Lords Sitting of 26 November 1991

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

Heveningham Hall
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they intend to purchase Heveningham Hall for the nation.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the terms on which Heveningham Hall was sold in 1981 gave the Secretary of State a right of pre-emption. My right honourable friend has until 11 th December to decide whether to exercise that right; he will announce his decision shortly.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I cannot say that it was a very helpful one. Does she appreciate that unless the Government exercise their option to buy back Heveningham Hall by 11 th December—which, after all, is only about two weeks from now; and this matter has been going on for many months or even years—the receiver will be obliged to sell it to the highest bidder regardless of whether the new use will be compatible with an historic house of such outstanding quality? Surely there will be no obligation to reimpose the convenants which provided for public access and maintenance and no guarantee as to how long the sale will take.
As the Minister's right honourable friend is reported as expressing regret that he sold Heveningham Hall in 1981, will she tell him that he now has the opportunity to buy it back so that access can he maintained and the furniture which is currently in his care (is it not?) can be restored to the house?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, it is not for me to comment on speculation in the press. To my knowledge, my right honourable friend has not said that he regrets that decision. Secondly, we are in the middle of very serious considerations about all the various options which are available to us before 11th December. We have until that time to make the decision. Thirdly, I should say that whoever becomes the owner of Heveningham Hall will be subject to all the restrictions of owning a Grade 1 listed building.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while Heveningham Hall is of the greatest possible heritage value to this country, it is almost certainly a commercial liability to whoever owns it? Therefore, it is very questionable as to whether it really ha s a commercial value. Will my noble friend be very careful before she jumps in prior to 11 th December and makes an offer which I understand, under the terms of the original deal, might be subject to arbitration? It would be much better to wait until it is subject to commercial forces when, it is to be
1268
hoped, the Government will be able to buy the house extremely cheaply and use the money that is available to endow the National Trust so that it can look after the house properly for ever.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has raised an important point. First, as regards the significance of Heveningham Hall as a Grade 1 listed house, I point out that that is not in question. Secondly, he pointed to at least one of the considerations which we have to take into account; namely, that it is not possible for this house to have a commercial future. Therefore, any ownership of the house will clearly represent a considerable liability. We shall have to think very seriously about endowment. There is the notion, which I am afraid is not true, that acquiring it and handing it over to the National Trust will somehow or other be at little cost to the Crown. It will be a very expensive option and one which should not be rushed in to.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is it true that when the Government sold the house in 1981 they retained 12 acres of land near Walpole village and that the Department of the Environment subsequently gave planning permission for new houses to be built? Further, is it true that they have since been sold? If so, what were the proceeds and what has happened to the money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has me at a disadvantage as regards land owned at Walpole. I know that the Vanneck family sold a great deal of land prior to the sale of Heveningham Hall, but I am not aware of the Walpole connection. However, I shall inquire into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give some assurance that, in this case in particular, it is not possible to assess commercial considerations as against what is part of a priceless heritage and one of the finest Palladian buildings with beautifully landscaped gardens? Surely those considerations should predominate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. It is not a matter of considering whether we—or, indeed, anyone—have a commercial future. The point that I believe my noble friend was making was that it is doubtful whether Heveningham Hall has a commercial future at all. Therefore, ownership of the house, whether private or public, will be an expensive option.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what consultations the Government have had with the National Heritage Memorial Fund whose experience and expertise regarding the problems of large country houses must be unrivalled in our country? Further, can she say what advice they received from the fund?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the National Heritage Memorial Fund is of course aware of the problems over the future of Heveningham. We know its views. We are not talking specifically to English Heritage, the National Trust or the National Heritage Memorial

1269
Fund; after all, they are mostly an extension of our department. We are very aware of all the options, of which, of course, involvement by the National Heritage Memorial Fund is one.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, despite several press reports, the English Heritage Report of last August, although no whitewash, not only found the restoration generally satisfactory, but found that the structural condition of the house was as sound as it has been since 1980? Does she also agree that the restoration of the east wing and the orangery is widely acknowledged, even by SAVE, as being of high quality?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is unfortunate that there has been a great deal of misinformed comment and criticism about the quality of the restoration work. Legitimate criticism can be levelled at the state of the gardens, but we all know that restoring gardens is infinitely less difficult than restoring the structure of the building. The structure of the building is sound and much of the restoration work is of high quality.

Rented Housing: Resources
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the current shortage of houses for rent, they will consider making increased resources available in order to enable housing associations and local authorities to deal with the problem.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's spending plans were announced in another place on 6th November. While there are local shortages of rented housing in parts of the country, we have taken steps to increase supply. The Housing Corporation's capital programme will rise to over £2 billion a year by 1993–94. Together with housing associations' ability to attract private investment, that will increase output from 22,000 dwellings to around 40,000 by 1993–94. Deregulation of the private rented sector has also led to a welcome increase in private letting.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the report in the Institute of Housing's journal of 8th November in which Mr. Jack Perry, the head of professional practice, referring to the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, said:
"We are looking for a substantial real increase in spending, but it looks as if spending will not even keep up with this year's level".
Bearing in mind that repossessions are still increasing, that local authority waiting lists are increasing, that homelessness is increasing, and that the number of people sleeping rough is increasing, are not the people calling for 100,000 new tenancies a year right, and will not the Government's programme meet less than half of that demand?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong about there being no increase in available resources. I have said a number of times at the Dispatch Box that Housing Corporation money is set to rise from £1.2 billion to over £2 billion by 1993. I have also said a number of times that there has been a switch away from local authority direct provision of housing to the Housing Corporation. There are a number of initiatives on a number of different fronts: the private sector partnership initiatives to produce low-cost housing where development permission is being applied for; inner city initiatives, some of which I have been involved with, using city grant; flats over shops, funded to bring such flats back into use; circular 7/91 which encourages local authorities to require low-cost housing in major new developments —we believe that the scope there is potentially substantial—the exceptions policy for rural areas, and, as I have already said, deregulation of the private rented sector.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have to come back immediately, because that was a lengthy answer. Is the Minister saying that when the Institute of Housing, which is not a political body and which has expertise in this matter, says that there will be a cut in real terms, it has got it wrong? I do not believe that it has. Does the Minister understand that organisations such as Shelter are saying that the 48,000 new homes to be built by the housing charities in the next two years will be far too few and only half what is wanted? When will the Minister understand that we want houses and not facts and figures?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not criticise the seriousness of the reports of the Institute of Housing. I am critical of the over-simplistic interpretation of what is being said about the provision of housing. What I said was that there is an increase in resources. The noble Lord said that there is not. I also said that the housing shortage is being tackled on many fronts. The Institute of Housing considers that more houses are being built. One has to take into account the private, the voluntary, the Housing Corporation and the local authority sectors when considering house building in the round.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will my noble friend say how many houses are now being occupied as a result of deregulation of the private rented sector? My understanding was that there were some 500,000 empty properties. Do we have any idea how many have come back into use? In particular, are flats over shops being brought back into use?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I certainly cannot be specific about numbers. However, I can say that we realise that there is a difficulty here; namely the resistance of many private owners to allow their homes to be rented. So we have encouraged the housing authorities to offer themselves as managing agents to private owners to bring some of the empty properties back into use. We believe that that will be a very successful policy.
I also mentioned that a fund is being made available to bring flats over shops back into play. That

1271
produces two benefits. One is that there will be more units for people to live in; secondly, it brings much needed residents back into many city and town centres.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the policy of the Housing Corporation of reducing grant rates in all new developments next year must lead to an increase in rents? If there were more generous funding, could not the Housing Corporation then afford to revert to the previous more generous rates, enabling more houses to be built at lower rents?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the housing associations, which are in the business of satisfying social need for housing, have to balance a number of interests. Those include income from rents, providing new un is for people to live in and making sure that what they do is cost effective. I believe that the extra resources that will be made available to the housing associations will benefit in a number of ways but they must not throw rents out of kilter with the need to provide homes for people. We have a very buoyant policy of subsidising people individually as opposed to subsidising property.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that since 1979 £23 billion has been raised through the sale of council housing? Would it not be possible for the Minister to say now to unemployed building workers, painters, and decorators, "Get off the unemployment list, we shall now start to build houses and give you a job"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are two points. We are unashamedly on the side of the right-to-buy policy. I do not know whether what the noble Baroness said is any kind of criticism of the right to buy. Secondly, there is a buoyancy in building houses. Clearly, it is not as great as one would wish and the noble Baroness would like more. However, that involves more public spending. We are committed to spending what we believe people can afford. I understand that that is to be the policy of the party of noble Lords opposite. Certainly, John Smith tells us that. I wonder whether there has been a move away from spending what the country can afford.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, following that excellent question from my noble friend Lady Fisher, will the Minister confirm that new household formation continues apace and will do so for the next four or live years? Under present circumstances, with house building at such a low level, will there not by the mid-1990s be a God-awful housing shortage? Is not now the time to do something about it, perhaps by the means suggested by my noble friend?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree. This is not an easy issue; it is extremely complex. Many initiatives are addressing the problem of housing needs right across the spectrum. I have every confidence that the gloom which the noble Lord predicted will not come about if we remain in power but could well come about if the noble Lord gets into power.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me saying so, I asked her about the problems which will be raised as a result of new household formation which is going on now and will continue until the mid-1990s. She did not answer that question. Will she confirm that it is going on?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not agree with the scenario set out by the noble Lord. I believe that all the ways in which we are addressing housing and new household formation, which the noble Lord suggested were the basis of the problem, will not give rise to the difficulty that he predicts.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister referred to my party's policy if we win the election. I have to tell her that the main plank of that policy in terms of houses to rent will be immediately to free local authorities once again to start building houses for people to rent. Why do not the Government stop behaving so stupidly and let local authorities resume that role?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is a very interesting statement. The only way the noble Lord can do that is by substantially increasing local authority and government spending. I understand that the honourable gentleman in another place has set his face against that. It is the only way in which extra house building by local authorities can be achieved.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, it will decrease the unemployment pay.

UN Development Aid Target
2.55 p.m.
Lord Cheshire Lord Cheshire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their commitment to the United Nations development aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP still holds good.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government's policy has not changed. We accept the UN target in principle. However, as we have made clear, the future level of aid expenditure will continue to depend on our economic circumstances and on the many other calls on public resources. The aid programme is growing in real terms, is of high quality and well targeted.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and for the assurance, which I accept, that the programme is well targeted and well directed. However, I am sure that he will know that those of us who move in the developed and developing world, and who see the immense poverty and hardships, feel deeply about this, just as is the case with housing.
Perhaps I may ask the question that was implicit in my specific Question. Are the Government still committed to the principles which were laid down in the original UN charter and were stated again in the 1970 Resolution 2626? It stated, among other things, that the essential path to peace and justice is

1273
development—that is well understood —and cooperation between developing nations and ourselves. We should be grateful for the Minister's assurance on that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am pleased to acknowledge the work of the noble and gallant Lord. His concern in the matter is shared in many parts of the House. We have had no change of policy and are committed to the target, although I cannot comment on the timescale.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that with the grotesque needs now developing in East and Central Europe, any response to these will be met from the peace dividend and not at the expense of commitments to the third world? In other words, the Government will avoid the temptation to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. With the aid programme, anything we do in Eastern Europe will not be at the expense of the rest of the programme.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say what steps the Government are taking to make sure that these moneys go to the benefit of the pathetic figures whom we see in pictures, illustrations and appeals, and not to their rulers who are too often directly responsible for the misery of these people?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Development Assistance Committee (the DAC) of the OECD, has repeatedly praised the quality of our aid. In direct response to my noble friend, on poverty focus, on evaluation and efficiency we rank with the best.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government cannot afford not to increase the aid programme, admittedly in sensible ways? I have heard answers from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggesting that an increased contribution to the world population fund would be spending the people's money unnecessarily. However, is the Minister also aware that we have just announced the employment of 500 extra people in government service to deal with immigration into this country? The only real way is to educate, for example, the people of the Maghreb in birth control, to keep the population steady. At present, while the GNP is rising, the GNP per head is falling. It is a good investment to help with this kind of programme.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have been asked a question. However, I can only agree with practically everything the noble Lord has said. As regards the GNP falling, I believe there has been a misunderstanding in that regard. The figure for the calendar year 1990 of 0.27 per cent., which the noble Lord may have seen, did not reflect the underlying growth in the aid programme. The corresponding figure for 1989 was 0.31 per cent. The reason was that the UK plans and accounts by
1274
financial years and a disproportionate amount of our 1990 expenditure fell in the first quarter of 1991. There was a subsequent distortion in the figures which the noble Lord may have seen.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Lord may have misunderstood my question. I hope I may put him right. What I said was that while the total GNP rose in the Maghreb, the GNP per head in that country was falling in spite of our aid and in spite of efforts made in that country.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I shall have to study the question and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the work of his department with the limited resources that are now available. Those resources were mentioned in the excellent report produced by the Minister's department. That report is available to all noble Lords who wish to study it. Does the Minister feel, however, that the aid-trade provisions which are part of the aid supplied by his department are adequate? Considering the limited resources that are available for aid trade provisions, are not our exporters placed at a substantial disadvantage compared with those in other countries that benefit from larger budgets in this field?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am constrained for time. I should like to write to the noble Lord on his interesting and detailed point. I acknowledge and thank the noble Lord for his tribute, particularly as it affects my right honourable friend Mrs. Chalker who has made amazing efforts in this field.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, apart from the urgent—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord has provided an Answer to this Question which does not differ from the Answer that has been provided over the past 12 years. How does he equate his statement that the percentage of GNP given in overseas aid will rise when our economy rises with the fact that when the so-called economic miracle took place there was no rise at all in that percentage? Further, how can the Minister say that the Government still stick to the figure of 0.7 per cent. when during that 12-year period the percentage figure has fallen from 0.53 per cent. to the figure the Minister used, 0.31 percent.?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the replies given by my department have been consistent for 12 years and will continue to be consistent during the next 12 years.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I must protect the interests of the noble Lord who has tabled the next Question.

Salmon Fishery: Drift Netting
3.3 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as a result of the North-East coast salmon netting review, they can indicate the timescale for phasing out the use of drift nets.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, as your Lordships will know, it is our firm intention that the salmon drift net fishery should come to an end as those currently holding such licences leave the fishery. We have asked the National Rivers Authority to come forward with proposals to achieve this as soon as possible.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, if that is the Government's intention, why is it that the National Rivers Authority has only recently established a by-law inviting renewals and new tenders for drift net fishing?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to ensure that the fishery remains tightly regulated, the Northumbrian region of the NRA had no option but to advertise a temporary extension of the existing net limitation order governing the number of commercial salmon licences in that region. Net limitation orders limit the number of commercial fishing licences which the NRA may issue. They also set criteria for eligibility of applicants.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have recognised that this fishery has been guilty of bad management practice and that it should cease to operate. As the present licence holders cease to use their licences for whatever reason, I hope that the Minister can assure me that no new licences for this offshore drift net fishing will be issued. Further, can the Minister assure me that both the Yorkshire and Northumbrian regions of the National Rivers Authority are co-operating in phasing out this fishery?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the review that was conducted covered both Northumbria and Yorkshire. It is for the NRA to decide how to handle this matter. I have no evidence that drift net fishing has been badly managed. We have no evidence either of an immediate threat to stocks. Existing licensees should not therefore be deprived of their licences as that would cause unnecessary hardship. For management reasons the NRA has been asked, following that review, to consider changes —and I have a copy of that review—to reduce the number of offshore drift net licences as those currently holding the licences leave the fishery, as I said in my original Answer.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I welcome the Government's decision to phase out the drift nets in the North East. That step was advocated by a number of us five years ago in this House when we debated the Salmon Bill. Is the Minister aware that under the net
1276
limitation order which has been mentioned the National Rivers Authority may be obliged to issue a small number of new licences? Those licences may be taken up by young fishermen who would thereafter be able to renew them year after year and continue to use drift nets for many years to come. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that her department will examine this problem with the National Rivers Authority to ensure that the intentions of Ministers are not accidentally frustrated?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I have already said, it is for the National Rivers Authority to make its own plans.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although the authorities of Northumbria and Yorkshire are both English authorities, the effect of drift net fishing on Scottish rivers is considerable? The Government have a responsibility to do something about this matter.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am informed that as things stand the net loss to Scottish fisheries is 6 per cent. However, there are a great many reasons why catches in 1990/91 have been disappointing. That pattern has been shown by all fisheries throughout the UK, irrespective of whether rods or nets are used. Many North Atlantic salmon fisheries have experienced declines in their catch levels and that indicates that the problem arises when salmon are at sea. Our salmon drift net fisheries cannot be blamed for that.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, as part of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to find a solution to this problem, will representations of a meaningful kind be made to the Irish Government about the illegal taking of fish off the Irish coast? It would be a tragedy if we did not obtain the full benefit of phasing out drift net fishing off the North East coast because of the illegal fishing that is taking place.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I feel rather like a fish out of water as regards this whole matter. The review only considered salmon net fisheries off the North East coast of England and part of the East coast of Scotland. Clearly the future management of the North-East English fishery will continue to be a matter for the NRA under its statutory duties.

Dog Control and Welfare Bill [HI.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a dog control and welfare council and to amend Section 2 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 16,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 17 to 20,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 21 to 36,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 37 to 58,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 59 to 67,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 68 to 83,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 84 to 90,

Schedules 8 and 9.—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause I [Changes to constitution]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, after ("State") insert ("after consultation with those professional bodies and other persons representing the interests of nurses, midwives and health visitors,").
The noble Baroness said: I understand that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been grouped together. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to ensure that the Secretary of State takes the opportunity, prior to appointing members to the United Kingdom central council, to consult with representatives of the relevant professions.
The Government's stated aim with this Bill is to ensure that as many detailed matters as possible regarding the conditions and procedures for the UKCC should be determined by the professions themselves, acting through the UKCC. Clause 1 of the Bill states that the UKCC will have a membership of 60 people, of whom two thirds will be elected and one
1278
third appointed by the Secretary of State. The timetable for those appointments, as set out in the Bill, is six months.
There is no doubt that the professions themselves will undertake detailed consultations within the three branches of the profession as laid down in the Bill. That is recognised. As that body will be regulating both standards of practice and codes of conduct of —what is the word I want?
A noble Lord: Conduct?
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I have already used the word "conduct". The matter is important because the body has complete power over both standards of practice and professional conduct. It therefore makes sense for the Secretary of State, too, to give careful consideration to the one third of the representatives to be appointed by him.
Apart from appointing a balanced number of representatives from the professions, the Secretary of State also has to take into account the geographical distribution and expertise of those appointed. I should have thought, and it should be written into the Bill, that the Secretary of State should consult the professions. That should not be assumed; it should be written into the Bill before he nominates the one third of the members of the UKCC he has the power to appoint. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was glad to add my name to the amendment. It is a subject which we touched on at Second Reading, and there is no need for me to go into detail as the matter has been explained very well by the noble Baroness.
The changes to the 1979 Act which we are considering dictate the operation and constitution of the five bodies which govern nursing, midwifery and health visiting. The next amendment deals with appointments to national boards. We feel that it is important that there should be proper consultation. Without being in the least political, I should point out that there has been some anxiety about the nature of the appointments to boards of hospital trusts, for example. This is a different situation, but there is a general feeling among the professions concerned that they would be encouraged if the nature of the consultation was written on the face of the Bill. They would then not be anxious that the Secretary of State would not carry out the consultation which we all agree is so necessary if the Bill is to be effective.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: In speaking in support of the amendment I should like to express my confidence in the appointments that have been made by the Secretary of State over the years. I believe that I am right in saying that this is the 50th year in which there has been a nursing division at the Department of Health. Through those years we have come to rely on the advice which the Secretary of State receives from a department of high integrity.
Nonetheless, I recognise the sensitivities of the professions named in the Bill. Through the UKCC they will be responsible for standards of practice and

1279
codes of conduct. Therefore it is arguable that consultation with those professions would be in the interests of the work of that council.
Baroness Hooper: Of course I remember the anxieties which were expressed in connection with this issue at Second Reading. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's record on consultation is excellent. In regard to the Bill before us, the announcement of intention was made in a consultation document in February this year. That resulted in a very thorough period of consultation with a group which comprised representatives of the four UK health departments, the UKCC and the four national boards. Very thorough consideration was given in that forum to the composition of the council.
In making his own appointments to the council the Secretary of State will in any case be required under Clause 1(5) to select people who are either registered nurses, midwives, health visitors or medical practitioners or who have such qualifications and experience in education or other fields as in his opinion will be of value to the council in the performance of its functions.
I happily take the opportunity to reaffirm what I said at Second Reading, namely, that I undertake that my right honourable friend will consult those with an interest before making his appointments. As has been said, under the present arrangements nominations are invited from a very wide range of professional organisations. Whether such arrangements will remain appropriate in the context of the new style UKCC will need to be considered carefully. We may wish to consult an even wider range of groups and organisations. My right honourable friend will need to take particular care in making his appointments, given the fact that two thirds of the council will in future be directly elected by the professions. It is clearly more important than ever that the wider public interest in the regulation of the professions should be adequately reflected in the appointed membership.
Therefore, the amendment we are discussing, by restricting consultation to professional interests only, implies a rather narrower focus than I believe would be desirable. I do not believe that statutory prescription is required in this matter any more than it has been in the past. Legal arguments about who should or should not be consulted on a particular appointment would not be desirable.
I hope that in the light of that explanation and the very clear undertakings that I have been able to give, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do about the amendment I should like to raise a point which has aroused some anxiety. Subsection (5) (a) includes the words:
"the need to secure that the members of the Council include registered nurses, midwives and health visitors".
I assume that one could interpret that as meaning that those appointments will be in the majority of the appointments made on the Bill. It merely states that it will include them. It is important that they will be in the majority of the appointments that are made.
Baroness Hooper: We are talking here about appointments for the purposes of subsection (4) which relate to only a third of the membership of the body. A wide range of interests must be considered and consulted in relation to the appointments to be made by my right honourable friend.
Lord Carter: I am sorry to prolong the discussion. Subsection (4) states that the appointments will be made "from among persons". Subsection (5) states that the appointments will include those people. We assume that those professionals will be in the majority of the appointed members. It would he helpful if the Minister could confirm that point.
Baroness Hooper: The noble Lord can take that as read.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the Minister for her reply. However, we must keep in mind the fact that this body is being given new powers and that it controls the standards of practice and codes of conduct of the professions that we are considering. It is not difficult for the Secretary of State to appoint, within the number that he is entitled to appoint to the UKCC, members of the profession who are geographically spread; nor is it difficult to find members with educational expertise.
I take the Minister's point that there should be a proportion of outside interests on any body, but consultation with the professional bodies should take place. I accept her statement that the majority of the members would be members of the three professions. Until I have read her reply in detail and thought about it a little further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Clause I agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Changes to constitution]:

Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 19, after ("made") insert ("after consultation with those professional bodies and other persons representing the interests of nurses, midwives and health visitors,").
The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment about which I feel strongly because it relates to the national boards, appointments to which are completely in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is important that the members appointed to the national boards are the kind of people who can create the right relationship between the UKCC and the national boards. That is the most important part of the new structure. The Government have stated that they intend to ensure that the interests and expertise of the profession are adequately represented on each board.
It is even more important in this amendment, regarding the appointments to the national boards, than in the previous amendment, that the Secretary of State should take the opportunity to consult the relevant professions. When the appointments are made, if the Secretary of State commits himself to

1281
consultation, the working relationship between the national boards and the UKCC will be immeasurably improved and the confidence of the three professions enhanced. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: The only point to add to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is that the boards will have no elected members. They will all be appointed. It is therefore important that consultation is carried out as suggested in the amendment. We have discussed this matter in relation to many Bills. There is always a reluctance on the part of departments to spell out in the Bill the nature of consultation. The Government give assurances that they intend to consult but, as we all recognise the need for proper consultation, one wonders why there is a reluctance to spell it out in this Bill as in many others.
Baroness Hooper: I accept that different considerations apply to the national boards than to the council in that all the members of the national boards will in future be appointed by the responsible Secretary of State. Once again, I am happy to give an undertaking that my right honourable friend will consult those with an interest before making appointments.
However, as I said before, statutory prescription in that area is inappropriate. We made it clear that the new national boards will be smaller executive bodies appointed by and accountable to the responsible Secretary of State, even though they will have a majority of professionally qualified members and will be required to discharge their functions subject to and in accordance with the council's rules. As I said, the Secretary of State will certainly wish to consult those with an interest, particularly professional organisations, before making appointments. We are happy to consider any suggestions about how the mechanics of that might work. But a formal and statutory requirement to consult representatives of particular interests would cause unnecessary inflexibility and risk blurring the responsibility which the Bill confers upon the Secretary of State.
I hope that, in view of the fact that wide consultation took place before the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report were incorporated in the Bill and in view of the undertaking that I gave regarding consultation, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the Minister for her reply, but I should like to draw her attention to the fact that communication between those various bodies in the past has not always been very good. Perhaps she will reflect on whether those communications between bodies that are appointed purely by the Secretary of State, without a written-in need to consult the profession, would be improved. After all, knowing how government works, to write in the need to consult is not necessarily the same as accepting the responses to consultation, but it would allow the professions to feel that they had something to contribute to the appointments to those national boards which are important to them. It would help to improve the relationships between the national boards and the UKCC.
1282
I hope that the Minister will ponder those arguments. I may return to the subject at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) have such qualifications and experience in the teaching of nursing, midwifery and health visiting, or other fields as in the opinion of the Secretary of State will be of value to the Board in the performance of its functions.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. It may look at first sight to rest on a rather pedantic distinction between education and teaching. Clause 1(5) (b) refers to:
"the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nursing, midwifery and health visiting are adequately represented on the Council".
Clause 4(3) (b) refers to persons who:
"have such qualifications and experience in education or other fields".
We feel that the two subsections should march together. As the functions of the national boards are to ensure that the requirements of the UKCC are met regarding the standard, kind and content of education programmes, it is important to ensure that at least one nurse, midwife and health visitor teacher is appointed to each national board. This requirement reflects a desire to ensure that to assist the work of the boards there are adequate numbers of appropriately qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors, able to contribute to educational policy-making related to the professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
We want to ensure that teachers rather than theorists, people with experience of teaching nursing, midwifery and health visiting, are specified. It is not entirely clear why the Government have chosen to emphasise teaching in Clause 1 and referred to education or other fields. It is an alternative. The whole of Clause 4(3) states:
"Appointments … shall be made from among persons who … are registered nurses, midwives or health visitors, or … have such qualifications and experience in education or other fields".
This is an attempt to improve the drafting of the Bill, which we are always anxious to do. It is a probing amendment to discover whether the intentions of the Government in this area would be clearer if the wording of the Bill were to specify teaching rather than just education. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: I wish to speak briefly in support of this amendment, if only to invite the Government to look at the phraseology used in the existing Clause 1(5) (b) which seems to have been lifted verbatim from the 1979 Act. The phraseology does not strike me as particularly happy. It may be that as a matter of simple drafting it should be looked at again.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I also should like to speak in support of this amendment. The functions of the boards are to approve institutions in relation to the provisions for nursing education set down by the council. It would be unthinkable if on those boards there were people experienced perhaps in general

1283
education in many fields but with no expertise in the teaching of nursing. I feel that the boards need to have among their number those who have had down to earth experience in the teaching of nursing.
Baroness Hooper: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for explaining the effect of his amendment. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, that Clause 1(5) (b) incorporates some of the words from the existing Section 5(6) of the 1979 Act; namely, that:
"the Secretary of State shall have especially in mind the need to secure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nurses, midwives and health visitors are adequately represented on each board".
Those words have now become part of the revised Section 5.
There is a similar provision in the existing Section 1(5) of i he 1979 Act relating to the Secretary of State's appointments to the UKCC. That is substantially reproduced in Clause 1(5) (b) of the Bill. There is clearly a need to give the Secretary of State the duty to ensure that nursing and midwifery teaching are adequately represented on the new council, as the noble Baroness said, as it cannot be guaranteed that the electoral arrangements will automatically ensure elected members with adequate expertise in these areas.
In fact those considerations will no longer apply to the national boards, given that in future they will be wholly appointed bodies. The Secretary of State's fail-safe or fall back powers in the existing Section 5(6) will no longer be required, as he himself will be able to ensure when he makes his appointments, that all the necessary expertise is represented as a result of the consultation exercise that we have been discussing.
Therefore, in the light of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is unnecessary. In making their appointments, clearly my right honourable friends will in practice need to ensure that qualifications and experience in the teaching of nursing, midwifery and health visiting are adequately represented. But they will also, as they do now, want to look more widely at the broader education field. That is the message of Clause 4(3) (b) of the Bill as it stands, which in this regard reproduces the wording of the existing Section 5(5) (b) (ii). Narrowing the scope of that provision, as the amendment seeks to do, might give the wrong kind of signals. Nevertheless, we shall look at the wording in the light of the comments that have been made, as indeed we always endeavour to do. I hope therefore that the proposer of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: I certainly intend to withdraw the amendment and not to press it. We are puzzled over the drafting and the distinction between the first clause which mentions teaching and this clause which mentions education. We felt that it would be clearer if both said the same thing. We are grateful to the Minister for her commitment to look at it and consider whether it needs rewording. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In making appointments to a National Board, the Secretary of State shall bear in mind the need to secure that the members of the Board include registered nurses, and practising midwives and health visitors.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a very important point. I know that the Minister is aware of the disquiet felt, certainly by midwives and health visitors, about the fact that they should not be swamped by the larger profession and by the way in which the new structure will operate. The Minister will know that the Royal College of Midwives is anxious that membership of the national boards should not be without a guaranteed place for a practising midwife. As we understand it, there is no guarantee at board level of midwife membership (or indeed of health visitor membership), or provision for the means by which midwifery matters will be dealt with by the boards. We shall come to midwifery matters a little later in another amendment.
We know that the board will continue to have a specific and influential responsibility relating to midwifery education, midwifery practice and supervision of midwives. Therefore those who advise us feel that those responsibilities present a strong argument for the need to have a guaranteed midwife membership of the boards. I am sure the Minister is aware that some alarm was aroused at Second Reading when she said:
"It may not therefore be appropriate to guarantee that a practising midwife or a health visitor must be a member of each board".—[Official Report 12/11/91; co1.508.]
That statement set up some alarm in the midwifery and health visiting professions.
It would appear that it would be inappropriate for a body with a specific remit relating to a specific profession not to have guaranteed in its membership a member or members of that profession. Whatever the change in the status and functions of the boards, they will remain the statutory bodies exercising responsibility for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The involvement of each of the three professions in the decision-making process relating to the work of the boards should be guaranteed.
There is a feeling that the framework for midwifery will be considerably weakened if this matter is not addressed within the Bill. The same applies to the anxiety expressed by the Health Visitors' Association. We know that the joint committee will cease to operate under Clause 6(b) of the bill. There is a feeling that as a result, health visitor representation has been eroded. We understand that in discussions between the Health Visitors' Association and the department, it was said that this was largely a technical point made on the insistence of the parliamentary draftsman. It would be interesting to know why it was felt important to emphasise the omission of health visitors as a technical point of drafting. Health visiting is experiencing an alarming and unprecedented change on the education and practice side and a profound change in the management and delivery of care in the community as a result of the implementation of community care plans in April 1993. For all those reasons it would be helpful if the Minister would state

1285
clearly why the department has adopted the line that it has and does not feel able to guarantee membership for the minority professions, if I may use that phrase, in the three professions referred to in the title of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I support the amendment. On many occasions in the past the midwifery profession felt that it had been excluded. It is important under the new structure that the national boards have proper representation of practising midwives.
Whatever the changes of status of the boards they still have responsibility for governing all three professions. It is important that all the professions should be properly represented.
Baroness Hooper: I am of course aware of the anxieties that have been expressed in particular by the midwifery profession about the boards' role in relation to the minority professions. I wish to take the opportunity of clarifying what I said at Second Reading about midwifery membership of the boards. Perhaps it would have been more felicitous if my reference to the guarantee had been elaborated upon: that it was not necessary to have a guarantee in legislation, as opposed to a rather more general form of guarantee. However, I hope that we have made it clear throughout our discussions with the statutory bodies that the Government will wish to ensure that the interests and expertise of each of the three professions are adequately represented.
I accept that in practice the membership of each board will have to include, either as an executive or a non-executive member, a registered nurse, a registered health visitor and a practising midwife. I should like to put that clearly on the record. I am not personally aware of the meeting between the Health Visitors' Association and the comments with regard to the technical drafting requirement. However, I shall look into that matter.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for there to be statutory provision setting out which groups within the profession should be represented on the national boards and in what numbers. That would cause unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful inflexibility. In the light of the commitment that I have given, I hope that the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: That is extremely helpful. Before the next stage of the Bill, perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me and to others interested in the technical drafting requirement which puzzled the Health Visitors' Association. That would be helpful with regard to the next stage of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that she gave. I am not sure that it was a guarantee. It may assuage a little of the alarm that I believe she realises that she caused by the rather bald statement she made at Second Reading. I shall read Hansard with care. However, having exchanged views between now and the next stage of the Bill I hope that we shall not need to come back on the issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Functions]:

3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (2) the words from "including" to the end shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 6 is similar to the previous amendment. It seeks to protect the interests of all groups which will be represented, both majority and minority. We are amending another Bill. Therefore we have the problem of referring to both the 1979 Act and the Bill before us.
We believe that it would make the functions of the national boards absolutely clear if we removed the words,
"including those with minority representation",
in Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act. It would then state:
"The National Boards shall discharge their functions subject to and in accordance with any applicable rules of the Council and shall have proper regard for the interests of all groups within the professions".
That makes the position absolutely clear. If that form of wording were adopted it would be clear that all groups were included in such proper regard. In that way each of the three professions which have to act within the ambit of the Bill will be absolutely clear.
There is no need to repeat the functions of the board relating to validation, approval of training arrangements and so on. If the proposed wording were adopted and the Bill were amended to take into account the 1979 Act, the position would be much clearer. It is not simply a drafting point. We believe that it would emphasise that all the groups will be represented and their needs and wishes clearly understood in the operation of the new structure. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: A number of noble Lords expressed concern at Second Reading about Clause 5(5). I said at the time that I recognised their preoccupations, and we have subsequently had the opportunity to reflect further on what was said.
I should say at the outset that we remain of the view that Section 6(2) of the 1979 Act is not, as it stands, consistent with the new constitution and role of the national boards. The new boards will not have the same representative function. That will be for the UKCC. Therefore the reference to "professions … with minority representations" would, at best, look rather odd. I do not believe, therefore, that it is appropriate to accept Amendment No. 7 as it stands.
Having said that, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed, in particular as they apply to the boards' role with midwifery. With the disappearance of the statutory midwifery committees at board level, there will now no longer be any, as it were, organisational focus at that level to ensure that the special position of midwifery is adequately reflected in the way the boards carry on their day-to-day operations. I acknowledge that the boards will need to continue to have a special concern for midwifery, if only because of their continued responsibility under

1287
Section 16 of the 1979 Act for issuing advice and guidance to local supervisory authorities for midwives.
I therefore agree that there should be some provision in Section 6 of the 1979 Act dealing with the boards' functions requiring them in discharging their functiors to take into account special considerations which apply to particular groups within the professions, including midwives. The extent to which such provision might reflect, at any rate in part, the existing wording of Section 6(2), as proposed in Amendment No. 6, is a matter that we wish to consider further. If noble Lords agree, and if the proposers feel prepared to withdraw their amendments today, I undertake to ensure that an appropriate government amendment is brought forward at a later stage
Lord Carter: The Minister's reply was extremely helpful and most encouraging. It is difficult to redraft one Bill during the course of another, but the Government have resources which are not available to us. I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) After section 6 of the 1979 Act (functions of national boards) a new section shall be inserted as follows.
"Funding of nurse education.
6A.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards the cost of providing courses of training with a view to enabling persons to qualify for registration as nurses, midwives or health visitors and for courses of further training for those already qualified.
(2) Grants made in accordance with this section shall be used solely for the provision of such courses as defined under subsection (1) above.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, not later than 30th November in the year preceding any financial year lay before Parliament his estimate of the total amount of grant likely to be distributed under this section in respect of that financial year and forecasts for the amount for the following two years.").
The noble Baroness said: In my view this is one of the most important amendments tabled today. The Bill ends the responsibility of the national boards to fund nurse education and enables the Secretary of State to transfer it to health authorities and to health boards During Second Reading we received a partial reassurance that such funding would be ring-fenced. However, we received no assurance about the length of time that it would continue. The amendment aims to give that promise a statutory force.
It is interesting to note that most of the proposals in the Bill have been taken from the recommendations in the report compiled by Peat Marwick McLintock. However, the report did not recommend the transfer of funding for nurse education from the national boards to the regional health authorities. It stated that the allocation of resources by the RHAs to individual schools would provide some guarantee as to their use. However, the RHAs have a serious problem: they
1288
must divide the resources for training and strategy between the number of people whom they believe they must train and provide funding for resource allocation and management. The national boards must provide professional advice and approve and monitor courses. I believe that it is wrong to split those two responsibilities.
The Government have decided that the RHAs should be the funding bodies and one hopes that the ring-fenced amount will be the minimum that is required. The RHAs will be considering the number of nurses whom they believe they will need to train. However, there will not be the same impetus and need to safeguard money for further education—that is, post-registration education. We shall need a large number of post-registration courses as we move from one type of National Health Service to another which is more community based. I am extremely anxious that the funding for such education will not be forthcoming from the RHAs to the same degree.
There have in the past been problems within the National Health Service in providing specialist training for the type of nurses that we shall need in the future. That need is now even greater. I hope that the Government will guarantee that ring-fencing will continue and will not be limited to only one year. If it is limited the threat to nurse education will be great. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I was pleased to add my name to the amendment. I am sure that like me the Minister has a sense of déjà vu when discussing ring-fencing. We spent many happy hours discussing the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Members on this side of the Committee were able to persuade this Chamber of the merits of ring-fencing but unfortunately we could not convince another place. We welcome the announcement that the Government will ring-fence these funds, but we have tabled the amendment in order that they might stiffen their resolution.
The Minister gave the game away when on Second Reading she said:
"In reply to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by my noble friend Lady Cox, the length of time that the ring-fencing will be in place will be as long as it proves necessary".—[Official Report, 12/11/91; col. 509.]
I should have intervened then to ask who will decide when it is no longer necessary. The Minister must answer that crucial question. We are glad that the Government have seen the need to ring-fence the funds at the outset. We hope that it will be a permanent feature. The arguments were expressed extremely well by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson; we fear that the budgets will be eroded if they are not ring-fenced. The Minister will satisfy all Members by answering that simple question. We believe that it will be necessary to keep the ring-fencing arrangements in place for a long time, but we should like the Minister to confirm that.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I speak in support of the amendment. There are real fears that in passing the budget for nursing education to the regional health authorities it could be eroded by the need for cuts in

1289
the allocation of budgets. Those fears are real because within the profession live memories of the problems of Birmingham in recruiting a sufficient number of paediatric intensive-care nurses. The problem arose because not enough were trained. At present there is a reduction in the number of district nurses and health visitors who are being trained for important roles in the community. In such key professions within the health service there is a need to train not only to the level of registration but at post-registration level with many specialised roles being taken up. Therefore, we believe that there is a need to protect the budget for nursing education against any possible erosion.
In response to a question I asked on Second Reading the Minister indicated that a special grant had been made in moving towards Project 2000. It included a contribution to additional library costs in the implementation of that project. The grant was made in order to meet a crisis need for library costs. Project 2000 implements a much broader-based curriculum for the nurses of the future. That is necessary if they are to take an intelligent place in the service. I believe that the library is focal to all the work that nurses will have to undertake in that broader foundation programme of education. In addition, library resources are essential in post-registration courses.
I look to the future with the boards approving colleges and centres to run those courses. However, the boards will not be able to do so unless library facilities are adequate. Library resources in certain schools and colleges of nursing have been pathetic. Not only are the stocks of books and journals inadequate for the new curriculum, but the library staff are also inadequate. Many colleges of nursing no longer have a trained librarian. In looking to resources for the future it is essential that those needs are identified.
4 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: As I understand it, there are three elements to the new education budget. First, there are the bursaries that are awarded to student nurses which amount to about £100 million per year. That is allocated to regions to build into contracts with health authorities. Secondly, there is the costs of the individual colleges in terms of their fabric and day-to-day maintenance. That cost used to be borne by health authorities and is now transferred to the principal of the college. I welcome that because it strengthens local management.
The third element is the costs of nurse tutors and their support staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said, from 1993 that budget, which is now held by the ENB, will be devolved to regions. Therefore, for the first time ever we shall be able to match the size, experience and skills of the teaching faculty with the number of students. I think that everybody agrees that that makes sense.
For the system to work smoothly regions must draw up a workforce plan with other purchasers; that is, the health authorities at district level, the family health service authorities and to a lesser extent GP
1290
fund holders. Regions will have to assess the health care needs of their populations and forecast the number and skills of all staff required to meet those needs. That will include therapists, technicians and other support staff. It will include the need not only for those coming into the profession for the first time but also those who need post-basic education.
Once agreement is reached on the size of the budget, district health authorities will then need to allocate those finances and convert them into contracts with individual colleges of nursing education on an annual basis to ensure that there are sufficient numbers and quality of staff.
Health authority contracts in turn must be linked into the ENB approval mechanism, so really it is a triangle, with all three points firmly connected. It seems to me that one of the chief benefits of the system is that there will be local assessment of the work needed to be done, unlike the proposal in the amendment, which seeks to place responsibility for quantifying the numbers and skills of nurses on to the shoulders of the Secretary of State, or more realistically the Department of Health. In my view that is not possible. I do not believe it is possible for the centre—for Whitehall—to assess the detailed needs of a population of 56 million. We are required to do that at regional level, and even to do it for 3 million is quite a task.
The Project 2000 proposals recognise that we need a new type of nurse to meet the demands of the 21st century: someone who will lead a clinical team, who is a practitioner in her own right, who is better educated and who will assess and supervise health care for individuals. As a nation we have invested large sums in the training not only of nurses but more recently of health care assistants. We have established a national vocational qualification. I believe it is essential that those people are sensibly and effectively used. It may be that in order to provide sensitivity and appropriate health care, flexibility will have to be exercised within the total region training budget.
I know that there are strong views among members of the nursing profession that we must have initial stability; and I agree with that. But I believe that that can be achieved not through ring-fencing, which rather smacks of an old-fashioned command economy, but through the corporate contract which regions negotiate annually with the management executive. We should make the best use of the new management tools which are incorporated in the reforms. However, we also need to maintain maximum flexibility since health care is such a dynamic discipline, with fast moving consumer demands, highly sophisticated new technology and tragically the introduction of new diseases such as AIDS. Therefore, with great regret, I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Carter: The whole area of corporate contracts is new and everybody must try to feel their way. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that the Government should not ring-fence the RHA budget at the outset? I am not entirely clear whether she suggests that ring-fencing is wrong in principle; whether she feels that we need it at the beginning while we are working

1291
things out and—if so, for how long?—or whether she feels as some of us feel that because these matters become eroded overtime that protection should be in place for quite a long time.
Baroness Cumberlege: I am against ring-fencing in principle but I want to ensure that there is initial stability because I understand the fears. I am suggesting that we have a management tool, which is the corporate contract between regions and the management executive. That is monitored very closely on a quarterly or half-yearly basis. We should use that tool rather than ring-fencing because it is much more pertinent and sensitive to the needs of the individual regions. There is an overall view from the management executive that it allows the fiexibilities which I think we need in the future for health care.
Baroness Hooper: This is an important topic. We take education and training very seriously since it affects the quality of care of patients, which at the end of the (lay is what the National Health Service is all about. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for explaining the thinking behind her amendment, although, as drafted, the effect of the amendment is unclear. It states that the Secretary of State is to be required to make grants for nursing and midwifery education and training. However, it is not clear to whom he is supposed to make those grants, although we have a good idea as a result of this afternoon's exposition.
The Government's policy on the funding of nursing and midwifery education and training was explained by my tight honourable friends the Secretaries of State responsible for the health departments in a Statement made in another place on 4th February this year, which does not appear to have been repeated in this Chamber. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I reiterate the main features of that Statement as it relates to the matters raised in the amendment. I shall relate my remarks primarily to the position in England. The position in Scotland and Wales is broadly similar having regard to the different organisational structure of the NHS in those countries.
In the Government's view there are two main principles which should underlie arrangements for organising and financing nursing, midwifery and health visiting education. The first is that decisions governing the supply of trained nurses, midwives and health visitors should be taken as close to the point of service delivery as possible to ensure that such decisions are responsive to local needs and to the changing requirements of employers.
Secondly, the Government have a duty to ensure that overall there are mechanisms in place to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained nurses, midwives and health visitors to meet the health needs of the nation. The financial arrangements in force since April of this year under which the health service purchases services through contractual arrangements with providers do not jeopardise that supply.
Against that background it is our policy that regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, should have the main responsibility for
1292
identifying the level of demand for qualified nurses and midwives which needs to be met, for deciding the number of students who need to be recruited and trained and for funding pre-registration nursing and midwifery training. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege, as chairman of a regional health authority, described the responsible attitude of the regions in that respect. To enable that to happen, Clause 5(2) removes the existing duty of the national boards to provide or arrange for others to provide education and training courses. In future, that function and the funding which goes with it will be transferred to regional health authorities. In that context, library costs, to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred, will be one of the items which regions will need to take into account in setting their top-sliced bids.
In the Government's view, however, it is important that the resources to be allocated to pre-registration nursing and midwifery education should be specified in a clearly defined budget. It is moreover important that the budget should be protected; in other words, once regions have decided on the sum to be allocated to pre-registration nursing and midwifery education, that budget should normally stand for that full financial year, and commitment to existing students should in any case always be honoured. We shall continue to monitor regional provision for training in this sphere in order to ensure that our overall responsibility for safeguarding the supply of nurses and midwives is adequately discharged. The exact mechanisms for this monitoring are still under consideration. They will be important.
So far as concerns post-registration training for nurses, midwives and health visitors, our view is that, while general in-service training—for example, management and IT training—should continue to be the responsibility of individual employers, post-registration education and training designed to produce specific professional skills should, for the time being at least, be funded from a separate and protected regional budget, managed in a similar way to that for pre-registration training. We have made it clear that these specific arrangements for post-registration training will be subject to review in the light of experience. But I can assure the Committee that, as in the case of the protected budget for pre-registration training —in respect of which I gave the commitment at Second Reading quoted by the noble Lord-the current arrangements will continue as long as is necessary. How long that will be, will be a matter of fact at the time.
I hope that I have adequately explained to the Committee the Government's commitment to ensuring that adequate resources are made available for this area of education and training and that in the light of what I have said the proposers of the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment I should like to congratulate the Minister on producing the best post hoc argument I have ever heard. She said that this,
"will be a matter of fact at the time".

1293
Of course it will be a matter of fact at the time. We all know that. But when is the time? The noble Baroness said at Second Reading "as long as it proved necessary". She has just said "for the time being at least". How long does she think this ring-fencing is likely to last? It is causing a good deal of anxiety among the professions. They would like to have some idea of the time scale that the Government foresee.
Baroness Hooper: I have indicated that we are doing this initially on an annual basis and that we shall review it on an annual basis. It must be clear that for the first few years it will be reviewed on an annual basis.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am not very happy with the Minister's reply to the amendment. For some years I was a regional chairman, and I had the greatest admiration for my successor at the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority. However, it has been my experience in the health service and in every other walk of life in which I have been involved, including industry to a slight extent, that when there is a shortage of money, education and training are always chopped first. It has happened in this country, which is why we are in a mess at the moment. We do not have enough skilled labour. We are just waking up to the problem.
The noble Baroness said that the RHAs would have to take into account matters such as library costs when they make their top-sliced bids. She said that they would have to have a clearly defined budget for nurse education. She added that it would normally stand for the financial year. What does "normally stand for the financial year" mean? What if something untoward happened on which the RHA preferred to spend the money? That is why we are asking for the education slice to be ring-fenced. It is desperately important that there should be some guarantee.
We are living in a greatly changing world. Nurse education is changing enormously with the development of Project 2000. It has already changed. It is possible that nurse education will be taken out of the health service altogether. It may become the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and be funded quite differently. If that happened it would be tremendously important for the amount of money transferred to the Department of Education and Science to be ring-fenced.
The issue raised in the amendment is important for pre-registration nurses, post-registration training and postgraduate education and training. The issue is important not only for the nursing profession but for the whole of our society. I am sure that we shall return to this amendment. If the noble Baroness does not like the wording perhaps we can come back with an amended form. We shall try to make it clear that it is one subject that we should like to see written into the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Suspension]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert:
("(bc) a person whose registration has been neither removed nor suspended may be made the subject of a formal caution; and").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns the very modest widening of the powers of the United Kingdom central council to administer a caution in appropriate circumstances. It has received all-party and cross-party support. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to both noble Baronesses whose names appear with mine on the Marshalled List. I am also aware that other noble Lords support the amendment. In particular, my noble friend Lady Cox wishes me to say how much she regrets not being here today to support the amendment.
The wisdom of enshrining an additional power to enable the United Kingdom central council not only to remove or suspend from the register but, in appropriate circumstances, to caution those practitioners who come before the professional conduct committee was widely appreciated and supported at Second Reading, and not least by my noble friend the Minister, who undertook to look again at the issue. I understand that after further consideration she is very sympathetic towards its aims. Because of that I shall not re-debate the issues but merely make four points.
First, the members of the United Kingdom central council, the registrar and his officers are deeply concerned at the length it takes for a case, once reported, to be heard by a professional conduct committee—anything up to two and a half years—which results in a disturbingly long backlog of cases. This amendment, in conjunction with the other measures in the Bill, will reduce the time to six months and eliminate the backlog.
Secondly, without the power to caution, cases have to be pursued,
"with a view to removing the practitioner from the register".
In fact, only 45 per cent. of the cases heard result in this draconian sanction. To remove a qualified practitioner from the register not only debars that person from practising their profession, but in many cases results in years of unemployment with subsequent misery and deprivation. Removal from the register is surely the final sanction. There needs to be flexibility and interim disciplinary measures as is the case with many other professional bodies.
There is of course incorporated in the Bill an additional power of suspension which the UKCC has not had previously. But that too can have the same effect as removal from the register albeit for a shorter period. My third point is that without the power of caution, cases are inappropriately brought before the professional conduct committee because of a rightful concern that if the case is not brought, although it is recognised that the ultimate sanction is inappropriate, the profession and the public believe that unprofessional misdemeanours are being condoned and the wrong message is sent out to the public and the profession. That was a point very well made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
The fourth and final reason is that the measure is not included in the Bill because of a difference of opinion between lawyers. Parliamentary counsel states that inclusion of a specific power to caution is unnecessary. But on two previous occasions the UKCC has sought to make rules introducing the caution under the existing Section 12(l) of the 1979 Act and has had its request rejected. The UKCC recently sought counsel's opinion to clarify the matter once and for all and was strongly advised that the power should he incorporated in the Bill and appear on the lace of the Act.
Disagreement between lawyers is expensive, but a test case carried through all its stages is not only an unfair financial burden to be borne by hardworking nurses whose subscriptions support the UKCC, but is also totally unnecessary given the opportunity afforded in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give us hope and bring forward a government amendment to ensure that these goals are reached. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am pleased to support the amendment from these Benches. The arguments in its favour have been expressed extremely well by the noble Baroness. I believe that it is the first time that she has moved an amendment to a Bill. I understand that the Government are going to accept it in principle although they may want to reword it. Before the noble Baroness becomes too excited I should warn her that if my experience is anything to go by, that situation will not last although it perhaps helps to start on the same side as the Minister.
The arguments have been well put. I understand that there has been a technical legal argument (we hear them often during the passage of a Bill) as to whether this matter needs to be on the face of the Bill. I understand that the Government now accept that it should be, although they may wish to have their own wording. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Perhaps I may also speak briefly in support of the amendment. In the very comparable situation of the medical profession, governed as it is by the medical Act and the rules derived therefrom, which were approved by the Privy Council, any medical practitioner appearing before the professional conduct committee may, at the end of the hearing, be subject to five possible alternative disciplinary sanctions.
The first is admonishment; the second is to attach formal conditions to the doctor's registration; the third to postpone judgment which is a little like putting the doctor on a state of warning as to his or her future conduct; the fourth is suspension; and the fifth is erasure from the register. This amendment would have the same effect as the General Medical Council admonishing a doctor. Therefore, it is something which the Committee should support.
Lord Meston: I too support the amendment, which is important and required by the UKCC. It is difficult not to repeat points made at Second Reading. It is also difficult not to express the disappointment which was then felt at the Government's unwillingness to accept
1296
the need for the power to caution to be stated expressly in the Bill. I am glad to hear hints that the Government have had a change of heart.
The need for such an amendment exists if only to avoid any uncertainty about whether the UKCC has such a power. It is apparent that the Government do not oppose it in principle. We all seem to want the same thing. The fact is that the UKCC has had conflicting advice from government lawyers as to the necessity for an express statutory power. The risk is that the omission of an express power to caution might be regarded by the courts as a deliberate omission. Therefore, there must he a risk that the courts would not feel willing or able to hold that there was an implicit power to caution. In reaching that conclusion the only people to benefit would be the lawyers. Undoubtedly, as has been said, it would be to the detriment of nurses. On this occasion I am happy to speak against the interests of my own profession. To adopt the phrase of the Minister earlier today, the omission might cause "unhelpful inflexibility". Therefore I ask the Government to put the matter beyond all doubt.
Lord Auckland: Without going into legal technicalities I am sure that the amendment will be welcomed by the profession for bringing it into line with, for example, the armed services where a soldier or other member can be admonished or reprimanded as opposed to being cashiered or sentenced to a term of detention or imprisonment. With its very reasoned terms this amendment will undoubtedly be very much welcomed by the profession concerned.
Baroness Hooper: A number of noble Lords strongly represented at Second Reading that there should be a specific provision on the face of the Bill for a matter which we believed was implicit. In the light of those views, I undertook to look at the issue again. Since Second Reading, officials from the department have had useful discussions with the UKCC about the details of how the proposed power to caution might be exercised.
I understand that most if not all of the Members of the Committee may have seen the helpful note which the UKCC has now circulated about this matter. We have looked again at the legal position in the light of this clarification and in particular at the way in which a caution would be administered at the initial investigation or preliminary proceedings' stage of the process. I can say to the Committee that we now accept the principle that there should be specific reference to the power to caution in the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that the UKCC had received contrary advice from government lawyers to the effect that there was no power to administer a caution under the existing Section 12. Unfortunately, neither we nor the UKCC have been able to find clear documentary evidence for such advice. However, it appears that the question at issue on the earlier occasion was whether or not the national boards, not the UKCC, could be given powers under the rules to administer a caution as part of its duty under Section 6(1) (e) of the Act to carry out initial investigations in professional misconduct

1297
cases. That power is repealed by Clause 5(4) of the Bill. The UKCC is in future to be responsible for all stages of the investigation of professional conduct cases. That is relevant to the question of how the powers available under Section 12 should be interpreted.
In view of this happy agreement that we should accept the principle of the specific reference, nevertheless I would like the opportunity of considering further exactly how that can best be achieved. I have been advised that the amendment before us does not quite do the trick. It seems to imply that the administration of a caution is a formal and an appealable penalty on a par with removal or suspension from the register rather than what I understand is in fact intended that it should be—a warning, albeit a formal one, as to future conduct.
There are a number of technical difficulties arising from the drafting which need to be clarified. Therefore, if Members of the Committee are in agreement on the withdrawal of the amendment at this time, I undertake to ensure that a government amendment meeting the intentions of this amendment is brought forward at a later stage.
Baroness Cumberlege: In the light of the remarks made by my noble friend the Minister, it gives me pleasure to withdraw the amendment. We look forward to reading the exact wording which she brings forward from the Government. I should also like to thank those Members of the Committee who spoke in support of the amendment. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

4.30 p.m.
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 10:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation between Council and Midwifery Committee
. In section 4(2) of the 1979 Act (which requires the Council to consult the Midwifery Committee) after "consult" there shall be inserted "with and not unreasonably reject any recommendation or and after "relating to" there shall be inserted "or in any way affecting".").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is to ensure that there is adequate consultation with the midwifery committee by the UKCC. As the areas of responsibility are shifting we are doing here what my noble friend Lord Carter has already mentioned: we are amending another Act in the course of passing this Bill.
The purpose of the amendment is to amend Section 4 of the 1979 Act. As amended, the section would read:
"The Council shall consult with and not unreasonably reject any recommendation of the Committee on all matters relating to or in any way affecting midwifery".
Consultations used to be concerned only with matters relating to midwifery. We are seeking to widen the scope of consultation to cover matters "affecting" midwifery. I am sure that this amendment will be welcomed by all sides of the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: Perhaps I may reaffirm what I said on Second Reading (at col. 509 of Hansard); namely, that there is no evidence that the current situation whereby the council is required to consult the midwifery committee on midwifery matters, but which does not restrict its powers any further, has not worked. It is not our intention to use the Bill to make any changes in the council's constitutional role in respect of any of the three professions which it regulates. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to make this particular amendment at this time, given that the existing provisions have not caused any problems.
I believe that consultation and consideration of recommendations are areas where a great deal depends on a constructive and mutually respectful relationship between the bodies concerned. It would appear that the amendment could erode rather than enhance that relationship. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Desai: I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 9 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Central Council rules: consultation]:
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("after") in line 13 and insert:
("(1) Section 22 of the 1979 Act (duty of Central Council to consult about rules) shall be amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (3) (b) there shall be inserted "and, insofar as the proposed rules are relevant to the Boards functions prescribed in section 6 of this Act."
(3)").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a matter which relates to consultation. Certain functions of the national boards are being transferred away from them to the new health authorities but they will still be responsible for validation of courses and other matters. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the UKCC continues to consult the national boards and that there will be a positive requirement for such consultations to be carried out. There is not much more that one can say about the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: I am aware that concern has been expressed that the words which this amendment seeks to replace appear to give too much discretion to the council in determining what is and what is not relevant to the boards' functions. I must say that I do not consider that this really amounts to a point of substance. Someone has clearly got to be given the job of formally determining the matter and it is difficult to see that the body could be anyone other than the council. To leave the issue rather in the air would be unsatisfactory.
If a doubtful case did arise, it would be most unlikely that the council would not in practice consult the board on the issue. Moreover, at the end of the day, if the council acted unreasonably in not consulting the board, it would of course be open to the board as a last resort to seek redress in the courts. But

1299
that seems to me to be a most unlikely scenario. In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai: I am most grateful to the Minister for that assurance. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
4.35 pm.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 14th October, be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 14th October. I understand that it will be convenient to consider at the same time the equivalent Scottish regulations which were laid before the House on 16th October. Accordingly, I shall speak to both sets of regulations.
The regulations, which have been considered in another place, introduce a number of changes—which have al been subject to public consultation—to the parent regulations for England and Wales approved by Parliament in 1989 and for Scotland in 1990. The first change is an across-the-board increase of about 20 per cent. in the level of fees for planning applications. It follows a similar increase which took effect from 2nd January this year. The Government are committed to increasing the proportion of relevant local authority costs met from fees to 100 per cent. Relevant costs include all aspects of the consideration of planning applications and any ensuing appeals. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the additional revenue which this increase will generate will be very welcome to local authorities yet will represent a very modest proportion of the overall cost of the projects to which the planning applications relate.
The second and third changes both arise from discussion during the passage earlier this year of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The second change—and here I must give credit where it is due to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, whose suggestion we have taken, albeit in a slightly modified way—involves doubling the deemed planning application fee payable in the context of an appeal against an enforcement notice. The Government consider that it is reasonable for a fee, to be paid to both public bodies involved in the administrative service that the appellant obtains. Accordingly, one half of the fee will be paid to the local planning authority and the other half will go to the Department of the Environment, or to the Welsh or Scottish Office as appropriate. In future the planning merits of any development enforced against
1300
will be considered only on an appeal against the enforcement notice after payment of this higher fee. The increased charge is not intended as a penalty or a charge for making an appeal. The third change eliminates the 75 per cent. concession which currently applies to duplicate or twin-tracked planning applications. That practice enables an applicant to negotiate with the authority on one application while appealing in respect of the non-determination of the other. It has potential for wasting local authority resources; yet it can be an applicant's only effective lever for encouraging some authorities to process applications with reasonable speed. Although the Government have concluded that it would be unreasonable to deny applicants the option of submitting duplicate applications, we can see no justification for the regulations to include a concession to encourage applicants to twin-track.
The final change is confined at present to England and Wales. It introduces a £20 fee to be paid when an application is made to a local planning authority for a determination whether its prior approval of some details of the development is required before the start of certain agricultural or forestry development permitted by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. No further fee will be payable in those cases where authorities decide that they need to give formal approval for the relevant aspects of the development. The introduction of a parallel amendment to the Scottish fees regulations must await an appropriate amendment to the Scottish GDO. The Secretary of State for Scotland intends to bring forward such changes as soon as is practicable. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 14th October, be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]—(Viscount Astor.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the increased fees; and behind us, the local authorities welcome them, particularly in the light of the Statement made in another place earlier today on rate capping and the RSG. That will ensure that local authorities will doubly welcome any increased income.
We support the move to more realistic charging. We welcome not just the increased fee for appeals, which the Minister was gracious enough to acknowledge was the result of amendments moved on this side of the House, but the increased fee, and therefore loss of subsidy, for twin-tracking. Much of the debate during the Planning and Compensation Bill involved the problem of twin-tracking and the way local authorities simultaneously were forced to negotiate an appeal while at the same time trying to respond to the original application. Twin-tracking was encouraged by the fact that there was a reduced fee for the second application. We are happy to see that that fee has now been brought into line. I should have liked to have seen it go even further, but I accept that this is not the appropriate forum in which to pursue that argument.
There are a few questions that I should like to ask the Minister. I have given him brief notice of them. I

1301
[BARONESS HOLLIS OF HEIGHAM]
therefore accept that he may not yet have all the answers. The questions are meant to help local government. I take it that the fees are designed to make development control self-financing, as the Minister said. When will he expect to see that process completed by? Are we talking about annual tranches or biannual tranches of increases in fees or what?
Secondly, if the control is meant to be selffinancing, does the Minister assume that within the fee will be included the cost of an application refusal? In other words, does it relate to that dimension of development control? Will the fee also include the full cost of publicity and advertising? That is a pertinent point, because within the Local Government Bill that is about to go into Committee there is pressure to go for full and proper consultation. That involves extensive costs to the local authority. Will the Minister tell us whether local authorities will in the future be expected to recover those increased costs for publicity and notification through increased fees?
Thirdly, will the fee include the cost of advice given at inquiries? Again, that is associated with the appeals procedure. Further, will it also reflect the additional costs involved in handling developments associated with listed buildings? I am sure that the Minister and everyone in the Chamber will accept that the officer and staff input associated with a listed property is a more sensitive and demanding a job than that involved with straightforward new build on a council or private estate. Can we hope to see that factor also reflected?
My final point, of which I informed the Minister, is that, rightly, the fees are graduated according to the number of dwelling houses or the number of hectares involved in the development. Clearly at a certain point a qualitative distinction has to be made in relation to proposals for a major shopping mall of perhaps 500,000 square feet in which the maximum costs of £2,500, or £5,000, as the case may be, in no way begin to reflect the months and months of officer and member time involved in handling superstore developments. Are the fees meant to be realistic in the future? In other words, behind the raft of questions I have put to the Minister, I should like to know whether individual fees are meant to fund the costs of individual development inquiries or are they meant to be self-financing across the authority as a whole. If that is the case, I fear that the smaller developer will be cross-subsidising the larger developer. Will the Minister reassure us on that point?
Having said that, the general thrust of our response is to welcome the increase in fees. As the Minister rightly said, they are a small proportion only of the total cost of schemes. It will be a helpful and useful addition to local authority incomes at a time when they are hard pressed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as I understood my noble friend the Minister, these proposals, on the whole, increase the charges by 20 per cent. in addition to an increase of 20 per cent. at the beginning of this year; in other words, a 40 per cent. increase in the year. I should be glad to hear from him what is the argument in favour of so substantial an increase, and
1302
whether, having set the precedent of an increase of 40 per cent. a year, the Government have it in mind to make even further increases in the near future.
It would also be helpful to know what sums of money are involved. In particular, what will be the additional revenue derived from this increase, and what was the additional revenue derived from the January increase?
Finally, I must express some hesitation and doubt as to whether swingeing increases of this kind in charges made in respect of the grant of planning permission are sensible in the present situation. Your Lordships are only too well aware that the building industry is going through a difficult time. If there ever were a time when increasing the charge for planning permission was inappropriate, I should have thought that it was now. I can well understand, as the noble Baroness said, that the increase is welcomed by the local authorities. Local authorities are always thankful for any money upon which they can lay their hands; but the Government have to consider not just the degree of avaricious excitement which the proposals generate among local authorities, but the impact on the building industry.
I do not wish to exaggerate the amount involved as compared with the cost of building, which I concede is marginal; but psychologically to be increasing the charges at this moment would seem to be flying in the face of what are the necessities of the moment. I say that in particular, because I had the privilege of hearing the Secretary of State for the Environment at lunchtime today indicate his anxiety for the building industry, and his hope that house building would be encouraged and revive. I should be most grateful if my noble friend would answer those questions as well as those which the noble Baroness put to him.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall deal first with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She asked what the fees are meant to cover. They cover a range of tasks performed by local planning authorities under the umbrella of development control. They include considering and determining planning applications for schemes, both large and small; dealing with any subsequent appeals; discussions with developers and statutory consultees; and dealing with inquiries from the public about proposed developments.
The regulations apply to applications for planning permission, not applications for listed building consent. However, some planning applications will involve considerations which are relevant to listed building consent.
The noble Baroness also asked me about the cross-subsidy of small developers by large developers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Large developers by small developers.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, vice versa. We recognise that a small proportion of applications will cost local authorities considerably more than the present maximum level. We shall examine this when considering simplification and further reform of the fees scale next year. We have said, and I repeat, that

1303
we appreciate the anxiety mentioned by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that the increase in the level of fees proposed by this is above the current level of inflation. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to progressive increases in fee levels until they generate enough income to recover 100 per cent. of the local authorities' development control costs. An application fee is still a small component cost of a development, and 80 per cent. of applications are granted.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me whether the current initiative should provide a more reliable basis for estimated local authority costs in future. The report of the Audit Commission's study on development control is due in January 1992. Research is to be commissioned by the Department of the Environment into the cost incurred by local authorities determining planning applications and performing other tasks under the heading of local control.
I hope that I have managed to answer most of the questions raised by your Lordships. If I have missed any, I shall consider them and write to noble Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend was good enough to say that he was prepared to answer the questions already put to him. However, he has not so far answered two that I put to him. One is as to the amount of money in cash terms which these regulations will extract from developers, the cash flow, and whether it is the same amount—and if not, what the difference is—as that under the January increase. Those are the two figures of increased payments that will have to be made. Secondly, he rather conspicuously did not answer my question whether there was an intention to introduce further increases in the near future.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I forgot to answer the last point. There is an intention to increase it in the future. As I said before, it is our intention progressively to raise fee levels until they generate enough income to recover 100 per cent. of the local authority's development control costs.
On the second point, I cannot tell the noble Lord what the level of income will be. It totally depends on the number of applications that come in. Therefore one cannot foresee exactly what the level will be. We can look at the numbers of applications as they come in. Local authorities will examine their costs and we shall consider all those matters closely when we come to decide the increase of fees. As I have said before, it is our intention to try to generate enough income to recover 100 per cent. of the local authority development control costs.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with respect, surely my noble friend can answer the question as to the amount of money that will be brought in, on the basis of the amount brought in under the previous dispensation and applying a 20 per cent. increase to it. That may not be 100 per cent. accurate, but it would give your Lordships some idea of the scale. It is no use my no ale friend saying, "Oh, this is so small that it is marginal", unless he is prepared to tell us what it is.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I said that as regards any developer undertaking a development, the fee is a comparatively small component part within the total amount of money spent on that development. I do not have the figures for the number of applications that were received last year. We discussed them under the previous Bill. My noble friend knows as well as I do that it was a substantial amount and that it changed from month to month.
I have certain figures that could be of some help. Provisional figures for the April to June quarter 1991, based on 85 per cent. of the returns indicate that 59 per cent. of applications were determined within eight weeks. Application numbers continue to fall. The figures I have are: 682,000 in 1988–89; 628,000 in 1989–90; 532,000 in 1990–91. That is quite a large drop. I take my noble friend's point but it is almost impossible for me to tell him what amount of money will come in.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 16th October, be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

King's Cross Railways Bill
A message was received from the Commons that they have made the following orders, to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

Avon Weir Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified; Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes before
five o'clock.