| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, perhaps I may correct him on a small point. We use the international definition. We use it in the quarterly LFS figures which come out once a month. Obviously we do not use it for the other figures which come out every month because those are quite simply a count of those registered unemployed. The two measures are different, but they are both complementary and they have shown over the past few years more or less the same trend.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am glad to have that comment. As I said, it seems the sensible thing to do. The Minister was not in charge at the time, but only months ago I asked a question on this specific point and reasons were put forward as to why it was not a good idea to adopt the standard. I am pleased to learn that that is now being done. I had intended to make the point that there is so much disagreement on statistics relating to unemployment that something had to be done about it. I hope that that will make a contribution towards it.
I see that the Prince of Wales expressed his concern about unemployment at the weekend with particular reference to youth unemployment. Talking of statistics, I hope that the Government will not dispute his statement that there are 250,000 young people who have been out of work for more than six months. He also mentioned that there is a total of 600,000 young people who are not in work or undertaking any kind of education or training. That, incidentally, is almost double the figure in Germany. I mention the Prince of Wales since there is perhaps more likelihood of the Government taking notice of his remarks than of a rather weak voice such as mine on the Opposition Benches.
The most pervasive feeling in this country is insecurity; and the most important ingredient in that is the feeling that one's job will be lost. Since the present Prime Minister came to office, no fewer than 11 million people have experienced at least one period of unemployment.
The fundamental reason for the present situation has been the incompetence of the Government in managing the economy; and there is nothing to suggest that matters will be any different in the future in the unhappy event that this Government are returned next year. This Queen's Speech would be a laughable document were it not such a serious matter for the unemployed.
There are 900,000 long-term unemployed. "Long-term" is defined as being out of work for more than one year. However, the figure includes those who have been out of work for two, three or four years and even longer. If a Labour government had produced that figure after 17 years in office the Tory lie machine would have had a field day.
I take some solace from the fact that I do not believe that machine can produce anything to obliterate from the minds of the electorate the sheer horror of long years of heart-breaking unemployment for so many people. George Bernard Shaw once said, "You can get used to anything--so you have to be very careful what you get used to".
There are many things of which this Government can be accused, but none is more important than creating the conditions in which people become used to unemployment. It has happened to thousands of families, with tragic results in many cases. That, more than anything else, will help to get rid of this Government next year--but it has been a terrible price to pay.
7.3 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am delighted that the gracious Speech raises the subject of the control of marine pollution. I must declare an interest. I spent 25 years in the shipping industry; that included taking a Master's certificate of competency after 10 years at sea. However, I regret that road safety, which affects all of us and about which I feel particularly strongly, receives no attention. I shall return to the matter later.
My time at sea encompassed the beginning of the end of Britain's long period as a major maritime nation. I sailed under the British and Australian flags: officers and seamen were well trained; safety was uppermost in our minds; and we took measures to ensure that no oil escaped into the sea. But times change. Oil spills have become more frequent following groundings and collisions which may be due, in part, to less exacting training, more crowded waterways and undue reliance upon electronic technology. The intention of the proposed legislation is, mainly, to protect our waters and coastline from pollution emanating from merchant ships by making shipowners more financially responsible for clean-up operations. It will be interesting to observe how shipowners and their insurers come to terms with their proposed new obligations. Similar measures have been in force for many years in America, albeit in a more draconian form, but, if we can achieve our objective satisfactorily by means of this Bill, almost everybody will be very pleased.
There are many areas affecting road safety which merit attention; however, I shall touch upon only two of them this evening. Before doing so I should declare that
I am a civilian holder of the police Class 1 driving certificate and a former examiner of advanced motorists in Australia--a country which is quite innovative in its approach to driving and safety--and am regularly in touch with certain organisations specialising in road safety.On average, 10 people are killed on our roads every day of the year and, on most days, one of those killed will be a child. While the figures are better than those for most countries, there is still room for improvement. Excess speed and inappropriate speeding have been shown to be the biggest single contributory factor in road accidents--and the relationship between speed and accidents is clear: the faster the speed, the greater the number of accidents and the more serious the level of injury sustained.
I was somewhat alarmed at the cynical, but correct, view of a police officer who noted that, when too many vehicles left the road at a particular corner, a more skid resistant road surface was laid--with the result that vehicles now leave the road on that corner travelling faster and with more serious consequences.
In last year's debate on the environment, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is not in his place, mentioned that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had, during an earlier debate, admitted to a financial interest in relation to a speed limit. Speed traps were also mentioned, but I am not sure whether the two matters were connected. It is very easy to exceed the posted speed limit when cocooned in a quiet, warm and comfortable vehicle, but regular examination of the dashboard instruments, combined with better observation, will certainly reduce the possibility of speeding. However, it has been proved that GATSO cameras not only help to reduce collisions at crossroads but also help to reduce the average speed of vehicles travelling in their vicinity. It is also agreed that, as a result, there tend to be fewer accidents in their proximity and they are very cost-effective. If it were possible to have more cameras appropriately placed, speed limits would be more universally observed. The Government have stated that that is one of their aims. However, fines levied as the result of GATSOs go to the Treasury. The financial and administrative burden of speed enforcement on the police can prohibit the purchase of further cameras. If that burden were reduced by feeding back to the police a portion of the fine-generated income, a situation would eventually be achieved whereby the whole operation would become self-funding, the Treasury would still receive large sums of money and fewer accidents would result, with less cost to the NHS.
The Transport Research Laboratory has estimated that if all van drivers engaged in local deliveries were to wear seat belts, 25 fatalities, 290 serious and 850 slight injuries could be averted every year. However, the Wearing of Seat Belt Regulations exempt certain drivers from wearing belts. It is understandable that postmen and milkmen in urban areas should be exempted: after all, they move only a few yards at a time. But there is no definition of the word "local" and therefore considerable leeway is given by the police in its interpretation, with the van driver taking full advantage of the situation.
Now that seat belt design has provided the retracting belt, van drivers' comments on getting caught up in their belts are no longer valid. It may be that primary legislation is needed to address this anomaly. If that is the case, it should be done so as to minimise the financial and emotional pressures exerted on government and on the families affected. If van drivers were forced to wear seat belts, they would soon get used to the few seconds which it takes to put them on and perhaps realise that it is preferable to being killed in a fraction of a second.7.10 p.m
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate, as is traditional in the reply to the gracious Speech. I wish to confine my comments to education, as a number of Peers have done before me.
The Education Bill announced in the gracious Speech will, if passed, be the 18th Education Act in as many years of Conservative Government. I believe it is the Government's hope that measures such as the extension of selection, greater freedom for grant-maintained schools and the extension of the assisted places scheme to preparatory schools will win headlines and hence win votes. The reality is that these measures will make little or no difference to the vast majority of children in our schools. They reflect the Government's obsession with a tiny minority of schools and their continuing preoccupation with the structure within which schools operate.
I live in the London Borough of Wandsworth where all secondary schools now have some form of selection or specialisation. The effects of this have been entirely predictable and I believe damaging. In Wandsworth children can look forward to being marked as successes or failures at the age of 11. One school, Gravney School, is now so popular that this year in the first tranche of applications no pupils have been accepted on the basis of their geographical proximity to the school. All new pupils have been accepted by examination or because siblings attend the school. One parent remarked this morning that the school was like an alien spaceship which had descended into the neighbourhood, drawing children in from outside areas and rejecting local children.
Another school, in the north of the borough, is a very unpopular school. It is the borough's sink school. I understand that this year's intake is down in terms of both the quality and the quantity of the pupils accepted. The school is, and will continue to be, marked as a failure by the examination league tables and it is seen as such by local parents.
I believe it is truly a failure of the Government that such schools exist in the first place. It is particularly their failure that, whatever the efforts of the staff, they will not be reflected through benefits in the examination league tables. Here--to use jargon--I am talking about reflecting the added value a school can give to its pupil intake.
Selection exaggerates the success or failure of schools but it also exaggerates the success and failure of children. One story I heard this morning was of a girl
who loved art and applied to a Wandsworth school with a specialisation in that subject. She failed the entrance exam. I am told that she was so upset that she has since stopped the drawing and painting which she loved so much. This is no way to encourage the higher standards which we all want.If the Government's measures are passed into law, their combined effect nationwide will be negligible. Schools and parents have shown no enthusiasm for increased selection in the past. When the DfEE consulted earlier this year on whether to raise the level of selection from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., only 15 of the 1,500 organisations consulted said they were in favour.
The Government also propose to tinker with the powers of grant-maintained schools. The number of schools opting for grant-maintained status has slowed to a trickle, with only 89 schools opting out in 1995-96. Only 1,100 schools of our 23,000 schools have opted for grant-maintained status. Yet the Government still try to revive this sector. They propose to allow the Funding Agency for Schools to set up new grant-maintained schools in all new areas where it believes there is a demand. But this is without reference to the 800,000 surplus places that exist nationally or to local education authorities' school development plans.
This contradicts parental choice, when parents are increasingly voting against grant-maintained schools. It bypasses their views and actively undermines the local education authorities. The proposals may go a long way to introducing a free market to the grant-maintained sector, but they are, I believe, a sideshow. They will do nothing for the standards about which we debate all the time. They will do nothing for discipline, which is so topical at the moment. They will actively undermine the ability of education authorities to plan the education for local children. I may be premature, but I am reminded of Monty Python's dead parrot sketch: this scheme is dead, defunct, no more, and the Government should give up attempts to revive it.
The extension of the Assisted Places Scheme to cover the primary age range is perhaps the Government's greatest admission of failure. I believe it is profoundly unfair that some £140 million will be spent in subsidising 70,000 children in private schools rather than following the Labour Party's proposal to cut class sizes to no more than 30 children for all five, six and seven year-olds. The Labour Party's proposal would benefit some 440,000 children. It is the Government's failure which has exaggerated the demand for private education. I believe it is no role for the Government to perpetuate this divide in our country.
The watchwords of the Government's programme over the past few years have been "choice" and "diversity". Last Session we saw the Education (Students Loans) Bill and the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill--presumably in the name of choice and diversity. These Bills, now Acts, have proved to be mice, and sickly mice at that. This year we have a variety of measures which will increase choice for a minority of able children. I look forward to the day when an Education Minister puts forward
measures specifically designed to enhance the choice and diversity of those children least able to meet the demands of today's society.7.17 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, with a subject as all-encompassing as environment and agriculture, I should like to deal with those two matters as they affect the health of the nation--that is, in the agricultural environment and the way we use our farmland and in the food that is produced on that farmland which provides the diet of our society.
The danger that links these areas is the chemical input: the pesticides and the fertilisers, the hormone treatments, the organophosphate dosing and the animal feed, be it to stock or poultry, that are enervating the immune systems of both humans and animals alike.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers told the House clearly in his opening speech of the danger of the population explosion in the next 20 years. I do not take issue with him on that. But he said that intensive farming is vital. However, he went on to say that it was all right for chemicals to be used if they were properly controlled. That is indeed the import of the White Paper which is being implemented by the Government to impose much greater controls on chemical input in intensive farming in this country. We can all agree that chemicals would be of no use in propagating this particular item of endangered species who speaks to you now. I would dread the idea of being fertilised, chemically or otherwise, and the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, that perhaps we might be a suitable case for treatment by Mr. Damien Hirst really does alarm me.
However, on the subject of the health of the nation, there is a growing understanding of the importance of diet and its effects especially on young children and the youth of our country. We need only recall wartime rationing to prove that point. Diet may be peripheral but it is very important. Recent events in schools and in society in general are evidence that the quality of home life can be tragically reduced in a number of ways, but particularly by a combination of fast food, typically hamburgers, and those dreadful 12-week-old battery chickens, which are a particularly unsatisfactory source of nutrition, sugars and so on, which are a recognised source of hyperactivity in small children.
It is tempting to add a word about family values. Suffice it to say that the subject is by definition a family matter and one in which the Government interfere at their peril. It is the voluntary organisations, so rightly praised by the Prime Minister, which are able to deliver the advice and support needed in that area. But the Government have proposals where appropriate, both in school life and on the streets, and they are of vital importance. My noble friend can be assured of my support in the rapid passage of the Bills as they come to this House.
On the agriculture front, I refer your Lordships to a recent speech by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. In his Lady Eve Balfour memorial address to the Soil Association--a long speech of great importance--
His Royal Highness dealt conclusively and in detail with problems that have been compounded over the past 50 years with the ever increasing intensification of pressures from science and chemistry. His Royal Highness kindly agreed that I might give the following short extract. After quoting Wendell Berry, whose philosophy he noted as,
- "farming cannot thrive where nature does not also thrive ... the appropriate measure of farming then is the world's health and our health, and this is inescapably one measure",
- "Only now after 50 years is the evidence of that measure beginning to emerge from the process (some would say the experiment) in which we have all, somewhat unwittingly, taken part--the progressive industrialisation of agriculture".
Allied to the question of farm chemicals is the equally disturbing problem of the use of antibiotics in our healthcare system. For example, some 30 per cent. of patients who have antibiotics administered suffer side effects. And what happens to the animals? We hear that in perhaps five years' time the drug companies will produce a new wonder antibiotic drug. Why do we need new wonder drugs? It is because the existing wonder drugs are no longer quite so wonderful. Indeed, the bugs have outplayed the pharmaceutical companies. Those companies evidently cannot keep up with the bugs' ability to mutate. The bugs are successfully reacting by mutation to defend themselves from the human invasion of their natural processes. I am not the betting man in my family. I leave that expensive luxury to others. However, if I were to place a bet, I should put my money on the bugs. They are far cleverer than we are; they have clearly demonstrated that fact.
Similarly, farming chemicals continue to be improved. New and stronger chemicals are needed to overcome the problems created by the previous lot. Here perhaps is the point. We need to maintain and promote the fall-back systems that are available today, as they have been since long before the 50-year experiment; that is to say, both alternative medicine and extensive, indeed traditional, farming. They deliver a sustainable environment and a sustainable system of farming. I hesitate to say it in the face of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, but I shall come to the point of demonstrating the case. Certainly, in agriculture, there could be a start by reducing the antibiotic treatment of farm animals. That is not to mention other chemicals such as hormone treatment and dousing (or perhaps I should say dosing) in organophosphates. One can only hope that the latter poison will soon be consigned to the dustbin of chemical history, along with Deldrin, Aldrin, DDT and all the other poisons that have been administered to our agriculture and horticulture.
I spoke in the debate on Sub-committee D's report on CAP reform. The report called for urgent action to effect that vital need. That it will be a monumental task is without doubt. I congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lady Chalker, both of whom have proclaimed the need to reform the CAP as much as possible.
The conversion of organic farms and fields provides increasing yields after five years on a year-on-year basis. We have proof of that remarkable fact. Indeed, MAFF has conducted a three-year trial which demonstrates that organic milk production can deliver better yields more profitably than conventional methods.
I have other points to make about MAFF. By MAFF's efforts and those of the Soil Association and other allied interests, the hectarage of organic farming has increased in two years by 66 per cent., admittedly from a minuscule share of 30,000 hectares to nearly 50,000 hectares. So we are grateful to the Government for the well funded research which is producing the proof of the pudding. All we ask is that the Treasury should sample, perhaps with lingering delight, the fruits of that research and "up the ante" on the conversion costs for those taking up organic farming. We should then have extensive, low chemical input farming on up to 10 per cent. of our farmland, producing chemical-free food for the benefit of those discerning people who want an extensive and contented family lifestyle.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may first crave your Lordships' indulgence for having been unavoidably absent from the Chamber during the earlier stages of this debate. Tonight I should like to talk about urban transport and its contribution to environmental improvement.
I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, discuss the environmental problems of population growth and environmental pollution, which, I am sure each of us agrees, are serious problems facing us all. I should have expected major pieces of legislation to reflect the Government's concern, coupled with proposals for action. All we have is one measure--a very welcome measure--to help combat marine pollution and some assistance to parish councils, about which my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has already spoken. They are both welcome but I should have expected two other measures.
There was a measure, proposed and floated frequently, to control mini-cabs in London--they are the only unlicensed mini-cabs in the country--and check on drivers' criminal records. A Green Paper was published three years ago. Steven Norris, who was the Transport Minister, described the law as "a mess" and totally unsatisfactory. Perhaps the Minister could tell us what has happened to that measure.
Also, a proposal was floated to privatise air traffic control, which is not something that we would support. That was discussed in another place on Monday. I studied the Official Report in great detail and the matter is even more confusing than I thought. Perhaps the
Minister can give us some information on that. Perhaps the reason for the lack of new legislation on the environment and transport is that the Government believe that they have achieved so much--bus deregulation, rail privatisation and a virtual freeze on road construction--that there is nothing more to do. I see it more like a deregulated free-for-all where anything goes.As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also said, the problems of environmental pollution--I add traffic congestion to that--will not go away. On 26th February this year, in response to a Written Question in the other place, the Department of Transport published some interesting maps on motorway congestion. They were published in wonderful colour--red, yellow and black--so they are totally impossible to photocopy. However, if one looks at the original in the Library, it will be seen that in 20 years' time congestion is expected for most of the day on all motorways between Preston and Folkestone.
Around two years ago the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution produced a report on transport and the environment which sought to set a framework for an environmentally sustainable transport system. One of the targets was to keep CO 2 levels no higher in 25 years than they are today. How is that to be achieved? The report recommended that the proportion of passenger kilometres should increase from 12 per cent. now to 30 per cent. in 2020--an increase of two-and-a-half times. It proposed that we reduce our urban journeys by car from 50 per cent. in London and 65 per cent. in other urban areas today to 35 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively in 2020.
Then Dr. Mawhinney--the then Secretary of State for Transport--instituted his great transport debate. The Government responded in the Green Paper, Transport: The Way Forward, which laid down seven points concerning urban transport. It stated that traffic growth posed a special problem in urban areas. We all know that. It said that the car would continue to play an important role and that unchecked car traffic would lead to congestion. It indicated that the Government aimed to ensure that local authorities had the powers to take decisions and implement them. That involves the subsidiarity mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The report then said that the Government would consider congestion charging; controlled vehicle access; a greater role for public transport, especially the bus; investment in local rail schemes; park-and-ride schemes and bigger roles for cycling and walking.
That was a government document published earlier this year. I suppose one could call it motherhood and apple pie, but it is always somebody else's problem. It is up to local authorities to implement its suggestions. It is not a policy; it is not a strategy; there are no tools or finance to enable local authorities to implement the measures. Perhaps the Government's idea of subsidiarity is to keep financial control but pass the blame on to somebody else when it goes wrong. Our towns and cities are grinding to a polluted halt while the buck is passed. It is claimed: "It's not the Government's problem". I believe it is.
The Government need to lead by example. We probably all agree on the need to limit the use of cars in towns--I do not mean ownership; I mean the use, particularly in peak times. One statistic which probably relates as much as anything to a remark made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby earlier in relation to children and schools--I too live in Wandsworth--is that the number of children being taken to school by car increased from 12 per cent. in 1975 to 26 per cent. in 1993 to 1995. That is more than double and we see a lot of it in Wandsworth. It may be something to do with the types of schools we have, but that is a national figure.
We need to set an example. I was in Lancashire around six months ago speaking to 300 transport engineers at a conference on environmental transport. It took me a £10 taxi ride to get from the nearest station to the hotel. I asked how many had come by public transport. Three out of 300 put up their hands. We in Westminster need to set an example. How many Ministers use public transport? I know a few do, but perhaps a few more can on occasion. Do parliamentarians really need to travel to this palace every day by car from round the corner just because they have free parking? We must set an example. We need to encourage people out of their cars and on to buses, to cycle and to walk. We need a policy of encouragement which will not cost a great deal--some of it could come from what is saved on the road programme.
I wish to make a few suggestions. Buses are the quickest and easiest way to encourage people out of their cars. At the moment they are stuck in traffic jams.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page