble Lords have said, it is a requirement of the Companies Act that companies should declare their political donations. It now transpires, however, that some companies may get round that by describing such donations as "entertainment". I find that a bit sad.
The regime that applies to companies is rather different from that applying to trade unions. That smacks a little of preferential treatment for one side of the political argument. Noble Lords have elaborated on that point, so I shall not go into it further.
Private donations are less visible and it is interesting that they tend to come to the surface only when a particular individual comes up before the courts. I am sure that that is not really what the Conservative Party wants.
One of the things I have found most worrying has been the allegation—confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail—that the Conservative Party receives money from overseas donors. How then can we be sure that decisions of a political party, and

1705
particularly of the party of government, are made in the best interests of the citizens of this country? Looking after those interests is why the Government were elected. The point is especially apposite with regard to the Conservative Party which wraps itself in the Union Jack and says, "We are the patriotic party. We are the party for the British people." How can the British people have the confidence that that party will engage wholeheartedly in furthering the best interests of the British people if it is funded by foreign sources? We just do not know.
The noble Lord, Lord Laing, pointed out that foreign donations were made on the basis of there being some fruitful return. He cited inward investment as an argument for foreigners making donations to the Conservative Party in this country. Yes, a certain amount of benefit comes from inward investment. If a new factory is built, it provides employment. But at what cost? We do not hear very often about the vast sums of public money that are paid in the form of subsidies to foreign companies investing in this country. We are not told in the same breath which tells us about inward investment that this Conservative Government have run the economy in such a way as to ensure that at least 1 million people are out of work, unemployed and therefore pulling down the living standards of all our British workers—
Lord Strathclyde: No!
Lord Monkswell: The Government may not like that interpretation, but it is certainly one interpretation of what is happening.
I hope that this debate will encourage the Government to refer the matter for independent investigation. We need that because there are many grey areas and there is much information about the funding of political parties which the British people do not have but which they need. I hope also that the Conservative Party will realise that it is important that it puts its own house in order if we are to have a flourishing and untainted political democracy.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, about the way in which political parties are funded has proved interesting. The noble Lord would like the matter to be referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, did not agree with that, saying that he was not sure whether such a broad study could best be carried out by his committee. I have listened with interest to the comments that have been made, many with humour and many with innuendo, and I should like to pick up just a few of them.
I am anxious that this debate should not be regarded as an insult to the many hundreds of thousands of party volunteers of all parties. If that is the case, it is a pity that the worthy and generous deeds that are done on behalf of all our parties are now being questioned by some of the very people who once relied on that support.
1706
I declare an interest. I am president of my local Conservative association. I am a volunteer. I am one of the grassroots workers who believes in local participation. In my party, each association is independent. It is autonomous. It raises its own funds, selects its own candidates, both locally and nationally; consults its own members and reflects their views. Perhaps that approach is not shared by all other parties.
How do we raise our money? We raise money from members locally through subscriptions, individual contributions and putting together a whole variety of fund-raising events. Perhaps we are more fortunate than noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. The noble Lord may smile. We still get money from rummage sales, coffee mornings, barbecues, Christmas fayres and supper evenings. Those events run our local associations. Individuals give us their support at whatever level they wish. We do not have a minimum subscription, but each member and each amount given is of equal importance to us. This mass membership base is of great importance. Members feel part of the political scene and can reflect their concerns and aspirations. In turn, they are in contact with the wider electorate.
Some members are happy just to support their local branches, while others go on to serve the community. Many of them become councillors. Those who work in their constituencies know that sometimes it is said by people, "We never hear from you except at election time". They do not mean us. Our newly-formed association that has been made up from bits of four constituencies ensures that it makes contact with them. We have leafleted all of them to tell them about the new boundary changes that have taken place and the implications of those changes for them.
In addition to being president of the Charnwood Conservative Association, I am president of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations. For the past few years I have visited hundreds of Conservative associations up and down the country. They organise themselves in a similar way to our association. Some have a larger membership than ours but all work voluntarily to raise money, exchange views on political matters and act as a local link. They are the ones that others go to on specific issues. This contact, together with the tremendous input by Members of Parliament through surgeries, visits and events, explains why the present system enables us to have close links with the electorate. I would be sorry to see it lessen.
I should like to deal with the whole question of transparency. My noble friends referred earlier to the fact that the Labour Party received money from the unions. I do not find that a problem. But I was intrigued to read of a fund—I believe it amounted to £2 million—which had been set up for the Leader of the Labour Party. I would be interested to know who had contributed to it and how much. We are not hung up on it as noble Lords opposite appear to be hung up on our funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the influence that could be bought. I was intrigued to read a letter written by his party in September referring to a

1707
business community lunch organised at the Metropole in Brighton. According to that letter, the lunch would be kindly sponsored by Onyx who would provide a buffet-style environment in which more than 100 council leaders could meet the business community. I do not object to that. It went on to say that all of those councillors controlled councils solely or with the assistance of other parties. The word "transparency" has been used by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. It would be remiss of me if I did not also raise mis matter in the debate today.
Our most important objective is to make people feel that whatever party they support, they can trust the system. I am concerned by some of the comments and innuendoes that have been made. Our democratic society which is the envy of the whole world has served us well and succeeded, thanks to the finance raised by volunteers and others year by year. I have no problem about people giving money to a party. If they wish to remain anonymous, they should have the freedom to do so. Long may the worthy institution of organising our political parties in the way that we do continue and survive. Long may our country have volunteers who give of their time and effort to preserve our democracy. I encourage noble Lords to reject this Motion.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, allegations about improper methods of raising money for political parties have damaged many politicians, not exclusively those in this country. They have damaged politicians in Germany, France, Italy and in particular in the United States. In each country there have been charges, often proven, of disreputable conduct relating to the raising of large sums of money for political campaigning. In a number of cases there have been subsequent criminal proceedings against some of those involved. Further, in some cases legislation has been introduced with the aim of bringing these activities under some form of control.
The consequences have been all too predictable. There has been a further diminution in the respect in which politicians are held. That has been our experience in this country as well. Following the revelations concerning Members of Parliament who were prepared to receive money for tabling Parliamentary Questions, damage was done not only to their party but to many others involved in the political process. Mr. Major rightly said after the exposure of some of these activities:
"In the present atmosphere, there is public disquiet about standards of public life, and I have concluded that action is imperative".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/94; col. 758.]
Mr. Major then announced the appointment of a committee headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. The committee set to work with considerable dispatch. It has already produced a number of reports that should make a notable contribution to reducing the level of sleaze in public life in this country. But in one area the committee has been told that it cannot trespass. Strangely enough, it relates to the methods of financing political parties
1708
in this country. It is remarkable that that is so, first, because there is already deep public suspicion about the methods used by some party fund-raisers and, secondly, because two of the three major political parties in this country have already indicated their support for such an inquiry that could look into exactly the kinds of episodes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred a moment or two ago. We are in favour of the inquiry but the noble Baroness is not. She wants this Motion to be rejected.
If the result of the next election leads to a change of government in this country, it is clear that the Nolan Committee, or a similar body, will be asked to undertake this task. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, should tell the House this evening why his noble friends continue to resist the inevitable so fiercely. There is little doubt among most political commentators as to why the Government take that position: it is that they have so much to hide. One has only to run through the list of celebrated names: Asil Nadir, Octav Botnar and John Latsis. All of them are secret contributors to Conservative Party funds. The first is a fugitive from justice in Northern Cyprus. The second is a refugee in Switzerland who is wanted in this country by the Inland Revenue. He shows no enthusiasm for returning to this country. The third is a £2 million donor to party funds who was a keen supporter of the Greek colonels—men who held on to power by torturing many of their political opponents.
There are others. I refer to the Hong Kong businessmen who were feted by 14 Ministers sent at public expense to carry out government business in Hong Kong. They devoted a great deal of time there to raising money from those gentlemen. Unhappily, those gentlemen in Hong Kong now appear to have switched their allegiance from the Conservative Party to the Chinese communists.
Even when it is clear that the money was sent to the Conservative Party wholly improperly, it seems to make no difference. We were all entertained by the answers given by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked him about that. As I understood it—and no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I have his answer in any way wrong—he suggested that it was wrong to accept tainted money. He was unclear as to whether that money should or should not be returned. We should all be extremely grateful to know the answer to that question put by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, as I am sure he will, he will see that, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I said that I am in favour of any tainted money being returned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome that answer, because I am just coming to that point. Unhappily a number of the noble Lord's colleagues do not share that view. The stubs of six separate cheques totalling £365,000 were found by officers of the Fraud Squad when they raided Mr. Nadir's offices.

1709
They were taken from an account used by Mr. Nadir to remove money from Polly Peck International. The administrators' report on that matter says:
"The Unipac NatWest Jersey account was the conduit for the misappropriations by Asil Nadir".
In a letter, the administrators said:
"The Touche Ross investigations confirm that the monies donated by PPI were paid on the instructions of Mr. Nadir acting without the authority of the board of PPI. It is the contention of the administrator that Mr. Nadir is liable to repay the sums concerned as a result of his fraud and/or breach of fiduciary duty and/or malfeasance as a director".
In a covering letter to Conservative Central Office, the administrator said:
"I would urge you to return the donations to Polly Peck so that the creditors can at least obtain some small measure of compensation from this unfortunate affair".
As I understand it, and I welcome it, the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, thinks that the money should be returned, but unhappily that is not the position of Conservative Central Office. It has refused to repay the money. It has clung on to that money which is in its accounts only because of Mr. Nadir's fraud. I am sure that we would all agree that Mr. Howard, the Home Secretary, must be a deeply embarrassed man. As Home Secretary he reminds us constantly of the Government's determination to ensure that crime does not pay. Yet every time he passes those large party poster sites he must reflect that a large number of them must have been paid for with Mr. Nadir's stolen money.
Then there is the question of honours. After the Maundy Gregory affair, a new system was established designed to prevent the purchase of honours. Indeed, it is now a criminal offence to give or accept any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring the grant of a title. No one has ever been convicted under that legislation, and of course they probably never will be, unless someone is daft enough to put the offer in writing.
If everything is as it should be, it seems a little odd that there is such a remarkable contrast between one group of company directors and the others over the award of honours. After an analysis of a large number of company accounts, it was found that about 6 per cent. of companies gave money to the Conservative Party. So if there were no link between giving money and receiving honours about 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. of honours would have gone to directors of those companies. Strangely enough, it was not 6 per cent. who received the honours; it was eight times as much—just about 50 per cent. The relationship could hardly be more direct. Yet we are asked to believe that there is no relationship between the awarding of honours and the granting and giving of money to the Conservative Party.
Apart from the directors of companies, there is the curious secrecy about the identity of those who make these private donations. Why should not every political party be required by law to publish lists of those who subscribe more than a set sum? We support that idea from these Benches, and so, I understand, does the Labour Party.
1710
I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, former treasurer of the Conservative Party, has now come round to that view and has joined us in our position. I told the noble Lord that I should be referring to him in the course of this debate but unhappily I understand that he is in Australia. In a newspaper article last September the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, said:
"For the good of the party"—
that is, the Conservative Party, and not, as I understand it, the Referendum Party—
"and in support of the forthcoming election campaign, I would advise that we now disclose substantial donations. The Conservative Party has been wrong-footed in this whole matter. It is still fighting the battle of privacy for private political donations. That is yesterday's battle—from wars fought long ago. Far better that the Conservative Party talk to its private donors and seek their permission to publish their names".
The noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, is right. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and his committee, or a comparable body, come to examine that issue, as they certainly will be doing—noble Lords opposite should have no doubt about that—they will seriously consider the noble Lord's proposal.
That is more than ever necessary for two reasons: first, because of the relentless stream of allegations that foreign businessmen are attempting to use the clout that their donations give them to influence Ministers. In any event, I must confess that I see little reason why any person who is not a UK citizen should be permitted to make substantial donations to a British political party. The second reason is the growth in the number of front organisations endeavouring to raise money for the Conservative Party. Those groups, such as the Premier Club, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will, for a donation of a mere £100,000, invite the person concerned to intimate lunches and dinners with members of the Government. A third reason is that even members of the Conservative Party's board of finance are not allowed to know the names of the donors. I know that from the evidence given by Mr. Chalker who has been much involved in this matter within the Conservative Party. He said in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place:
"Members of the board are consistently denied more than the bare minimum of financial information. By dint of persistence some brief glimpses were snatched of what was usually kept carefully out of sight, but, in reality, not an inch of permanent ground was yielded in 48 months".
Of course, it may be said by the Leader of the House that allegations have been made against parties other than his own. The noble Baroness was kind enough to refer to my party and to the Labour Party. I can give a simple answer. We are in favour of the inquiry, but we know perfectly well that the Government Chief Whip is encouraging all his colleagues to come here and vote down any question of an independent inquiry. We are perfectly happy to have those allegations considered if any committee—either the Nolan Committee or a comparable body—looks into the matter. But the Government want no inquiry at all.
There is a strong belief in many parts of the House, although it will be denied by noble Lords opposite, that there will soon be a change of government. If that

1711
occurs, the noble and learned Lord and his inquiry, or a comparable body, will soon be invited to examine this matter. If we wish to restore the tattered reputation of British politics and British politicians, the issue must be addressed. A wise government would accept this Motion. However, in what are probably the dying weeks of this Parliament and this Government, I fear that there is little prospect of that. And so the truth will have to be forced out of the Conservative Party. I hope that in a few weeks that is exactly what will happen.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have had an interesting and at times entertaining debate. I wish to say at the outset how much I miss the voice of one who used to take part in such debates with great regularity; namely, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. In any debates on party political funding, from that seat below the gangway one could hear his tones—I nearly said "dulcet tones", but the last thing he was was dulcet—on this subject. He would have been fascinated with today's debate.
No fewer than five former treasurers of the Conservative Party are Members of this House. The noble Lords, Lord Laing and Lord Beaverbrook, have spoken today. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord McAlpine, is in the Antipodes—what a pity! There are also the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Peckham and Lord Hambro. We heard pleas in mitigation from two of the five old lags. If I were the judge, I do not believe that they would have moved my stony heart very much in my direction. The noble Lord, Lord Laing, said, "Take it from me, all is well". The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said, not unsurprisingly, "Take it from me, all is well". He revealed what I can describe only as a breathtaking amorality when he said that the issue of giving back tainted money depended somehow on the popularity or the unpopularity of that act—
Noble Lords: That is not what he said!
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is what he said the first time. He may have changed that in the course of the debate—
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned my name. I believe that when he reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that at the outset I said that I personally am in favour of returning any money that has a hint of taint about it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "popularity". I was so surprised that I rose from my accustomed leisured position on the Front Bench. Having lurched to my feet, I put the point to him, but, if he will forgive me, I am bound to say that I did not find his answer impressive. I shall of course read Hansard.
We heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Byford. With great respect, we are not talking about money raised from coffee mornings. We are not talking about sales of work by local Conservative ladies. We are talking about very large sums of money, where
1712
they have been raised and whether the country is entitled to know how that metaphysical entity represented on the Benches opposite, which has now been in government for nearly 18 years, obtains its money, where it comes from, whether it is clean and what effect it has. There are two issues in the debate: first, whether there is a problem; and, secondly, if there is a problem, what should be done about it.
Perhaps I may now deal with an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—that is, the Labour Leader's office fund. I shall deal with it openly and put it before the House, and the House can then judge. That fund is managed by three trustees; the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Dean. They are well known to Members of this House. The trustees ensure that all donations raised are consistent with the general rules governing donations to the Labour Party. The fund makes contributions to the Leader's office to supplement the funds which come from the Short money and from the party. The fact that contributions are received by that office from the fund is acknowledged in the register of Members' interests. Is any such acknowledgement made of any fund by that metaphysical entity sitting opposite us tonight? I doubt it.
When that fund was set up, the Labour Party took advice from two top QCs in the field. I emphasise that their advice to the trustees was that the trustees should keep confidential the names of the contributors—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Richard: No, wait, my Lords, there is more to come! The names should be kept confidential in order to ensure that there could be no suggestion that the making of donations might be intended or might in practice operate so as to exert influence or secure favour. Therefore, the position is that people contribute to the trust; the trust then distributes the money to the Leader's office; and that money is then registered in the register of Members' interests. Furthermore, that arrangement was put before Sir Gordon Downey, who approved it.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we are perfectly happy and content that that arrangement and any other relating to Labour Party funding should be submitted to an independent inquiry such as that requested in the Motion. Let the committee look at the arrangement and if there is anything wrong it will tell us. I have heard nothing from the other side tonight which will match that offer—that is, putting the whole issue of Conservative Party funding to an independent scrutiny. If the other side will say that, I shall be most interested indeed. We are prepared to do it. We have nothing to hide so far as this is concerned. I have put the facts in front of the House and I am perfectly content that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, should judge them. I hope that that will be the position on the other side, too.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to my feet only because the noble Lord named me again. I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the people who have contributed are

1713
not named, nor is the amount that they have given. As I said, I do not find that difficult if the noble Lord accepts that the same principle applies to people who donate to us. But the noble Lord does not appear to do so and perhaps he could clarify the matter for a newcomer to the House.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I thought that I had clarified the matter. We were advised by the two silks that in order to ensure that there could be no allegation of over-connection or sleaze, the two issues should be kept separate. And they are kept separate. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, considers that we should be doing something different, we are perfectly prepared to do so. However, if after examination an independent committee says to us, "We believe that you should do it in another way", we shall be perfectly prepared to do it in another way. I have heard nothing to match that coming from the other side of the House tonight.
I return to the two issues in the debate: first, is there a problem; and, secondly, if there is a problem, what should be done about it? Contrary to some of the speeches we have heard today, there is in my view and in the view of an increasing number of people in the country a widespread perception that all is not well.
Let us consider the position of the two major parties on this issue. In its submission to the Nolan Committee, the Labour Party set out its attitude. It called for (this is our policy):
"a new regime for the funding of political parties to include: full disclosure of their accounts; proscriptions on overseas and large secret donations; limits on election spending at national as well as constituency level; new requirements for shareholder agreement, and contracting out, in respect of donations by companies".
That is the position of the Labour Party. It is clear; it is unmistakable; and we are quite prepared to submit it to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
We are in favour of much greater disclosure and transparency. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said in the course of his speech, disclosure and transparency are important qualities in the democratic process. Otherwise, there is a question mark about the validity of a great deal of what one of the parties may be saying. We are in favour of proscribing overseas donations and large secret donations. That is a proscription which works well in many other countries, including the United States and Australia. So that is where we stand.
Let us look at where the Conservative Party stands. To say the least, it is shadowy. We know that it was in serious financial difficulties a few years ago. We know too that donations from public companies have declined. As has been pointed out, those companies have an obligation to disclose political donations in their accounts so if the accounts of all the public companies are checked, the political donations to the Conservative Party by those companies can be traced.
If that is so, where does the money come from to build up the Conservatives' alleged war chest of £26 million? Who gave the money and under what terms? Of course, people are entitled to make donations to political parties; but in our view, any donation to the election fund over a certain figure should be made public. We believe that figure should be £5,000 and
1714
anything over that should be made public. The fact is that we do not know how the Conservative Party is being financed, although from time to time certain facts emerge from the shadows.
It is reported to have received £1 million from Mr. Botnar. Did it? Perhaps the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal will tell us whether it did receive £1 million from Mr. Botnar. It is reported to have received significant donations from the jailed BCCI fraudster, Mr. Viriani. Did it? And if so, how much? We know that it received money from Asil Nadir because that emerged in the course of liquidation. As I understand it, that money has not been repaid despite the fact that there is clear evidence that £365,000 of it was stolen. Does the Conservative Party intend to repay that money? We have heard it say from time to time that of course it will repay it and we even heard it said that tainted money would be repaid without any consideration of popularity or unpopularity. But it would be nice to know that the cheques have gone back and that the Conservative Party was actually doing something to repay the people who were defrauded of the money that was stolen from them by Mr. Nadir. What on earth is the Conservative Party doing taking that sort of money? It seems to me to be thoroughly unhealthy and disreputable.
We know too that in 1995-96, the Conservative Party raised £18.82 million from donations. Central Office accounts showed a 47 per cent. increase in donations for the year ending 31st March 1996 from £12.73 million to £18.82 million—a large jump. Where did it come from? When one is talking about sums running into millions of pounds and when the Government are presenting themselves to the country at an election, it is not unreasonable to know who has put more than £5 million into the coffers of the Conservative Party when it is fighting that election.
We have heard about the existence of strange clubs. I gather that the Premier Club has two tiers of membership. For £10,000 per year, ordinary members get supper with Cabinet Ministers, including, occasionally, the Deputy Prime Minister. That is rather pricey at £10,000, but I suppose that if you want to make a donation and dine with Mr. Heseltine, that is the price of it. But for £100,000, you get two dinners a year with the Prime Minister, Mr. Major. I am told that other benefits are special hospitality at the annual conference; a policy information service; detailed briefings on key issues such as the economy, trade and industry and taxation.
For more normal people, there is something called the Millennium Club where you only have to pay £2,500 per year but you do not get Mr. Heseltine and you certainly do not get near the Prime Minister. For that you get the promise of:
"a unique networking opportunity … to meet and interact with senior ministers at lunches, receptions and private functions".
I suppose that some people may be prepared to pay £2,500 for a bit of interaction with the Minister of State at the Home Office, but there it is.
The one which I find to be extraordinary and disreputable is something called the Dragon Club. As I understand it, it was set up quite deliberately to raise

1715
money in the Far East for the Conservative Party. All that carries with it an unmistakable odour of sleaze and corruption.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, delved slightly into the honours list. I wish to say one or two things about it. If that list is examined, it can be seen that a high proportion of recipients of a knighthood are personal donors to or are closely associated with companies which have contributed to the Conservative Party. Under the premiership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, from 1979 to the Birthday Honours List of 1990, there were 173 honours which went to industry. Of those, 112 were to donors to the Conservative Party; that is, 65 per cent. of all honours. Under the present Prime Minister, from 1991 to the New Year's Honours List of 1995, 53 honours went to industry, of which 36 were donors to the Conservative Party—that is, 68 per cent. of all the honours. I suppose that it could be argued that it is a remarkable person who gives money to the Conservative Party and so, because of his remarkable nature, ought to be recognised by the gift of a knighthood. That takes a lot of swallowing and I am extraordinarily sceptical about those figures and the implications which clearly arise from them.
It seems to me that if one believes in greater transparency in government, on any view of the matter, there is a problem here. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, there is a case to answer. The real question for this debate should be who is to do the investigation. My own preference would be a reference to the Nolan Committee. That committee has expressed the view that party funding needs to be looked at, although in May 1995, the committee decided that it would not be within its present terms of reference to examine the overall nature of party-political funding and, for example, to address such other questions as to whether state funding of political parties would be desirable.
Perhaps I may say in parenthesis here that this is not a debate about the state funding of political parties. It is a debate about whether the funding of British politics should be looked at by an independent body. That is the issue and I suggest to the House that that case has been proved.
However, the Nolan Committee said that it would put aside the issue of political funding for the time being but it added that after the next election, it would consider again whether to examine that subject. It concluded that if funds were being given to a political party in exchange for the receipt of favours from holders of public office, that would fall within the committee's remit. That is an issue which is becoming increasingly urgent for independent examination.
That issue should be looked at by a body like the Nolan Committee, which has a proven track record of independence and integrity. While I am conscious of the fact that there might be political difficulties in a straight reference to the Nolan Committee, I feel that in principle the decision should be taken and the
1716
political difficulties, such as the terms of its mandate or the possible composition of the committee, should be examined, clarified and resolved.
I have found this to be a revealing debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Laing and Lord Beaverbrook, two of the major participants in the affairs at which we are looking today, for their contributions to the debate. The debate has revealed the fact that the Conservative Party is secretive about the sources of its funding—excessively so. It has revealed also that the majority opinion of those who have spoken in the debate consider that that is unhealthy for British democracy. We shall support the Liberals in the Lobby this evening.
5.49 p.m.
Viscount Cranbone: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has reminded us, we last addressed this important subject on 7th June 1995. I believe that I am right in recalling that in my reply then I forecast that we would return to the question of party funding; and, indeed, thanks to the noble Lord's admirable persistence, we have done so today. Like everyone else who has participated in the interesting proceedings this afternoon, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that.
I am also grateful for another reason. Like his noble friend Lord Russell, I, in particular, hope that his party's policy for reform of this House will not succeed. In the light of today's entertaining remarks, my principal emotion for wishing that this afternoon is that it would deprive the noble Lord of the opportunity to drag his knowledge of 19th-century history into ad hominem teasing of representatives of the hereditary peerage in your Lordships' House.
Before turning to the substance of the debate, it would be remiss of me not to draw your Lordships' attention to the character of the Motion before us. I believe that I am right in saying that it is divisible. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway noted, the Motion is very different in character from the Motions we normally debate on Wednesdays. I hope that the Whole House will ponder for just a while on what the implications are both for the character of our Wednesday debates and, indeed, for any future debates on Wednesdays if we are to persist in this and if we are to take this as a precedent. I, for one, hope that this will be an exception rather then the thin end of the wedge. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Richard, nodding his head. I assume from that that he will not be following the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, into the Division Lobby tonight.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I were not to do that it would not be an exception.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as usual, the Labour Party honours its rules, once again, more in the breach than in the observance.
I turn now to the Motion itself. It is interesting for another reason. With his usual courtesy, the noble Lord gave the House plenty of notice of his

1717
intentions. He tabled his Motion as early as Thursday, 16th January. It stood on the Order Paper for well over two weeks in all its pristine glory. Let me remind your Lordships of its wording:
"To move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life".
If I may say so, it is as clear, elegant and unequivocal in its language as we would expect from the noble biographer of Asquith and Gladstone.
However, on Monday last something rather curious happened. The noble and scholarly Lord changed the terms of his Motion. As your Lordships can see it now reads:
"To move to resolve, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to refer the issue of the funding of political parties to the Committee on Standards in Public Life or some other appropriate body".
I fear that I may be verging on impertinence but, for a moment, I am forced to suspect that this amended Motion does not strike one as enjoying quite the clarity and elegance of the original. The last few words inject a certain vagueness that was commendably absent from the original Motion. It is a vagueness that I suggest can only be explained by haste.
Your Lordships will undoubtedly wish to know what extraordinary event occurred to induce the noble Lord to redraft his Motion so hurriedly and, perhaps, at the last moment. The noble Lord himself gave us a somewhat elliptical version of what happened for, of course, he is far too modest to explain to your Lordships how he came to demonstrate yet again his virtue of flexibility under fire. Fortunately I am in a position to enlighten your Lordships.
The difficulty that the noble Lord encountered was this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, to whom the Whole House should be extremely grateful for his persistence in sitting and listening to the whole of our debate, has said that he did not want this matter referred to his committee. It is true that the noble and learned Lord has expressed his personal opinion that,
"Party funding is a subject that needs looking at after the election".
Indeed, that was much referred to during the course of today's debate. The noble and learned Lord has even said that:
"in so far as it raises the possibility of funds being paid in, in return for favours or the expectation of favours",
it would come within his committee's terms of reference. However, the noble and learned Lord told the BBC's "Today" programme on 23rd January last that he,
"would like to see it go to a parliamentary House of Commons Select Committee".
So there you have it, my Lords. If your Lordships will forgive the mixed metaphor, the noble and learned Lord had three-quarters killed the fox of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the noble Lord found himself in imminent danger of being more Catholic than the Pope.
I quoted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, as saying that the next Parliament should examine the question of party funding in another place. Your
1718
Lordships will know that another place will decide what it wishes its Select Committees to examine, as always. We know that its Home Affairs Select Committee examined the question of political parties in the current Parliament. The next House of Commons may well wish to follow the noble and learned Lord's advice and return to the subject. That is and will remain a matter for another place in the next Parliament.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I, for one, think that that would be an attractive mechanism to employ if it were felt that another examination of the question were needed—certainly better in my view than, for instance, a Royal Commission. I have ventured to observe to Your Lordships before that, although commissions and inquiries clearly have their place—and I am sure that the Whole House would agree that the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord is a very good example—it is a pity that over the past few decades they have been used so extensively. There are, it seems to me, some matters that Parliament should decide rather than surrendering responsibility to some commission of the great and good, however eminent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, certainly acknowledged that by implication when he made it so abundantly clear that Sir Gordon Downey should report to a committee of another place. The question of funding of political parties is surely also a matter which Parliament should examine, debate and decide, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway clearly said.
Our present system ensures that political parties are principally supported by voluntary organisations, albeit with some help from the state as has already been noted by a number of noble Lords. As we have heard this afternoon, a number of people, including certain noble Lords and notably the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose experience in such matters we all respect, feel that the present system is open to abuse. Indeed, some more than suspect—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made an accusation about as direct as even he has been known to make—that substantial donations are made to political parties in exchange for undue influence for honours.
I hope that it is not too unworthy a thought to say that it is of course very much in the interests of opposition parties to make that accusation. Like my noble friends Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Laing of Dunphail, whose powerful speeches I personally found rather more impressive than perhaps a number of Opposition noble Lords did, I am highly doubtful as to whether the problem really exists in the form to which, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, elevated it.
We have made considerable progress so far as honours are concerned; indeed, especially since the Liberal Party was last in power. As a number of speakers observed, a committee of three eminent Members of your Lordships' House scrutinises nominations and the Chief Whips of the parties concerned sign certificates undertaking that no impropriety has taken place under an Act which would mean that they would lay themselves open to criminal prosecution if they were found to have erred. I know from personal experience just how extremely seriously those safeguards are taken and regarded.

1719
In view of the direct accusations that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, levelled at my party this evening, I ask the Labour Party this: can it assure me that there is no Member of this House sitting on the Benches opposite who has never given a large sum to the Labour Party? In view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, this evening, I can only assume that he will be able to rise and assure me that the answer is no. I am perfectly willing to give way to the noble Lord if he feels able to deny that, or answer that question in the negative.
As regards undue influence, we should be careful here. I see no reason why bodies such as the trades unions should not support a political party—indeed I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in what he said—or why companies should not also support a political party. Indeed in view of this Government's record on unemployment, it would be entirely understandable if the trades unions transferred their allegiance to the Conservatives. It has been accepted that it is right that such donations should be made public and it is only sensible that members and shareholders should know where their contributions are going. That is common ground between us.
By those who make the accusations, however, two solutions are advanced. First, some say that the details of all substantial donations should be declared to the public—many have said that this evening; and, secondly, that public funds should be used to help finance political parties. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, repeat his doubts this evening about that solution. Of course these two solutions are not necessarily incompatible. I shall discuss the question of public financing first. I shall not weary the House by repeating at length the arguments I attempted to put before your Lordships 18 months ago. However, I believe there are great virtues in making political parties rely on voluntary contributions rather than the public purse. I am sorry that I find myself at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on that point.
Not the least of these virtues is that the system ensures that the political parties are not further institutionalised as part of the state itself. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I do not believe that these parties should run—I think I quote his phrase exactly—the apparatus of the state. It seems to me that that is for Ministers to do supported by the Civil Service. I add in parenthesis that this is of course an argument also against PR based on party list systems.
We know from our history that in the long term parties wax and wane in strength over and above the more short-term changes the electorate imposes every four or five years. The previous time this happened was in the early decades of this century which saw the Liberal Party give way to the Labour Party as the alternative government to the Conservatives. It is a process which took some time. I hope the Labour Party will allow me to comment that it is all the stronger for that because it had more time to establish itself in the context and in the thoughts of the electorate.
I believe the process would have been less likely to happen had the Liberal Party been institutionalised by financial support from the public purse. I can quite see
1720
that some Liberal noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon—certainly not the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—might regret this lack of public finance. But, after all, their party's electoral record since the early 1920s does not suggest that the voters agree with them. Rather, the direct financial link between public and party helps ensure a responsiveness from the party to those who vote for it. The figures that my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook gave merely serve to underline that view, as did the eloquent description by my noble friend Lady Byford of the daily life in Conservative associations.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope I may ask the noble Viscount one question as he has referred to his noble friend Lord Beaverbrook. Does he think that tainted money, held at the moment by the Conservative Party, should be returned to the administrators of Polly Peck International, or does he not?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I anticipated that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would have forgotten the answer that I gave him 18 months ago to that very question, which was that if the money is tainted it most certainly should be returned. That is no more nor less than I said 18 months ago.
It seems to me that at a time when we hear many worries in public about the excessive power of the state it is perverse to suggest that we should ask political parties to become dependent on public funding. As I said, I was extremely pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, repeat his doubts on that score.
Your Lordships might also like to consider whether state funding does anything to stem corruption. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned other countries. Certainly from the record of certain other countries, which I am far too delicate to mention, I can see no reason why it should do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, in yet another remarkable speech to your Lordships, referred to the fear of buying insider information as being one of the matters that should worry us. I agree with him. I do not see that that fear either is addressed by state funding. In a socialist society—the noble Lord referred to a capitalist society—the record might suggest that it is much easier to buy insider information even than it is in a capitalist society. We have only to go east of the Oder-Neisse line to see the truth of that. There is every reason to suppose that it would have much the same effect on political parties as it has had on industry.
Our experience of state funding in other fields has surely shown that it encourages incompetence and poor responsiveness to the public. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I think the case for transparency is a much more serious one. As I made clear in my reply to the noble Lord when he raised this subject 18 months ago, it certainly is a cause very much in tune with the current Zeitgeist. This was the matter that concerned most of your Lordships during this evening's debate. However, it seems to me that as in so many things it is a matter of balance. It is important that influence and honours should not be corruptly bought and sold and that the

1721
public should be satisfied with the system. At the same time donors, particularly individuals, have a right to privacy. Indeed, some give anonymously in order that it should remain impossible for them to influence the recipient in their favour.
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that this is a consideration that perhaps lies behind the Labour Party's extensive use of blind trusts, about which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, waxed so eloquent.
Lord Richard: One!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says one. In that case I wish to ask him whether or not my information is true. I proceed a little further. I understand—as he said—that Mr. Blair has established a blind trust called the Labour Leader's Office Fund. I also understand that Mr. Prescott receives support from the John Prescott Campaign/Research Trust, while Mr. Gordon Brown is close to the Industrial Research Trust/Fair Tax Campaign. I also understand that among the trustees of these blind trusts are Members of your Lordships' House. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that the sums they collect are not trivial. The Sunday Times is not a paper I always believe. I have to say that in advance of referring to it. However, the Sunday Times thinks that Mr. Blair's fund has attracted donations and pledges of about £2 million. Is that what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, might call—I think I quote him accurately—thoroughly unhealthy? He seems to think that any large sum of money is by definition thoroughly unhealthy, except of course when the large sum is taxpayers' money which is used to subsidise broken down nationalised industry.
Mr. Prescott himself told the BBC's "World at One" on 18th November last:
"The argument is that if the leader knows who has given them money, they may give favours … It's crucially important that the leader is not aware of any financial contributions given to his actual office".
In other words—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Richard—"Take it from me, all is well". It must be all right because two top QCs have said so. As a distinguished barrister the noble Lord would know better than I how much this has to do with the law and the judgment of two top QCs, but I am certainly sure that it has everything to do with lack of transparency. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said a moment ago, it is a question of who gave the money and on what terms.
Time presses and I apologise for having spoken for so long. In all this we should remember that politics is about interest. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the prosperity and liberty of this country depend on politicians serving the interests of individuals and of bodies, corporate and non-corporate. We must all judge as best we can where the balance of national advantage lies.
1 cannot believe, however, that the national interest can be served by discouraging anyone from supporting a political party. To attempt to conduct political debate by holding interest at arm's length smacks of the innocence that courts disaster. Far better to encourage
1722
interests to participate in politics and to rely on controls that provide a balance between transparency and discretion.
I hope that I have been able to convince your Lordships, without repeating everything I said 18 months ago, that the state of party funding is not the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, supposes it to be. Did I not know him better I would be tempted to think that he sees this subject as a handy stick with which to beat the Government. If one subtracts the Liberal speakers who have loyally rallied to their leader's banner, one does not discern even in this House from the number of speakers this afternoon a burning interest in the issue. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the subject is an important and difficult one. It has now been debated twice in your Lordships' House and the subject has been extensively looked at since the Houghton Report over 20 years ago. I echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the late Lord Houghton. I believe that extensive safeguards exist. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said about the dementi on state funding, the Motion suggests to me that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, wants state funding, or to reduce voluntary support for the main parties to somewhere nearer the level his own side can attract—a common argument of all those who feel that the rest of us owe them a living.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Motion, if only for parochial reasons regarding Wednesday debates in your Lordships' House. If he wishes to press it to a Division, I hope that noble Lords will join me in rejecting his Motion as a partisan attack by a party barred from office for longer than it, but not the electorate, would like. To accept the Motion would, I suggest, merely imply that there is something in the straw man which the Liberals have put up to your Lordships this afternoon.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I am never a great believer in second speeches from the same person in a single debate. Therefore I shall not detain your Lordships for long. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House generally has the effect of putting, or keeping, me in a good temper. I am bound to say, however, that I thought his speech did not very directly reply to the case I had endeavoured to put.
The noble Viscount's speech fell into three parts. First, he made a great issue about the fact that I had made a change in the Motion a few days ago. I made the change because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, told me, which I did not know—perhaps I should have done—that his remit comes to an end in about six months' time and that he has a full programme until then. Therefore one had to seek an alternative method. I immediately instructed the Liberal Whips' office to ring the noble Viscount's office to tell him that I had made the change and why I had made it in order that he need not waste a large part of his speech replying to the original Motion. However, I clearly under-estimated the need he felt for a little padding for his speech.

1723
Secondly, the noble Viscount devoted a large part of his speech to attacking the case—he fairly said that I had not made it—for public funding. He admitted freely that I was against it. Nonetheless he devoted the second part of his speech to that subject. The third part of his speech he devoted to some exchanges with noble Lords opposite about the financing of the Leader of the Labour Opposition's office—not a very direct reply to the Motion which I and my noble friends have put down.
However, the debate has been extremely useful. I am struck by several factors. First, compared with 20 months ago the mood on the Benches opposite has become much more defensive. That is obvious. The speeches we heard from the Back Benches, I am afraid, gave the impression that there was a lot to hide. It was also noticeable that, with the exception of the noble, and in this respect I think gallant, Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, there was no—I shall not use the harsh term, party apparatchik; I shall use a warmer term—distinguished officer of the Conservative Party who felt any compulsion to intervene in the debate and to defend the present position.
The noble Viscount appealed to me not to have a Division. I must say that he would have some frustrated troops behind him if I were to change my mind. I am bound to say to him that I am perfectly willing to regard this as an honourable exception for a Wednesday debate. I commend the Motion.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 138; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Davies, L.

Alderdice, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Desai,L.

Bath,M.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dubs, L.

Blease, L.

Eatwell, L.

Borrie, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ezra, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkender, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkland, V.

Calverley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Fitt,L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Freyberg, L.

Carter, L.

Gallacher, L.

Clancarty, E.

Geraint, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Glasgow, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Glenamara, L.

Cobbold, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Grantchester, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Gregson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Grey,E.

1724

Hampton, L.

Norton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ogmore, L.

Hanworth, V.

Paul, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Haskel, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Hayman, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Healey, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rea,L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Howell, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hughes, L.

Russell, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hylton, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jeger, B.

Serota,B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Sewel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

Judd,L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lockwood,B.

Taverne, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNair, L.

Thurso, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Turner of Camden,B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Meston, L.

Warnock, B.

Methuen, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Molloy, L.

Whaddon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Whitty, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nathan, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Croy,L.

Addison, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Aldington, L.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carr of Hadley,L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chadlington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Anelay of st. Johns, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Annaly, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Ashbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clinton, L.

Attlee, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Balfour, E.

Colwyn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Belstead, L.

Cox, B.

Bethell, L.

Craig of Radley,L.

Biddulph, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Birdwood, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blatch, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Brentford, V.

De Freyne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Denbigh, E.

Buchan, E.

Derwent, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Bumham,L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Butterfield, L.

Dudley, E.

Byford,B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Cadman, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

1725

Ellenborough, L.

Montrose, D

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Feldman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Munster, E.

Flather, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Nickson, L.

Geddes, L.

Northesk, E.

Gisborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Palmer, L.

Gray, L.

Parkinson, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peel, E.

Hacking, L.

Pender, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Harris of Peckharn, L.

Quinton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hemphill, L.

Rennell, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Romney, E.

Hood,V.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Saatchi, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Inchcape, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Inglewood, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ironside, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Sempill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kenyon, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Kimball, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Kingsland, L.

Stewartby, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stockton, E.

Knutsford, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swinfen, L.

Leigh, L.

Swinton, E.

Liverpool, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Long, V.

Tebbit, L.

Lucas, L.

Tenby, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Luke, L.

Teynham, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Torrington, V.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of aashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Vivian, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Wakeham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Weatherill, L.

Marlesford, L.

Westbury, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wharton, B.

Merrivale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mersey, V.

Wilcox,B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise,L.

Milverton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
6.25 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1726
In October 1950, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, sent a memorandum to his Cabinet colleagues in the Attlee Government about the European Convention on Human Rights explaining why he regarded ratification of the convention as a regrettable political necessity. The Lord Chancellor concluded his memorandum by pointing out that the Government:
"shall have to bring in legislation applying the conditions of the Convention to our domestic law".
But for half a century, despite repeated attempts in this House and another place, what Lord Jowitt regarded as necessary has not happened.
The main object of the present Bill is to give effect in our domestic law to the rights, freedoms and duties set out in the convention and its first protocol, which are already binding in international law upon the United Kingdom—upon our Parliament, executive, judiciary and other public authorities.
The main reason for incorporating the convention into UK law is to ensure that there are speedy and effective remedies in our own courts for breaches of the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the convention—rights and freedoms which are the birthright of the people of this country and which are universal in the sense that they are inherent in our common humanity.
The incorporation of the convention and the enactment of a modern Bill of Rights have been part of Liberal and Liberal Democrat policy for decades. Indeed, it was in July 1969 that my noble friend Lord Hooson introduced in another place a Bill of Rights Bill drafted by my friend, Mr. John-Macdonald QC.
The history of the campaign over almost three decades is fully described by Professor Michael Zander in the recently published fourth edition of his very useful book, A Bill of Rights?. I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is unable to be present this evening, for he has given such dedicated and inspiring leadership on the need for effective constitutional protection of the basic human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention. I also deeply regret that the untimely death of Lord Rippon of Hexham has deprived the House of a wise and long-standing supporter of this measure and of other long-overdue measures of constitutional reform.
It is two years since my previous Human Rights Bill was given a Second Reading, on 25th January 1995. I gave a very full account in my speech on that occasion of the relevant history and background, which I shall not now repeat. The Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading, as is the custom of this House. But such was the strength and depth of the Government's hostility to the measure that, when a wrecking amendment was moved at Report stage, three Ministers voted for the wrecking amendment.
It was, and remains, curious that a Government so conspicuously lacking in enthusiasm for either European court, should be so implacably hostile to any attempt to empower British courts to give direct effect to a convention drafted by British lawyers on the basis of traditional common law concepts. It is an irony of political history that that should be so, for Winston

1727
Churchill and David Maxwell Fyfe, later the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, were in the vanguard in the making of the convention. One might have supposed that a Conservative government concerned about the incoming tide of European law would be eager for our own judges to be able to give effective domestic remedies for the misuse of state power, rather than to compel British citizens to have recourse unnecessarily to European judges in Strasbourg for want of effective remedies in our own courts. One would have thought that the Government would want British judges to have a strong influence on the developing case law of the Strasbourg Court.
But successive Conservative governments over the past 18 years have refused to introduce a citizen's charter of constitutional rights and freedoms, and unfortunately I have no reason to suppose that the Minister will be any more sympathetic to my new Bill than the Government were to the many previous attempts by noble Lords of Conservative and other political persuasions in this House, including, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Broxbourne.
However, I dare to hope that a new government soon to be elected, with the right honourable Tony Blair as Prime Minister, will speedily introduce, and that the next Parliament will speedily enact, a measure to make the convention a part of our fundamental law, as an important first step towards the making of a modern British Bill of Rights. I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in his place and I look forward to hearing what he will say about that from the Labour Front Bench.
This debate gives the House an opportunity—almost on the eve of a general election crucially important to those of us in the Opposition parties who seek to renew our democratic system of government—to discuss for the first time a measure modelled on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Previous versions, both mine and others, have been modelled more upon the European Communities Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights. I have chosen the New Zealand model because of the powerfully persuasive advice given during the debates two years ago, notably from the Cross-Benches, by some of our most senior and eminent judges. I believe the present version to have the best prospect of winning widespread cross-party, Cross-Bench and senior judicial approval, without challenging the English doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and without significantly diluting the practical value of incorporation.
Responsibility for the content of the Bill is mine alone, but I should like to express my gratitude to Sir Kenneth Keith, former chairman of the New Zealand Law Reform Commission and a member of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, who played a crucial role in the making of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and who has given me the benefit of his knowledge and experience in some respects in improving upon the Bill that was enacted in New Zealand.
Unlike the previous version, the present Bill does not require or empower the courts to strike down provisions of Acts of Parliament which are plainly in conflict with
1728
the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the convention. Instead, Clause 1(4), like Section 6 of the New Zealand Act, provides that, whenever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with convention rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.
I have taken another leaf out of the New Zealand statute book. Clause 3 requires Ministers, when introducing Bills into Parliament, to explain why a provision is, or appears to be, inconsistent with convention rights. This will enable Parliament to be properly informed so that it can act effectively as constitutional watchdog in enacting and scrutinising primary legislation. It will also mean that, in the absence of a Minister's notification, the courts will be able safely to assume that Parliament did not intend to repeal or amend convention rights by implication. In other words, by this device both Parliament and the judiciary will be much better informed and individual rights and freedoms will be protected against any implied repeal. In practice it will achieve what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, suggested during the Second Reading debate two years ago—namely, that Parliament could expressly but not impliedly override the provisions of the convention if an exceptional need arose.
I can think of few cases, during the past 30 years since the United Kingdom accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in individual cases, in which a breach of the convention has been found to have occurred because of a patently inconsistent provision in an Act of Parliament. Breaches have usually arisen either from the exercise of administrative discretion under broad statutory powers—for example, in preventing prisoners from corresponding with Members of Parliament—or from the manner in which the courts develop the common law—for example, by giving too little weight to freedom of speech in the Thalidomide or Harman or, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, will forgive me, the Spycatcher cases.
I would hope and expect that the circumstances in which a government wished to introduce primary legislation inconsistent with convention rights would be rare, and that the requirement of having to make the position clear to Parliament would deter Ministers from doing so. However, as I have explained, the Bill does not attempt to fetter the rights of a future Parliament to legislate inconsistently with the convention, provided that the Government's intentions have been expressly made clear. In such exceptional cases—and only in such exceptional cases—the remedy for a breach of the convention by Parliament would, as at present, be by recourse to the European Court of Human Rights.
That means that European Convention law would to that extent have a weaker status in UK domestic law than does directly effective European Community law. I will be criticised by purists for having sold the past in that respect. I accept that that is not strictly logical as a matter of principle, especially as there are already cases in which our courts may be required by the European Communities Act 1972 to set aside provisions in Acts of Parliament which are inconsistent with Community

1729
law read with convention law. However, I do not believe that the effective legal protection given by the Bill will be seriously eroded by this pragmatic concession to political expediency.
If the courts were to interpret the present measure loosely, or if Parliament were habitually to enact legislation with the express intention of breaching convention rights, it would be necessary to legislate more strongly, so as to place our courts in the same position as courts in other Commonwealth countries when interpreting their written constitutional guarantees of human rights. However, I have confidence in the willingness and ability of our judiciary to make legislation of this kind effective. I pay tribute to the enlightened way in which the judiciary have done their best, in the absence of incorporating legislation, to give full faith and credit to the convention when interpreting and applying our written and unwritten laws. I would hope that Ministers, of whatever political colour, would feel greatly inhibited from having to certify to Parliament that proposed legislation would violate the minimum standards of the European human rights code.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill requires the courts to interpret the common law in accordance with convention rights. They already do so, most notably perhaps in the Derbyshire County Council case, where the Court of Appeal held that it would unnecessarily interfere with the right to free expression if government bodies were permitted to sue for libel on their governing reputation without proof of bad faith or special damage. The House of Lords went further, holding that the common law matched the guarantee of free expression in Article 10 of the convention.
The Bill will enable everyone to rely upon convention rights through the ordinary courts and tribunals. Clause 1(3) makes clear that it will apply to acts done by or for Ministers and to any person or body performing a public function, as distinct from persons acting in a private capacity.
Unlike my previous version, the Bill does not seek to create a general right to damages for breach of statutory duty. Clause 2 gives the courts the power to fashion remedies flexibly according to the justice of the case, including, where appropriate, the remedy of compensation.
Where a breach of the convention involves tortious conduct, the courts will be able to award common law damages. There will be cases where public officers and bodies, acting under cover of law, will breach the convention in circumstances amounting to a government tort, an extension of the existing tort of misfeasance in public office. Suppose, for example, that the police were to misuse statutory powers to carry out electronic surveillance of a newspaper or its lawyers' offices in connection with possible breaches of official secrecy or criminal contempt laws by the newspaper or a disloyal "whistle-blower" civil servant. If such an abuse of power were to occur, for example, in circumstances which were for an improper purpose or where, knowingly, in breach of the convention right to respect for personal privacy, or of the right to free expression, then the courts would be able to award damages.
1730
Derogations from the convention in time of war or public emergency will be required by Clause 5 to be clearly framed and expressly authorised by Parliament.
Clause 5 also enables the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 1 to include provisions of other convention protocols which may be ratified. There are several additional protocols which have been ratified by many other major member countries of the Council of Europe but which the present Government have refused to ratify. If I may say so, I have better hopes of a future government.
One very important matter is excluded from the Bill because of its nature as a Private Member's Bill; namely, provision to secure effective access to justice. Once the convention is incorporated into UK law, anyone complaining of a breach of the convention will be required to exhaust all available domestic remedies all the way to the Appellate Committee of this House. I believe it is essential that there should be adequate and well targeted provision for legal advice and assistance in such cases. That would help citizens advice bureaux, local law centres and specialised public interest groups to bring test cases. I would hope and expect that a government Bill, as distinct from a Private Member's Bill, to incorporate the convention would create a human rights commissioner or commission to provide such advice and assistance and be able itself to bring proceedings, whether by judicial review or by representative proceedings on behalf of a number of people with a sufficient legal interest. That already happens with the two equal opportunities commissions and the Commission for Racial Equality. Quite small sums are spent in that way under their budgets, never in my experience more than a couple of hundred thousand pounds a year, for example, in the case of the EOC for Great Britain.
Indeed, I would hope and expect the next government to give effect to the very important recommendation made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the final report Access to Justice, that, where proceedings are brought in the public interest, the courts should have a discretion not only to order that each side should bear its own costs but that the taxed costs of the applicant should be paid out of public funds. If that strikes someone as novel, a similar proposal was made by Lord Evershed's committee in 1953 (Command Paper 8878).
I submit that almost half a century after the United Kingdom became the first country to ratify the convention and 30 years after the United Kingdom accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, the time is over-ripe to domesticate what are or should be British civil rights and liberties and to bring them home to British courts in a way that ensures effective access to justice. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, before the Question is put to the House, it would be appropriate for me to signify the Queen's consent. I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Human Rights Bill, has consented to place her

1731
prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—{Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
6.42 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, although I may not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, I should like to pay tribute to the assiduous way in which he has pursued this issue and his remorseless peppering of the Order Paper with Questions all building up his case. I feel that he was let down last year in the other place when your Lordships passed the Bill down the Corridor. I inquired from the Clerks what had happened to it and I received a letter saying:
"In reply to your query about the Human Rights Bill of last Session, I can confirm that the Bill was brought before the Lords to the Commons on 2 May and was taken up by a Member on 14 June. Subsequently the Bill was put down on the list for Second Reading on 14 July but, as the Votes and Proceedings indicate, no further date or instructions were given".
The noble Lord deserved better than that. Certainly, as a student of procedure, he has my sympathy. He now has a dual role. The front page of the Liberal Democrat News for 1st November 1996 is taken up by a large headline:
"Hammering out a path for reform". The text says that:
"Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs have started to hammer out a way forward to reform Britain's creaking constitution".
It goes on to talk about a working party being set up with people from both sides, the Liberal Democrats and Labour, which will be serviced by four experts which include the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and John McDonald, QC, of whom mention has already been made. In fact, it is being serviced by the Constitution Unit. I have mentioned the Constitution Unit in the past in similar debates. We are told that it is independent and has been set up to try to move along constitutional reform.
What is interesting about it is that, first of all, the advisory committee contains at least four prominent politicians who I know have changed party. To me that does not exactly ooze the kind of consistency with which one would hope that a constitution, which may have to last a very long time, should be prepared. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was a Labour Party member because I found out quite by chance that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, whom I always treat with the greatest deference as our Chief Whip, beat the noble Lord for the nomination as Labour candidate for Enfield North in 1966. Because of his innate modesty and diffidence, I shall not embarrass my noble friend Lord Graham by mentioning that he won by a substantial majority.
The Constitution Unit is funded by charities. I have a list of them but I shall not weary your Lordships' House with it. As they now service this political thrust, I know that already questions are being asked of the Charity Commissioners about whether the various contributory
1732
groups are in breach of their obligations. It may interest your Lordships to know that I have in fact been promoted because I received through the post Issue No. 6 of the Constitution Unit Newsletter. I do not quite know what I have done to deserve such an honour. Perhaps it is sent out from a general list to all Members of your Lordships' House. I notice that it is posted in an envelope and the Neopost number by which it was paid for belongs to University College of London. If there is any expenditure of public funds, I hope that a suitable adjustment is made by the Constitution Unit from its charitable donors.
I also found out that the publications of the Constitution Unit were appearing in the Printed Paper Office. I felt that that might not be entirely right. So I inquired from the Clerks about whether it was in order. I received a reply:
"the general rule is that privately published papers—such as the Constitution Unit's reports—are not supplied free of charge unless they are referred to in a motion or question on the Order Paper; Lords are, instead, expected to consult such papers in the Library".
The letter went on to say that:
"when the first two Constitution Unit Reports, Reform of the House of Lords and Delivering Constitutional Reform, were published in the Spring of last year, several Lords requested copies".
They were considered germane to the major debate which your Lordships had on the constitution last year. So it was regarded as being in order. But, the letter goes on:
"During the Summer of last year, several other Reports were published by the unit, and these, too, were made available in the Printed Paper Office".
The Clerk of the Parliaments reflected on that and could see that the relevance of those later reports was not so clear. Therefore, he instructed that no further copies of the reports should be purchased and that Peers who asked for them should in future be directed to the Library.
I believe that the activity of the Charity Commissioners is erratic, to say the least. In the debate last year I made various remarks about possible charitable abuse. I tabled a Question about the Scarman Trust. The answer was given in Hansard of 15th October 1996. I asked:
"Whether [Her Majesty's Government] consider that the activities of the Scarman Trust are compatible with its status as a registered charity".—[Official Report, 15/10/96; col. WA 213.]
The Answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was:
"Following the concerns which the noble Lord expressed in this House on 3rd July, the Charity Commission is looking into the activities of the Scarman Trust. It is taking into account the publication to which the noble Lord refers".—[Official Report, 15/10/96; WA 213–214.]
I actually referred specifically to the report The Untouchable: Power and Accountability in the Quango State. As I have referred to the quango state, I should perhaps mention for completeness that I happen to hold positions on two rather prominent quangos myself—the BBC and the Docklands Development Corporation. I say that only in case I am pulled up afterwards.
Recently I put down another Question to find out what was happening. With the acme of timing which makes our public servants the envy of the world, at ten

1733
minutes to five this evening I found an answer which says that the Charity Commission staff have obtained and considered a range of the Scarman Trust's publications and have had discussions with the trustees about its activities. The publications and activities are now being assessed in relation to charity law. Today is 5th February. My speech was made on 3rd July. That is seven months ago and the matter is still being considered. Contrast that with the Observer of 2nd February which reports under the heading "When it all gets a bit too political, watch out for the commissioners"—there is a flattering headline if you like:
"Last Monday the Charity Commissioners sought clarification from Professor Jack Scarisbrick, chairman of the anti-abortion group Life, about its alleged support of the Pro-Life Alliance, which plans to field at least 50 candidates on an anti-abortion ticket".
Your Lordships will know how very recently this matter has come to public notice, yet the Charity Commission was there like a dose of salts. It does not mind taking on some small pressure group.
The RSPCA has come under fire from the Charity Commissioners. Anything to do with animals, they are there on parade. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has also taken some stick from the Charity Commissioners. It seems to me that they are rather selective—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would enlighten us as to what this has to do with the Bill before the House. It would be most helpful to those of us who are perhaps a little new to these proceedings to be told what point he is making. Is he for or against the Bill?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, if the noble Lord can contain himself for another few minutes, I hope that my rather limping grammar and paltry phrases will give some clarity.
The Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is part of a large constitutional programme. I have seen it suggested that these constitutional Bills in the Commons should be considered in a Standing Committee instead of on the Floor of the House. I must tell your Lordships that, having battled in the other place with the devolution legislation for two years, the one thing that never occurred to me was to tuck it away in a committee upstairs with a government majority. I really do think that this should be resisted. After all, if you are going to do that, why bother with tedious debate and why not scrub voting entirely? I would remind those who want to tinker too much that in pre-war Germany it was the abolition of the first past the post system which first enabled Hitler's Nationalist Socialist Party to gain power and to get its foothold on the ladder.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is absolutely right that these Bills have been coming before this House and another place for more than 20 years. One of the proponents was the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who very early on referred to a "groundswell" of popular demand. The word "groundswell" occurs so often that I am reminded of that quotation from Twelfth Night, "That strain again!". That is a vestigial remnant of my early
1734
education. But the groundswell is so flabby that there is no sign of the tide coming in; in fact it still looks like Weston-super-Mare sands, for those of your Lordships who know them.
The people in this House who have spoken over the past 20 to 25 years have all been lawyers apart from a handful of lay people who have dared to get up. This has been stimulated by pressure groups of self-appointed people who are unaccountable to anyone. The only evidence that is called to show how popular it is with the public is opinion polls.
Going through some papers, I came across an issue of the Abortion Rights newsletter of Winter 1991 called Breaking Chains. It said:
"Bill of Rights includes abortion".
Referring to an opinion poll commissioned by academics on what items people thought should be included in a Bill of Rights, it said:
"Abortion was deliberately included as one of a few controversial subjects to add spice to a mixed list of 12 political, civil, social and economic rights".
I hope your Lordships will agree that my reputation for objectivity is well known. I thought that I must not rush at this and that I would turn up the article in the Independent to which the newsletter refers. Turning up the article, I find that the poll is described. It says that respondents,
"were given a mixed list of 12 political, civil, social and economic rights, spiced with a few deliberately controversial items".
There is so much public demand for this constitutional change that questions have to be put into the poll to liven up interest and get people to read it. That is the biggest giveaway of the lot.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am a little surprised by the noble Lord's reference to abortion. I know of no reference to abortion, one way or the other, in the European Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why he brought that into his speech.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am probably out of order, but I brought it in to show how it was included in this questionnaire in order to try to get people to take an interest in it. I find that distasteful because abortion is a matter on which there are deeply held personal convictions. To use it as a sprat to entertain people and to try to get their interest is bad.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lord, the noble Lord can take some comfort from the pleasure the Government Front Bench is taking in his attack on the rule of law and on this convention. Can he help us a little more as to his attitude to the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. One of the things that I take delight in is the fact that he has the courage to speak up in a debate which hitherto has been exceedingly intimidating in terms of some of the points he has raised in the course of his speech.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. If the Government Front Bench

1735
finds some entertainment in my speech, that is fine. This would be a very dull place if we could never get any enjoyment out of it.
What I am trying to say is we have to be careful that we are not manipulated into changing our laws in very fundamental ways. I may be accused of being a xenophobe, but I believe that this country is different in these matters. That is basically because we have not been invaded for 900 years. Our European counterparts have had wars raging backwards and forwards. They have had great putsches and clear-outs and they have been constantly changing. They feel the need for this protection much more than we do.
If there is time for the noble Lord's Bill to progress, I shall take an interest in it. I think, as the noble Baroness said, that the voice of the layman should be heard occasionally in these debates which have been dominated for nearly 25 years by the legally qualified.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, having regard to the powerful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, I should apologise for imposing upon noble Lords as a lawyer. The position is, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has paid a generous tribute to the judiciary and it is only right that I should reciprocate the compliment. It is correct to say that throughout the world, and especially in the Commonwealth, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the cause of human rights and fundamental freedoms is, as I know from my own personal knowledge, much admired and respected. Fortunately, that contribution has also extended to this country and to our courts.
Until fairly recently many judges, including myself, were sceptical as to the need for a Bill of this sort. The common law has served us well in the past and we doubted whether it could not equally serve this country in the future without being bolstered by domestic legislation which implemented the European Convention on Human Rights as part of our domestic law.
However, the judiciary have had no alternative but to increase our knowledge of the workings of the European Convention because even though the convention is not part of our domestic law it still can and does contribute to our decisions in a great variety of cases. As an advocate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has been pre-eminent in educating the judiciary concerning the Bill and has persisted in that education notwithstanding the fact that not infrequently his education was received with barely concealed reluctance. Benefiting as I have from that education, I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.
I do so for two reasons. The first is that we do now need a Bill of Rights which is part of our domestic law. The second reason I do so is that this particular Bill is the right Bill.
I do not need to rehearse all the reasons why we need a Bill, but perhaps I may emphasise two, which have already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They are pragmatic reasons which are none the worse
1736
for that. The first is that it cannot be correct that our citizens should have to go to Europe to receive a remedy which they cannot receive from our domestic courts.
The second reason is that I believe we are losing a real opportunity to influence the European human rights jurisprudence as a result of our judiciary not being able to give judgments as to what should be the legal effect of the convention which I am sure would have a beneficial effect on the views expressed by both the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I know that decisions of our highest court which directly deal with the effect of the convention would be extremely influential on the interpretation of the convention by the court at Strasbourg.
I turn to why in my judgment this is the right form of human rights Bill. It is the least intrusive form of what can be regarded as a constitutional innovation as far as this jurisdiction is concerned. Most importantly, insofar as it affects our constitutional balance, the influence is the minimum. It does not interfere with the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament, if it makes it clear that that is what it intends to do, can override the provisions of the Bill. That does not diminish the importance of the Bill since it avoids what happens at present which is that, unintentionally, Parliament contravenes human rights from time to time. It requires attention to be paid by Parliament to the nature of the provisions which it is bringing into law and to consider the implications which they have for human rights.
Secondly, it does not provide for the award of damages for contravention of the rights contained in the Bill. This is important because it is the tradition in this country, so far as the control of public bodies is concerned, that the courts are not primarily concerned with the enforcement of personal rights but the enforcement of public duties. That is why in the ordinary way one does not get damages as a remedy on an application for judicial review.
I attach great importance to the approach that we have to the enforcement of public duties rather than private rights. I regard that as being a healthy state of affairs. I do not myself want to move the emphasis in that area from public duty to private rights. That is one of the reasons why I commend this Bill. I regard it as very important that public bodies should do what Parliament required them to do, but I consider it unhealthy and unattractive that that should result in damages being awarded for alleged breaches of private rights. It is much better that we should continue with our discretionary use of our prerogative remedies when in the majority of situations there is no need for an award of any form of compensation, although I recognise that if this Bill becomes law there will be a minority of situations where compensation will be appropriate.
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the dangers to the judiciary of their being sucked into politics in consequence of a Bill such as this becoming part of our domestic law. I am conscious of those dangers, but I would not regard that as a reason for not supporting this Bill. Unhappily, the reality is that today, because of the sort of issues that come before our courts, irrespective of the introduction of this type of Bill, the

1737
judiciary are continually having to reach highly sensitive decisions and, insofar as they can be unwillingly sucked into the political arena, that is happening anyway. As I have already said, even without this Bill the courts are required to have regard to the European Convention with increasing frequency for the purpose of construing legislation.
In addition, the most senior judges, exercising their jurisdiction in the Privy Council, regularly have to construe and apply Bills of Rights in Commonwealth jurisdictions where the Privy Council is still the final court of appeal. We have no difficulty in doing that. It will be no more difficult for us to deal with a United Kingdom Bill of Rights than it is to deal with the very similar Bills in Caribbean jurisdictions and in Hong Kong and New Zealand. The benefits of this Bill far outweigh its disadvantages. A Bill of a similar nature works in New Zealand. I am sure that this Bill would work in this jurisdiction.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I was impressed by the gallantry of the Minister when she came to the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. But having known the noble Lord over many years as the Chief Whip in another place in the party of which I was then a member, he needs about as much support as the Rock of Gibraltar when it comes to intimidation. It is very difficult to intimidate the noble Lord. I wish to rush to his defence by saying that I am also part of that small, humiliated handful of people who do not happen to be lawyers. I would be quite incapable of being a lawyer as I do not have that kind of mind.
Having said that, perhaps I may also add to the praise, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill and also of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, who cannot be with us tonight, for their long commitment to the cause of human rights. It is a commitment—I can say this from first-hand knowledge—that they have pursued regardless of the nature of the party in government in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has never been in the least put off by whether his pursuit of human rights might be embarrassing to a Labour government, a Conservative government or any other kind of government. He believes in this cause with great passion and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, he has brought a great deal of intelligence and leadership to the issue.
Why does it seem to him and to some of us who are not lawyers such an important Bill? One of the major reasons for Britain signing the convention in 1950—although from that time until now it has not been incorporated into our law—was the timing. We had just come out of a war which showed all too clearly the extraordinary fragility of liberty. Liberty is not much less fragile today. Many countries—those making the difficult transition to democracy in central and eastern Europe and elsewhere—desperately need the framework of international law and of regional law that the European Convention provides.
1738
And that need exists in places not quite so distant as those I have mentioned. In the past few weeks this House has discussed two Bills, both of which raise issues of human rights—one, incidentally, towards which one side of the House was very sympathetic and the other to which another side of the House was very sympathetic. The first is the Police Bill as regards which many Opposition Members are extremely concerned about what kind of warrant or right would have to be given by an independent body to allow the study and surveillance of the various bodies which might be involved at one remove in organised crime—in other words, those associated with those committing such crimes. There is deep concern in the House about the possibility of the tapping of telephones and, in this case, the placing of bugs in such a way as to raise very powerful issues about our constitutional safeguards.
Only yesterday we had a different kind of case, which raised the issue of whether people should be compensated if their business is affected as a result of legislation passed by Parliament. I refer to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. I shall not take up the time of the House pursuing either of those Bills in detail; I simply want to illustrate the fact that in this House—and on both sides of this House—we are increasingly coming across issues of the most fundamental human rights which disturb us and which lead us to believe that we need more safeguards than we have.
There is one other reason why we need more safeguards than we have. I shall couch this in a way that I hope will not be seen, or thought of, as partisan. The world has changed a very great deal. If one re-reads the European Convention on Human Rights, in many ways one feels that it is almost an innocent document. It refers, for example, to the rights of privacy and the family. It is a document which is unaware of the extraordinary power of organised crime and of terrorism in our times. It is a document which is unaware of the extraordinary flourishing of technology that goes far beyond anything that those who signed the convention could have envisaged.
The Minister and some of her colleagues have understandably over and again in this House told us not to underestimate terrorism, organised crime or the organised drugs trade. They are absolutely right to do so. However, I believe that my noble friend and those who think like him are absolutely right also to say that in the pursuit of organised crime, the organised drugs trade and terrorism, we need to be all the more careful about trying to preserve basic individual liberties.
At one time, I was Minister of State for Northern Ireland. I have seen the way in which terrorism in Northern Ireland has driven us in Parliament again and again to have to consider such issues as internment, detention without cause being brought, and detention over a longer period than habeas corpus would have recognised as being proper. I say, with whatever force I can command, that it is precisely that erosion of civil liberties because of the threats that are raised against this country and other democratic countries that makes it all the more important to embed our liberties in the law. I cannot put that too strongly. Convention and precedent alone will, in my view, no longer protect us.

1739
I turn finally to the technological advances that have been made which make the European Convention on Human Rights look as if it were written in a "Garden of Eden" world. We know that it is now possible to establish detailed surveillance of conversations happening inside a house by measuring the vibrations on the windows. We know that it is possible to track every single movement of a human being by electronic devices that may be planted under his or her skin or on the person without their knowledge. We know that we are close to being able to tell virtually every movement of every person we wish to trace simply because the combination of the networks of surveillance equipment and of the intelligence services makes that possible. I am not condemning that; it is part of the advances that are made as we try to deal with crime. But I am saying that in the wrong hands it poses a tremendously dangerous threat to our liberties.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, will recognise that my intervention is not the intervention that a lawyer would make; it is the intervention of a lay person. On the grounds of the immense changes in technology, of the immense changes in the threats to liberty that we see all around us, and of the absolute necessity to try to protect and to strengthen our liberties if we are to continue as a democratic country which enshrines the concept of individual freedoms, I urge all Members of the House, regardless of where they may sit, to set aside partisan considerations and to reflect on whether it is not now time that a Bill such as this should be passed.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I make no apology for being a lawyer. Lawyers are people too. They move in the real world—and may perhaps know more about the real world by observation than members of other professions.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on introducing this Bill, and particularly on doing so at this time. It enables us to discuss not only the Bill, but also the role of the convention, the court and the commission. I am opposed to the Bill, and there is the added advantage that there is no risk of it ever becoming law in this Parliament. However, I am quite genuine in my belief that this discussion is valuable and I propose therefore to say a few words about the Bill.
The convention was a post-war attempt to provide broadly based benchmarks which would distinguish democracies from dictatorships. In that context, I cannot imagine that any Member of this House would disagree with it. It was surely the intention of its founding fathers at the time that freely elected parliaments should remain wholly free to make, or to refrain from making, laws within those broad parameters, and that any interference or protest should occur only when there was a clear over-stepping of those parameters. The same should be true of the common law—the common law as administered by the courts of the various countries. I am not referring only to this country, or to the equivalents of common laws in other countries. That administration
1740
of the common law should be left within the responsibility of the various countries concerned unless there has been a clear over-stepping of what I repeat are very broad benchmarks.
However, the court and the commission seem to see it quite differently. Under the guise of interpreting and enforcing the convention, they are making policy decisions which, in my view, are not for them. Indeed, many—most, I suspect—of the rulings against the United Kingdom come into that category. The results can be surprising—that is, they are very surprising to me.
Article 2 quite clearly permits capital punishment, yet the court seems to regard corporal punishment in schools as being in breach of Article 3, from which, incidentally, no state can derogate. I express no view as to whether either is desirable, but for my part I should have thought that neither could, if adopted by a national parliament, over-step the parameters set by the convention, provided that I am right in thinking that a degree of freedom was to be left to the national parliaments.
It is said that the Bill would enable United Kingdom courts to express their own views on the interpretation of the convention and that that might have a restraining influence on the court and the commission. I suppose that it might, but I must confess that I do not share other people's optimism on that score. After all, we are only one of a large number of nations. Why should our no doubt powerful views have an effect which does not appear to be had by other countries?
It is said—it was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf tonight—that the Bill would relieve our citizens of the delay and expense which is at present involved in appealing to Strasbourg. That is clearly right, subject to the fact that most of those I have heard say are off to Strasbourg would get there anyway—and would have a much longer legal journey on the way.
In my view, there are substantial countervailing disadvantages in incorporating the convention, even in the modified form which the noble Lord suggests. For a start, it would undoubtedly have some unwelcome and perhaps unexpected effects on our laws. Perhaps I may give three examples which occurred to me immediately and without any more detailed study. As we all know, under our law a policeman (like every other citizen) is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence, even if that involves killing his attacker. Under Article 2 of the convention, he can kill in self-defence only if absolutely necessary. That is a significantly stiffer test. Presumably that would come into play under the Bill if it were enacted.
The second concern relates to community service. The Crime Bill contemplates such a sentence being effective notwithstanding that the accused does not consent. Many noble Lords will say that there is nothing wrong with that. I express no view on it one way or the other. However, almost certainly it contravenes Article 4 which prohibits forced labour, save in various contexts that do not apply. The plain fact is that when the convention was being drafted it never occurred to anyone that there could be a community service order, other than when someone was subject to a custodial

1741
sentence or release from it. There are problems in that area. Either the convention must be sidelined, or not brought into the fold in the way proposed by the noble Lord, or it must be looked at again.
Problems arise also under Article 6(2) which provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty. But what about the offence of being in possession of dangerous drugs? Guilt depends on whether or not the accused has lawful authority and the burden of proof is on him. What would the convention say about that? The same is true of the offence of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. The accused is presumed guilty unless he can prove a reasonable excuse. I have not looked at the Knives Bill, but I imagine that under that measure exactly the same test applies.
I do not believe that these matters are to be lightly discarded or suggest that common sense will prevail or anything of that kind. Under the Canadian Bill, which I agree is in slightly different terms, there was a considerable furore about drug legislation that was on similar lines. What about the role of United Kingdom judges in the context of judicial review? My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf regarded that with some equanimity. It is a little unfortunate that a former holder of an office and the current holder of that office should disagree about these matters. We lawyers are independent souls and we disagree with each other much more frequently than Members of this House may suspect. I do disagree with my noble and learned friend. At present the United Kingdom judges are not concerned with policy but only with whether or not the act or omission complained of was authorised or required by law. I know that politicians in particular cases say that that cannot be right, but it is right if the decisions are analysed dispassionately. In my experience even that limited role has been greeted with scant enthusiasm both by Ministers and Shadow Ministers. The present proposal would give them a much wider role.
I hope that when noble Lords have the leisure and inclination they will look at Articles 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the convention. Each of those articles involves a consideration of what is or is not necessary in a democratic society. To my mind, that is a highly political consideration that is much better suited for Parliament and is wholly unsuited to judges. I do not say that because I do not believe that judges can do it. They can do it. If I were still a serving judge I would greet it with enthusiasm. It would be great fun to get into the wider realm of politics. But I cannot believe that it is in the interests of the country that judges should be encouraged or allowed to do so.
I respectfully suggest that before further thought is given to incorporating the convention into our domestic law it may be profitable to call a meeting of all the signatory states at which there is an in depth review of the proper role of the convention, the Court of Human Rights and the commission at the dawn of the 21st century. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester points out, this convention has been in existence for nearly 50 years. Few laws remain unamended for so long.
1742
I suggest that a root and branch re-examination would be highly profitable and might render the noble Lord's Bill quite unnecessary.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, first I apologise to the House that because of the difficulties of travel to Northern Ireland I may not be able to remain until the end of this evening's debate. I thank my noble friend for his introduction. I was reminded of an introduction to another Second Reading debate on a human rights Bill. The mover said:
"I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
"This Bill is substantially the same as the one which I introduced [two years ago] … Its aims are precisely the same, that is, to make unjust, discriminatory practices amenable to the law and to create machinery whereby complaints may be fully and impartially investigated.
"This Bill is not a mere academic exercise. It is not a mere affirmation of principles. It is an attempt to provide a remedy for a situation which actually exists and which has existed for a long time".
Those words were spoken in another place, but not in this building, on the 8th February 1966—almost 31 years ago to the day. I refer to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Those words were spoken by the sole Liberal MP at that time, Miss Sheelagh Murnaghan. I suppose that in many ways she was the Helen Suzman of Northern Ireland—a substantial lady in her principles and convictions. She introduced the Bill at that time, as she had two years before—it was voted down by the Conservative and Unionist Party which dominated the Parliament for over 50 years—not because she had prescience as to the terrible events that would befall Northern Ireland but because she knew that something was going wrong and it had to be put right. I do not say this to remind noble Lords, although I believe I am justified in doing so, that they and the Members in another place retain, as they always have done, ultimate responsibility for the affairs of Northern Ireland.
It was said earlier that the United Kingdom had not suffered invasion from outside for some 900 years. We are all relieved about that. But increasingly, throughout the world, threats of disorder do not come from invasions from outside but from invasions from within. Northern Ireland has had a terrible invasion from within the community for nearly 26 years. I do not remind your Lordships of that matter to suggest in any way that the nightmare that has been visited upon our beloved Province is likely to befall this much more fortunate island. I refer to it because I believe that what has happened in Northern Ireland is an extreme example, but an example nevertheless, of what can happen when citizens take the view that an unjust state of affairs cannot find a remedy that is not unduly delayed, expensive, difficult or distant. When citizens feel that those who govern their country or enforce the law may be doing so more in their own interests than in the interests of citizens the presence of a ready and persuasive form of redress is necessary to maintain public confidence.
In recent years there is evidence of disenchantment with political life in communities throughout the United Kingdom. Many people despise, even ridicule, those

1743
who take up politics. Confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law on a just and effective basis is slipping all the time. This has led some to make increasingly strident political promises of tougher policies on law and order. That is not what is needed. It only persuades many observers that the legal system is becoming ever more politicised, and that in many senses diminishes both law and politics. The solution is to ensure that there is a form of redress that calls upon standards and precedents that have external verification and international standing. In the context of Northern Ireland, where suspicion and disagreements over loyalty are rife—I hardly need to say it—the establishment of a set of principles that rises above party loyalties, even national loyalties, is a crucial component of any settlement. It is for that reason that the subject of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland became a matter of discussion among the parties in the multi-party talks in 1991 and, particularly, in 1992. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that one of the few things upon which we could agree as parties—the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance all agreed—was that one component which was necessary for a settlement was a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
Of course, as noble Lords might imagine, it quickly became apparent that if we were to discuss how we should ourselves construct a Bill of Rights from the start we would find the whole issue falling foul not just of party spirit but of genuine disagreement. The way, it seems, to satisfy the wishes of the parties to have a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, and the whole of the UK, is to incorporate and entrench an external international standard—the European Convention on Human Rights—in our domestic legislation.
It is impressive that parties from a Conservative and Unionist background, a Catholic Nationalist and Social Democratic background and a Liberal Alliance background—in the enormous difficulties of Northern Ireland—can come to appreciate that a Bill of Rights in this form is an essential component of a settlement to our difficulties. We should thank my noble friend for his persistence. I hope that not only will agreement in Northern Ireland lead to an early incorporation of the European Convention for Northern Ireland but that his efforts will lead to success and its incorporation for the whole of the UK.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, several noble Lords have referred to the distinguished history of support for a Bill of Rights and for the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in this House over many years. My noble friend Lord Lester mentioned my noble friend Lord Hooson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and Lord Rippon, whom we sadly lost last week. We should also recollect Lord Wade, whom the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, mentioned, who from these Benches pursued this course for many years; Lord Broxbourne from the Conservative Benches, and Lord Houghton from the Labour Benches, all of whom were dedicated to the introduction of a Bill of
1744
Rights and/or the incorporation of the European Convention as being the best and shortest practical way of achieving that.
There has also been considerable cross-party support in this House. There has been growing support among the senior judiciary, well exemplified this evening by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, despite his eloquence, would probably now acknowledge that he is an exception among the ranks of the senior judiciary on this issue.
I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Lester on what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, called his persistence. I would call it tenacity. Speaking of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, and persistence in the same breath, one cannot fail but be impressed by his dedicated Inspector Clouseau-type pursuit of a constitutional conspiracy through the labyrinthine trails of Charter 88, the Constitution Unit, the Inns of Court, the ancient universities, and the media until he finally, I think, has found the monster. If I heard him aright, the monster is the dear old Charity Commissioners.
I shall say two things to the noble Lord. First, I wonder whether he has noticed that his own party seems to have left him high and dry on these issues. On constitutional matters, Mr. Blair and new Labour have adopted much of the agenda of constitutional reform which he seems to think is a matter of a small pressure group pursuing a conspiracy. If so, it now includes his own party which is dedicated to much of this agenda. The noble Lord will forgive me, I am sure, if I say that he seems just a mite old Labour on this issue. No wonder the Government Front Bench liked his remarks so much.
Secondly, the noble Lord should be aware that far from a Bill of Rights being a minority preoccupation, a recent opinion poll shows that no fewer than 79 per cent. of the public support the measure that is proposed in the Bill. There is a high level of public support for it. I should just like to venture briefly into why I think that might be.
We are one of the few democracies which has neither a written constitution nor a Bill of Rights. It is axiomatic that in a modern democracy the will of the majority can and only should be exercised through parliamentary sovereignty if it is circumscribed by the protection of the rights of minorities and of individuals.
My noble friend Lord Lester has leaned over backwards in this new Bill towards the traditional claims of parliamentary sovereignty. Some may think that he has gone too far. I am not sure that I do not feel that myself, although I fully understand his motives in doing so and in trying to meet the traditional views of Parliament about parliamentary sovereignty. He has met those more than halfway by adopting the New Zealand model, as he explained. I should have liked to have seen some reference in the Bill to a human rights commission or commissioner to help plaintiffs who believe that their rights have been infringed to deal with those issues and take them forward.

1745
I shall turn to the issue of Northern Ireland and a Bill of Rights raised by my friend Lord Alderdice. I do not want to cover the ground that he covered so ably; but I should like to say to the Minister that this is one measure—I speak as someone from these Benches who has responsibilities, as she knows, for Northern Ireland—in that divided society upon which there is an extraordinary level of cross-party agreement. Unionists and Nationalists agree on this. There is so little upon which they agree but they agree on this, so that one asks oneself what is the obstacle to the introduction of a measure which could bring people in Northern Ireland together and protect the rights of minorities in a way which is crucial to moving forward with a joint declaration?
I am bound to say that it seems that the obstacle is the resistance of this Government to the incorporation of the European Convention for the UK as a whole. It is a political obstacle and not an intellectual obstacle. It is certainly not one which is helpful in the Northern Ireland context.
I am not a lawyer. Looking at the speakers' list, I think that we have five lawyers to four real people—or perhaps it is the other way round. Of course one of the real people is a psychiatrist so that is probably not an accurate statistic. Lawyers are always consumed—it is their job—by litigation, getting it to the courts, what happens in the courts. The real case for a Bill of Rights and incorporation of the European Convention is the enormous effect it would have on us legislators legislating, on administrators administering, of making them live up to the respect for the individual and for minorities. If that were the case—I am sorry to have to say this to my lawyer friends—there would be less litigation, but we would have a society more securely founded on the rights of the citizen and we should be closer to the citizens' society which I believe we so badly need. It is in that spirit that we shall be supporting the Bill.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sand well: My Lords, I fear that this is another intervention by a lawyer. I can only plead that we are none of us perfect. I add my tribute to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and my regrets that he cannot be with us tonight. Both the noble Lord and I had the privilege of working with him over a long period in the past. This debate would have benefited from his wisdom. I regret also that we cannot have the wisdom and experience of our former colleague Lord Rippon.
There is no room for disagreement about the principle underlying the Bill. The Bill is not about the principle; it is about how best to implement it. There is no debate as to whether the people of the United Kingdom should have the rights set out in the European Convention. They already have them; they have had them since the United Kingdom ratified the convention, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is aware. What remains is the question of where and how they should enforce them.
1746
Again, it is no longer in dispute that the United Kingdom recognises the right of individual petition. I am old enough to remember when that was a controversial proposition. Now an individual who claims to be deprived of a right guaranteed by the convention may complain to the European Commission and the commission may decide that it shall proceed for adjudication by the court.
None of that will depend on the passage of this Bill. It is in place already. The Bill seeks to provide machinery for assuring the people of their rights without the necessity of resorting to the European Commission and Court. That would have the three advantages mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. First, it would spare individuals the expense and delay of litigation in Europe. Secondly, it would spare this country the necessity of being constantly hauled up and admonished in an international forum. It would be better to deal with our family washing in our own laundry. Thirdly, it would enable the judiciary of this country to contribute to the jurisprudence of the European Court to the benefit of that jurisprudence.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has explored more than once ways in which that might be achieved. I believe that he has placed your Lordships' House very much in his debt and not for the first time. However, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take a moment to analyse what we are and are not doing when we seek to attach some legal or constitutional significance to human rights—or, if I may reformulate that, when we attach to a principle the label "human right".
The normal way to make decisions in a democratic political community is to empower electors to choose their representatives after hearing a political debate about their proposals, and the will of the majority prevails. Of course, we recognise that a majority may be unfair, prejudiced or muddled, but the right to take a decision must include the right to take a wrong decision. In that respect I have the misfortune to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Holme; I do not believe that there is much historical evidence that a minority—be it an oligarchy, an intellectual elite or a group of platonic philosophers—is likely to be more fair or successful than the majority.
In that respect, I find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. To declare that a principle is a human right is to withdraw it from that process; it is to say that it is so self-evident or that it commands so wide a consensus that it should be accepted without subjecting it to a political debate—or at least to place limitations on the methods of challenging it. I stand squarely with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in that I believe that there are principles in respect of which that is desirable. I hope that I do not need to argue my record of support for both an international and a domestic machinery for the protection of human rights.
However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that we should exercise some care as to the legal and constitutional significance which we give to human rights. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has had to leave the Chamber, but I believe

1747
that there are special considerations in relation to Northern Ireland which are not necessarily the same as in the remainder of the United Kingdom. I believe that we should have some care as regards the significance we give to the concept.
If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, had sought to entrench the rights set out in the European Convention so as to render them immune from the decisions of Parliament I would have hesitated for two reasons. The first is because it would have represented an attempt by us in our generation to impose our culture and our views on subsequent generations. Indeed, some other countries have done that, but I would hesitate. The second is that it is often the most vulnerable groups which are most likely to have occasion to challenge the received wisdom of the past.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has not sought to do that. He is seeking in the Bill to do three things. First, he is seeking to give a remedy in domestic law for infringements of rights which at present must be remedied in the European Court and Commission, and to give it subject to the domestic legislation of this Parliament. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, observed, the judiciary may not feel impelled to invent a large range of remedies. But whatever is necessary is best done in this country, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Cocks would assent to that proposition. That was the theme of a report many years ago of a committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of which I was privileged to be a member when we were members of the same party. If I remember correctly it stated almost exactly that.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is seeking to provide that where legislation can be construed so as to be consistent with the convention that construction should be preferred. It does not seem to me an unreasonable presumption that Parliament intends to legislate consistently with our obligations under the convention. I add my tribute to that of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the judiciary of this country, which has sought where possible to give effect to that construction. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, it is true that in the earlier years it sometimes required a little persuasion, but it has since done that with great dedication and skill.
Thirdly, the noble Lord is seeking—and this seems to me to be the principal constitutional role of the concept of human rights—a way of causing the majority or its representatives to think again when we witness the effect, or the potential effect, on an individual of what we are saying in our legislation.
I believe that in a representative democracy it is that which we should seek to achieve. What is proposed in the Bill is parliamentary machinery which will alert legislators when they are in danger of passing legislation in contravention of the European Convention. Surely we may assume that they will not wish lightly to place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. That, as I understand it, is largely what New Zealand has done.
1748
I venture to develop that theme. It may be a matter of how this House and the other place arrange their consideration of business rather than an issue requiring statutory provision. I would like to see a Select Committee in each House, or even a joint committee, consider legislation which falls within Clause 3. Your Lordships have a Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on which I am privileged to serve. One of its functions is to scrutinise potential legislation to see what powers it is conferring on Ministers to effect subordinate legislation. The scrutiny of legislation for its conformity with our obligations under the convention seems to me worthy of consideration.
Therefore, I am in the fortunate position of being able, from this Bench, to welcome on behalf of my party proposals which I would in any event have welcomed enthusiastically on my own behalf. I would not necessarily wish to include in that the proposal which the noble Lord made in his speech, although, as he pointed out, it is not included in the Bill, for a human rights commissioner. That implies no lack of enthusiasm by my party for enforcing human rights, but simply that it may have implications for the very commissions which the noble Lord mentioned; namely, the Equal Opportunities Commissions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality, the National Disability Council and the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland. That raises questions which may require consultation and careful thought. I say no more than that at this stage but I think it right to put down a marker.
Subject to that, on these Benches we support the proposals. Of course, even if we opposed them, it would be quite wrong to deny a Second Reading to a Private Member's Bill. But that is not the position here. It would be good if the noble Baroness were able to announce that the consensus included the present Government. Her body language has just indicated what I already suspected. I do not believe that she is as indifferent to human rights at that might indicate but, like all others, she has a brief. For those of us whose concern for human rights goes back for many years, our patience too may be rewarded.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should say to the noble and learned Lord that my interest in human rights is as strong as that of the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Yes, I have a brief, but I confess to being a believer in the case that I am about to put forward.
Perhaps I may be confessional at the outset and plead guilty. I am guilty of enjoying the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, not simply for the reason that I gave in my intervention—namely, that it was a lay voice in the debate—but I enjoyed his speech and I admire him for withstanding what has been for many months or even some years now an almost intense challenge and criticism of him from those who disagree with his point of view. Tonight was no exception. There were a number of interventions—by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. But the noble Lord has been assiduous

1749
in championing the record of this country on human rights. He has put some balance into the debate, for which I am grateful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, chided me for coming to the rescue or supporting and defending the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. I agree with the noble Baroness that he does not need that. He is a big boy now and he can certainly defend himself. I say that with some humour but I say it very seriously because it is important that there should be a lay voice in the debate. I am delighted to say that that has also been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and myself. I am delighted equally to welcome the contrary judicial view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. That too recognises that there is more than one view on this issue.
As many speakers have already noted this evening, the matters we have been discussing occupy a central place within our constitution. The preservation and development of the rights and freedoms of the individual must lie at the heart of any effective and legitimate constitutional structure. In the United Kingdom we have a long-standing tradition of upholding individual freedoms and rights. These are inherent in our system of democracy and our legal systems. They form an essential part of our culture.
The Bill before us seeks to make a fundamental change to the way in which those rights and freedoms are protected in this country. I therefore welcome this opportunity to make clear the Government's position on those proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us of two important debates that we have had recently on two Bills passing through Parliament at this time. I make only one point which is relevant to both the Bills and the issues referred to by the noble Baroness. In pursuing organised crime and terrorism, any compromise or slight erosion of civil liberties and the interests of those who may be intruded upon must be balanced by the liberty, freedoms and safety of those who are on the receiving end of such evil acts by the criminal or the terrorist. For those of us who are fortunate enough to benefit from the protection afforded to our country by the efforts of responsible and frequently courageous officers of the police and security services it is a question of balance. Sometimes, standing at this Dispatch Box defending the Government's position, I feel that we become preoccupied with the civil liberties of the wrongdoer and not sufficiently occupied with the civil liberties of those of us who are innocent and very often at the receiving end of the activities of the wrongdoer.
I have spoken on such matters on several previous occasions in this House. On those occasions I have made clear that the Government consider the advantages of incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into our law to be doubtful and the drawbacks to be considerable. Noble Lords tonight have argued that this Bill is more acceptable than previous Bills, that it should dispel the Government's concerns, and that we should therefore incorporate the convention, since nothing now stands in the way. This is a considerable
1750
over-simplification of the difficult issues raised by incorporation, and, I would contend, a potentially dangerous one.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and other noble Lords have argued that this Bill would allow for incorporation of the convention while at the same time preserving the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. I have doubts about that, as I shall contend later. But even if those were to be resolved, the Bill would introduce a major change in our long-standing constitutional arrangements, bringing with it a number of potential hazards, for little advantage.
Let us look at the basic issues. First, do we need to incorporate the convention? Our rights and freedoms are already inherent in our legal systems, and are protected by them, and by Parliament unless removed or restricted by statute. The United Kingdom is already party to all the major international instruments which concern human rights, including the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The terms of those instruments do not require their incorporation into domestic law; and it has not been the practice of the United Kingdom to do so.
Would incorporating the convention increase the seriousness with which we treat these obligations? I doubt that. The United Kingdom has always sought to honour fully our obligations under those instruments, and attaches great importance to doing so. Our present arrangements already provide for our commitments under the convention, and the other treaties to which we are party, to be taken into proper account in our governmental, legislative and judicial systems. Our obligations under the convention are systematically and carefully taken into account in the formulation and application of government policy, and in the preparation of draft legislation.
If the United Kingdom is found to be in breach of the Convention by the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, effective arrangements are in place for remedying the matter. Any necessary changes in the law or administrative practice are made as soon as practicable.
The fact is that whether or not the convention has been incorporated into the domestic law of a country has little bearing on how well that country affords legal protection for its people.
Some noble Lords have argued that the United Kingdom's record before the European Court of Human Rights is in itself a pressing argument for incorporation. But would incorporation mean fewer violations before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as some noble Lords have suggested? The evidence does not support that claim.
In a society which prizes the rights of the individual so highly, it is not surprising that the actions of governments are challenged, and that there is debate on whether individual rights and freedoms have been properly balanced in relation to the general interest. That debate is healthy. But we must not be misled into believing that, as some have wrongly asserted, the

1751
United Kingdom has the worst human rights record in Europe: that is palpable nonsense. Most people would agree that human rights are in fact very well safeguarded in the United Kingdom.
Those who suggest that the United Kingdom's record for breaches of the ECHR is the worst in Europe are misinformed. It is important to note that levels of awareness of human rights in this country among the legal profession, active civil liberties, non-governmental organisations and the public at large are far higher than in most, probably any, of the Council of Europe countries. That is cause for satisfaction but it means that numbers of initial applications tend to be high. In considering the figures for findings of violation, we cannot ignore the fact that the relative population size of different states varies enormously, and that individuals from some states—such as the United Kingdom—have been able to petition Strasbourg for much longer than others. In fact, the UK's record of compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights compares well with the records of many other countries across Europe—countries like Austria, France, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland—when considered in relation to our large population and the 31 years that the right of individual petition has been accepted in this country.
Such figures, of course, are only indicative: the differences between individual states preclude any absolute comparisons. But the significant fact worth stressing is that all those other countries have incorporated the convention and yet they have relatively worse records than the United Kingdom in complying with it. Preventing breaches being found in Strasbourg is not therefore a persuasive argument for incorporation.
In fact, very many cases are taken up by the European Commission on Human Rights from countries which have incorporated, despite earlier consideration of those cases in their domestic courts. For example, in 1996, 32 allegations of violation against the Austrian Government were found admissible; 37 against the Turkish Government; 75 against the French Government; and 370 against the Italian Government: all of these countries have incorporated the convention.
Over the same period, 26 allegations against the United Kingdom were declared admissible. Given our population, and the fact that the right of petition is now a well-known form of recourse in our county, these figures hardly support the claim that incorporation reduces the numbers of cases going forward to Strasbourg, or that it might hence have a corresponding effect upon the numbers of adverse judgments.
Let us look also at the experience of other countries which have recently incorporated the convention. Denmark, for example, incorporated in 1992. Since then, there has been an increase—not a decrease—in complaints to Strasbourg from that country. Figures for complaints against other countries which have been recently incorporated suggest a similar trend. We really should be wary of reading too much into those figures, or any others. Many factors affect the numbers of applications, and the Council of Europe is seeing a general increase in applications from all states, as the
1752
right of petition becomes better known. What it demonstrates, however, is that there is certainly no evidence at all to suggest that incorporation would reduce complaints to Strasbourg.
It has also been asserted that incorporation would allow convention cases to be handled more quickly and, as I believe has been suggested, more cheaply. But if significant numbers of cases would continue on to Strasbourg, despite having first been considered by the domestic courts, it is hard to see how that might be true. I would argue rather to the contrary.
In short, the supposed advantages of incorporation are, on closer examination, highly doubtful. What is clear is that our non-incorporation is not the reason why the United Kingdom is found from time to time to be in breach of the convention. Instead, the answer to that lies primarily in the broad and general provisions of the convention, which are inevitably subject to different and changing interpretations and to the different composition of the national and international tribunals.
If the advantages of incorporation are not proven, what about the drawbacks? I should like in particular to consider further the matter of parliamentary sovereignty, which has been the subject of some discussion here this evening.
There will always be debate about the way in which broad rights or principles should be applied in individual cases, or about the balance between conflicting principles, such as the balance between freedom of expression and respect for privacy, as our society evolves. The freedom to debate such issues, and to develop our laws accordingly, is a key feature of our system of parliamentary democracy, and derives primarily from the central principle of parliamentary sovereignty. That is why we consider it to be so important.
Parliamentary sovereignty is the founding principle of our constitutional arrangements. Under those arrangements, it is for our democratically elected and accountable Parliament to enact detailed legislation on matters affecting the rights and liberties of the individual, and for Parliament to decide where the difficult balance between competing public and individual interests must be struck. The role of the courts is then to apply that legislation. When legislating, of course, Parliament must clearly have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and to other treaties to which we are party. But the final decision on any legislation lies with Parliament.
Some have argued that this Bill, unlike the previous Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would leave the principle of parliamentary sovereignty untouched. I am glad to see that the noble Lord now recognises the fundamental importance of that principle, but I do not think he has been successful in seeking to find a way round it; indeed, what we now have seems to be rather a muddle. In fact, the very points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in relation to recent debates in this House, have already made that point for me.

1753
I have to say that it is far from clear exactly how the courts would be expected to give effect to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill gives "full legal effect" to the relevant provisions of the convention and goes on to provide that the convention should have effect,
"notwithstanding any rule of law to the contrary".
But it goes on to require the courts to look at the convention whenever a question of interpretation of UK legislation arises and to give the United Kingdom legislation a meaning consistent with their interpretation of the convention,
"whenever the enactment can be given such a meaning".
Would that move matters substantially forward from the current position, as reflected in the Brind judgment, under which such international obligations such as the convention are relevant to the interpretation of UK legislation only where the legislation is itself ambiguous?
What is more, Clause 2 of the Bill gives all courts and tribunals power to grant,
"such remedy or relief or make such order as it considers appropriate"
to give effect to the convention. That is a broad power indeed. Are courts able to make orders suspending the effect of Acts of Parliament or annulling subordinate legislation under this power? Will they be able to make orders of mandamus requiring Ministers to exercise their powers in a particular way in order to comply with their interpretation of the convention?
Clause 3 would require formal notification and explanation by government to Parliament of any "inconsistency or apparent inconsistency" with the convention in proposed legislation. Do we really wish to see a provision effectively authorising Parliament to legislate in breach of the convention? In practice, of course, it would be extremely difficult for Parliament to do so, unless it intended also to derogate from the convention itself, as is the position now. It is worth remembering that derogation is only permitted under the convention in respect of certain obligations in time of war or public emergency threatening the life of the nation, and then only to the extent required by the exigencies of the situation. So while this provision might be argued to protect the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, it is difficult to see what it would actually achieve.
Moreover, even if the courts were not able to strike down parliamentary enactments, they would probably not be slow to indicate when they considered legislation to be in breach of the convention, thereby increasing the likelihood of a case being taken on to Strasbourg and casting doubt on that legislation and any subsequent cases in the intervening period. Noble Lords may wish to consider what the effects of that might be.
How, for example, would the courts give effect to Article 13 of the convention—the requirement to provide an effective remedy before a national authority—if their existing powers, for example, by way of judicial review, did not enable them to provide such remedy? What would happen then? Would the court assume powers that it did not previously have in order to provide the effective remedy it deemed to be required
1754
by Article 13? If so, those provisions would impinge on parliamentary sovereignty. It seems to me that the circuitous route around parliamentary sovereignty proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has not entirely been thought through: in fact, I believe that it leads us back, time and again, to this fundamental issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, contends that the provisions in his Bill are modelled on a successful provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights, which preserves the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament. That point was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. But the effects of this provision cannot be assessed on the basis of what happens in New Zealand because New Zealand is not of course party to the ECHR or to any other international system of monitoring compliance with human rights obligations at the instigation of a complaint by an individual. And even in New Zealand, I understand, the application of this new area of their law is still developing. It seems to me that this is dangerous territory to be entering if we cannot be sure of where these provisions will lead us.
What is clear is that the effect of this Bill would be to require the courts to interpret the broad and general provisions of the convention and apply these, as part of the law, to areas of public policy concerning the rights and freedoms of individuals. This must inevitably draw the courts into making decisions on questions of public policy which have hitherto been for Parliament: decisions which we believe must ultimately be as much political as legal.
Some have suggested that the courts are already involved in such matters, that the boundary between policy making and judicial interpretation has already been crossed, for example through the use of judicial review. It is clearly right that the courts should hold Ministers to the proper use of their powers, and should safeguard the procedural quality of decision making. That is merely an example of our constitution working. But, by the same token, it is of course ultimately up to Parliament to decide the laws on which judges and courts make their judgments. Requiring the courts to apply the broad and general provisions of the convention would take them into hazardous terrain with no clear boundaries.
In the Government's view, it remains a vital merit of our constitutional arrangements that Parliament decides public policy affecting the rights and freedoms of the individual and, equally, that it decides how, and when, to change that policy, whether as a result of the evolving needs of our society, or evolving Strasbourg jurisprudence. In doing so of course it must have regard to many things including our international obligations, the judgments of our own courts, and judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. Nevertheless, the final decision remains with Parliament. That is an important principle within our system of democracy. We do not think it should be dodged. There are no easy ways round it, as I have sought to show the House this evening. And it should not be imperilled, particularly for such doubtful advantage.

1755
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made an important point on the way in which the convention is currently interpreted. I believe the noble and learned Lord knows that those are concerns which the Government share and are pursuing with other state parties in the Council of Europe and elsewhere. However, as I believe the noble and learned Lord hinted, it can take a long time because of the number of signatories to the convention and the difficulty of reconciling interests across that range of countries. It will be painstaking work, but it is work in which the British Government are very much involved. We believe we are gaining a number of supporters to the cause, but that work will continue.
We all understand why the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is not present at the end of the debate. However, I wish to put on record a comment in response to something he said. Advocates of incorporation, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, recognise that incorporation would not be a panacea. It would not contribute significantly to the resolution of issues which have been particularly sensitive in Northern Ireland such as discrimination in employment. The law in Northern Ireland is consistent with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights reinforces the standard which the Government seek to meet. The provisions of the convention help to shape our policy and practice. Emergency powers can already be—and indeed are—tested in open court.
Our constitution has been formed by the people of this country over the years. It embodies their values, their understandings, their respect for the individual and his freedom under the law. And the changes which have taken place over the years have not been made for the sake of change or in the interests of particular institutions. They have been practical changes, driven by what people want, not what someone out there thinks.
Our system of parliamentary democracy, and our unwritten constitution have provided very effective protection for the individual in this country for many years. It is perhaps too easy at times to take the safeguards they provide for granted. That is a point the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has made on many occasions. We must not fall into the trap of doing so: we should be proud of these fundamental parts of our heritage; and we should not seek to change them, where there is neither a clear need, nor good reason for doing so.
This is a Private Member's Bill and the Government would not therefore propose to vote against it. However, the Government continue to believe that incorporation, whether in this form or another, remains undesirable and unnecessary, both in principle and practice. For those reasons, we cannot support this Bill but we shall not oppose its Second Reading.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I am grateful for the excessive compliments paid to me which I do not deserve. I am
1756
particularly grateful to those who are "normal" people; that is to say, non-lawyers and non-judges, of whom I think there is a small majority this evening. On my count there are six "normal" people and five judges and lawyers who have spoken, unless I do not count myself as a proper lawyer, in which case one can say there is a clear majority for the lay elements.
I am also especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for what I can only describe as his unique contribution and an entertaining one. I do not think there is anything he said that I would wish to answer. However, sometimes he makes the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats sound like some kind of criminal conspiracy.
I shall not attempt at this hour to reply to all the points that have been made. However, I shall make one or two points. First, I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lord Alderdice for introducing wider and necessary political considerations into the debate. This is not the preserve of lawyers. My noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham some years ago belonged to an earlier conspiratorial organisation which he led called the Constitutional Reform Centre, as I recall. Early in his life in this House he introduced a Motion on the subject.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, also belongs to an older conspiracy. It is many years since he and, I recall, Lord Silkin of Dulwich supported a more diluted version of this Bill. Therefore a number of us here have been arguing about this matter, sometimes it seemed in the wilderness but perhaps that is no longer the case.
The wise and most welcome support given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is greatly appreciated. I would not wish to introduce a Bill that senior judges regarded as impractical or unworkable or as adding significantly to their burdens. I also thank the Minister for her careful reply. I wish briefly to try to focus on the real practical gaps that the Bill seeks to deal with, and then point out how odd our position is compared with that not only of the people out there but also the rest of the world.
The real gaps are two-fold. The first is the Brind gap. Judicial review of Ministers', civil servants' and public authorities' actions is ineffective in using the convention in cases where Parliament has given virtually a blank cheque to the decision maker. The House of Lords recognised a problem in the Brind case. It felt it was impossible to require Ministers, civil servants or other public officers to have regard to the convention in performing their duties or exercising their powers as it said that would bring the convention in through the back door when Parliament had failed to bring it in through the front. That is the major gap in our arrangement. It is the old vice of uncontrolled administrative discretion that used to lead to so many more cases of violations being established in Strasbourg.
The second gap is that although the executive branch of Government take the convention extremely seriously, Parliament has no machinery, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, emphasised, and no

1757
advice to enable it to scrutinise pending measures properly to ensure that what the executive branch has done complies with the requirements of the convention.
Those are two practical gaps that put us at odds with the remainder of the Commonwealth as well as the civil law of continental European countries. Noble Lords may not appreciate that the United Kingdom has exported the convention to more countries in the world than anyone else. We have written these rights and freedoms into the constituttions of African, Caribbean, and Asian Commonwealth constitutions. We have given the judges in those countries much greater powers than this Bill does—the power to strike down inconsistent legislation. We have given the convention to Hong Kong. I pay tribute to the Governor of Hong Kong who has been strongly defending the Bill of Rights ordinance in Hong Kong against the threats made by the People's Republic of China to tear it up. What is good for Hong Kong and the remainder of the Commonwealth remains, for reasons I do not understand, in some way threatening to order and good government in this country.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice pointed out that the greatest support for a Bill of Rights comes from both main communities of Northern Ireland. It has always been thus since the debate began. I think it was in 1975 that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lowry, chaired the constitutional convention. The one issue on which the Republican clubs and the Orange Order could agree was the need to make the basic standards of the convention enforceable in Northern Ireland. It has always been thus from that part of the United Kingdom. It is only in the past 20 years that the movement of popular opinion—I do not refer to some little coterie of chattering classes—has been mobilised successfully so that it has become an important part of renewing our constitutional arrangements, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, indicated.
Many years ago I had the honour of defending the United Kingdom against the Republic of Ireland. The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that the system which best reflects the intentions of the founding fathers of the convention, there having been no founding mothers at that stage unfortunately, was to give effect to the convention by incorporating it in domestic law.
The Minister made great play with statistics. However, I made it no part of my case that somehow we are the worst violators of the convention. We are I think the country with the most significant breaches of the convention found by the European Court. That goes to quality rather than quantity. The reason is not that we are particularly wicked; it is simply that we do not provide remedies in this country. I make the
1758
comparison with Germany. It is significant that Germany with a larger population than ours has almost no cases before the European Court. It makes sure that its domestic system and the three branches of Government tackle the issue.
On parliamentary sovereignty, I have been at great pains to ensure that Parliament has the last word. That follows the New Zealand model. If I may say so, only one error was made in the brief given to the Minister. It is mistaken to suppose that New Zealand is irrelevant because it is not a party to an international human rights code similar to the convention. What is remarkable about New Zealand is that not only is it a party to the international covenant on civil and political rights, it recently accepted the optional protocol—the equivalent of the right to partition—which means that their judges, Parliament and Executive will find cases going before the human rights committee in precisely the same way that cases go before the Human Rights Commission and the Court of Human Rights. I am impressed by the way in which the New Zealand polity has managed to fit into its system—we had always regarded it as a far more conservative system than ours—a Bill which deals with the need for effective domestic remedies.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out a number of respects in which he thought that the convention was inconsistent with UK law. The noble and learned Lord was troubled that if we incorporate it, our judges might find our system wanting. I believe that the position taken by the United Kingdom Government would be that there is no mismatch between the convention and United Kingdom law. If there had been, we would have been obliged in international law to give effect to the convention.
I fully appreciate the noble and learned Lord's reservations about some of the European Court's decisions. But, with respect, he is mistaken if he thinks that the unique English and Scottish judicial contribution would not be much stronger if cases that went to Strasbourg had been reviewed by our courts, applying convention standards to the facts of the case.
If we incorporate the measure, as I hope that we shall before long, those who won their cases in this country would have speedy remedies. Those who lost would find it more difficult to win in Strasbourg if their cases had been carefully reviewed by judges of the quality and enlightenment of those who spoke in this debate and in previous debates. For those reasons, I very much hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.

  PHOENIX
  PHOENIX
  Asylum Seekers: Detention at Rochester Prison
  Asylum Seekers: Detention at Rochester Prison
  Racism and Xenophobia: EU Monitoring Centre
  Racism and Xenophobia: EU Monitoring Centre
  Prisoners: In-cell Television
  Prisoners: In-cell Television
  Associations of Chief Police Officers
  Associations of Chief Police Officers
  Single Currency
  Single Currency
  British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce: Foreign Shareholdings Limit
  British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce: Foreign Shareholdings Limit
  Advertising Hoardings
  Advertising Hoardings
  Scarman Trust
  Scarman Trust
  Broadcasting: Complaints from Foreign Embassies
  Broadcasting: Complaints from Foreign Embassies
  Middle East: Forces Build-up
  Middle East: Forces Build-up
  Defence Spending
  Defence Spending