Lords Sitting of 9 June 1993

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

Royal Parks: Cycle Tracks
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the provision of cycle tracks in London's Royal Parks.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my department appointed consultants to consider all aspects of traffic in the Royal Parks including what scope there is to improve the facilities for cyclists. Their report is expected shortly. We shall consider carefully its recommendations.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he bear in mind that the independent review of Royal Parks initiated by the Government underlined the need for a cycle network in the Royal Parks? Will he also bear in mind that many thousands of people now cycle in the Royal Parks for both recreation and as a means to get to work? Yet a number of Royal Parks—Regent's Park, Primrose Hill, St. James's Park, Green Park—have no cycle provision. Kensington Palace Gardens has very little provision and the provision in Hyde Park is rather inadequate. When he receives the report will he do his best to improve the facilities?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the traffic consultants were appointed following a recommendation in the first Jenkins Royal Parks Review report. Of course we shall consider carefully what further provision for cycling is proposed when the consultants make their report. We support any form of environmentally friendly transport. However, in the case of Royal Parks we have to balance that consideration against our duty to manage the parks for the quiet enjoyment of all other park users.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind his remark concerning all other users. I am not anti-bikes, but they are a hideous nuisance in most Royal Parks. I hope that cycles are never allowed in Regent's Park; we have enough trouble in Regent's Park and other parks. If we are to enjoy the parks as they ought to be enjoyed we should cut out cycling and skating. Perhaps someone else will ask a Question about skateboards and skating; they are another nuisance in Royal Parks. If cycles have to be in the parks, they should be licensed and taxed.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, our Royal Parks offer many facilities. One can go boating on the Serpentine and on the pond in Regent's Park. One can ride, roller skate, jog, play cricket, tennis, golf and football. One can sail model boats and even swim in the Serpentine.
924
The 46 million people who use the parks every year take part in all those activities, including using the parks for their own enjoyment.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I welcome the positive remarks in the report on the Royal Parks, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred. The report states:
"Nearly 60 per cent. of people questioned in the market research supported separate paths for cyclists".
Will the Minister indicate his priorities? When we refer to cycle paths, are we seeking recreational facilities within the park or the creation of convenient routes through the park to connect with roads outside?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, the Royal Parks have to balance the cyclists' preferences with the duties to manage the parks for the enjoyment of the public. We are keen on recreational cycling and there are a number of tracks, routes and paths. However, the parks should not be turned into fast commuter routes for bicyclists and bicycle messengers to zoom through the park at very high speed. That is not the point. Their place is on the roads.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, when the cycle tracks are available for use, will the Minister arrange for his Ministerial colleagues to use them extensively so that they could learn to back pedal in a much more graceful manner than they have been doing?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, a new cycle track is to be constructed soon around the perimeter of Richmond Park through the generosity of a private sponsor. That will allow recreational cyclists access to areas of the park unreachable from the roads, on a track specifically designed to be sympathetic to the local environment.
I do not cycle around the park. I occasionally jog around the Serpentine. I should be delighted if the noble Lord would like to join me one morning.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend remind the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that one cannot back pedal a free-wheel cycle?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is, of course, entirely right with that observation.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we welcome and agree with the positive approach of the Minister. Will he confirm again that the first priority is the safety of families and especially of children in parks? One of the main threats to them, apart from the skaters, is the messengers on bicycles for their business travelling at speeds of up to 30 miles an hour? It would be helpful if those cyclists were constrained.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, recently there have been a number of accidents in the parks through these cycle messengers, not only crashing into each other but crashing into members of the public on paths in the park where cycles should not be. However, the parks offer an alternative range of entertainment for the public and it is important that that is their main

925
priority. Of course, recreational cycling is part of the entertainment. But, as I said, the parks should not become a motorway for cyclists going to work.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister has just raised a serious point. People who are injured by cyclists have no redress because cycles do not have to be insured. I know that the Government are short of money, but if that is a growing problem will they introduce a national bicycle insurance scheme to cover people who are injured by cyclists?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, makes an interesting suggestion. If he wishes to introduce a Private Member's Bill, I am sure that your Lordships will look at it with great interest.

Maastricht Treaty: German Constitution
2.43 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the German constitutional court to rule on the constitutional validity in Germany of the Treaty of Maastricht.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I heard this morning that the German constitutional court will hold an oral hearing on the constitutional validity of the Maastricht Treaty on 29th June, but that a ruling is unlikely to be given before September.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in that case, as the German authorities are wisely carrying out a careful, detailed and unhurried examination of the treaty, particularly in its constitutional aspects, is it not highly desirable that this House should do the same?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite sure that your Lordships' House will give a very thorough investigation to the Bill which has now had its Second Reading. I look forward to the further stages.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House an undertaking that her department's lawyers will carefully examine the recent opinion produced by Mr. Clive Stanbrook, QC, who has given some wise opinions on the subject? In any event, will she make quite sure that when the ministerial sub-committee on European questions, OPD(E), next meets, her lawyers will be there, together with the Attorney-General, who is a permanent member of the sub-committee, in order that there should be no public conflict as regards their views?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the QC named by the noble Lord took advice from him because the QC's advice would obviously not be complete without the noble Lord's views.
When any Cabinet committee meets, we now know, after the noble Lord's superb performance in the
926
House yesterday, that we must be extremely careful what we say or it will end up in a new series of "Yes, Minister"!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that during the two-day debate many dire warnings were sounded as to what would happen and the dire consequences if Britain did not ratify the Maastricht Treaty. If the German courts will not allow the Germans to ratify it, will those dire consequences be visited upon them? Perhaps the noble Baroness could outline exactly what the consequences are.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that I have been in your Lordships' House long enough now to know that it would be quite wrong to speculate, not only about the courts of the United Kingdom but about those of a member country within the Community. I can only say to the noble Lord that I believe that there would be very serious consequences indeed for the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly for the new Bundeslander, if they were not to succeed. However, that is a matter for the German Government.
Lord Richard: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether there has been a preliminary ruling in the case? I understood that the German court had given some indication on a preliminary basis, but that the permanent one was to come in September. Can she confirm the position? If so, what is it?
Baroness Chalker of WallaseyNo, my Lords, I cannot confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. What I do know is that the German Foreign Ministry expects the court to take about three months. That is the reason for the Answer I gave earlier. There are various speculations around, but I cannot confirm what the noble Lord said in his question.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, has the noble Baroness given thought to the possibility that as our debates on the Maastricht Treaty were delayed pending the referendum in Denmark, perhaps they ought to be further delayed pending the decision of the German courts?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that after the result of the Third Reading in another place, there is no need for that.

ODA: Higher Education Grant
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what criteria they decided to reduce the higher education grant of the Overseas Development Administration by 30 per cent. within an overall budget reduction of only 15 per cent.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the higher education grant, now known as the Fund for International Co-operation in Higher Education (FICHE), will continue in 1994–95 and in 1995–96 at

927
about £3 million. We are re-allocating resources where they can most effectively be used. We shall be able to provide for the new links which are so valuable.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Nevertheless, she will be aware that there is real concern in the higher education community about the reduction in the grant. Can she assure us that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the value of the links created by the universities in the UK with the developing countries and that these links create real good will and international trade for Britain, as the people who come are often leaders in their own countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think my noble friend knows only too well how keen I am to develop new links between British universities and developing countries. It is not only those links about which we have spoken that are so valuable to the future leaders in those countries. It is also the value for our own students in British universities who gain much from the exchange and cross-fertilisation of ideas with students from the developing world. That was the reason I sought to ensure—because I know my noble friend wished me to—that there could be new links in the coming years.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures that she has announced, according to a quick calculation, are about 3.5 per cent. less than they were three years ago? If that is so, is that not going back on what the Minister has already said?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord that that is indeed not going back. The FICHE programme, which has now been established, is a four-year programme, which gives it much more ability to plan ahead. That programme will be better targeted so that we can make the maximum use of it for students from abroad rather than having to chop and change from year to year. I am confident that under this new system we can make a great deal more of it than we were able to do in the past.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend remember the report of the Select Committee of this House on the technical aspects of overseas aid? In that report emphasis was placed on the importance of adequate education and training in the countries receiving support so that full use could be made of the technical equipment supplied under the programme? Can she give an assurance that that point has been taken into account in the reallocation of funds?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am glad to assure my noble friend that that very wise recommendation of the Select Committee has been one of the many aspects uppermost in our minds in trying to make the very best use of all the facilities and opportunities that we have. The technical education given by the British universities to students from developing countries is quite outstanding. I wish not only to see it continue but, when resources are there, to see it expanded.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will the Minister take encouragement from the fact that I was recently told by the director of the Cambridge University Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, of which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I are two of the trustees, that the level of the Indian students who were taking their taught PhD degrees was so high that they were raising the standard of the taught courses for our own people here at home? Would she therefore regard it as a very good investment to increase the amount that is given for those scholarships?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is absolutely right. I too was delighted to hear that news. I believe that it also teaches us something in regard to our own first degree courses; namely, that the competition from students studying for their first degrees in overseas universities is very high and many of the courses are just as good as anything that we can produce. We must look to our own standards too.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is sometimes a distinction between financing higher education here and meeting the real front-line development needs of the third world? Does she also agree that obviously our colleges and universities have a vital role to play, and that their quality as academic communities will be greatly enhanced by an international culture? Does she further agree that the ODA is primarily about development overseas, and that that must always be the guiding principle in the disbursement of funds?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am only too glad to say to the noble Lord that development must be about those benefits which overseas persons and their countries can gain from education in this particular case, and from other things too. Whereas there can be much valuable education either in the country or in the region of the student, where we concentrate our efforts and will increasingly do so, there is also very good reason to bring students to this country for specialist courses. To do that effectively we want to have good links. That is why I am so pleased that the FICHE system now has a four-year programme, and that we can give it the priority that I know my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark wants us to give it.

Fertility Treatment: Selection of Patients
2.54 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the guidelines governing the selection of National Health Service patients for fertility treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, guidance has been issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and by

929
the Department of Health. The Government have made it clear that health authorities should think carefully before providing fertility treatment to people without a stable family background.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very helpful reply. What guidelines are given to health authorities to prevent multiple births of the sort recently reported? Will she consider recommendations made in the Warnock Report regarding regional co-ordination of fertility treatment?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was issued last year, contains advice on the need for careful monitoring to reduce the risk of multiple births. In respect of centres licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the authority makes it clear that not more than three eggs (or embryos) should be placed in a woman during any one cycle of treatment.
With regard to my noble friend's second question, we rely on health authorities locally to decide what services are needed. The department recognises that they may require guidance and last August issued an effectiveness bulletin on the management of sub-fertility.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in a recent case fertilisation produced six tiny children in a previously barren woman? Is it not necessary to be very cautious indeed about treatment of this kind with all the dangers that it involves?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The thought of six babies at once is anathema to me. But I should like to stress that the case in Grimsby was exceptional. That was only the third set of surviving sextuplets to be born in the UK since 1983 as a result of infertility treatment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the increase in concern among the general public quite recently à propos this matter, would it be possible for the noble Baroness to consider having further discussions with the appropriate medical department, if she has not already done so, or will she seek to obtain their more recent views?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly, if the Government's advice is not followed, then there will be a need to re-examine that advice and also to have further discussions with the professions concerned.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend draw the attention of the authorities to the undesirable long-term social consequences of multiple births of this sort? Is she aware that these instances are particularly discouraging to those married couples who are waiting in the queue and who would look after their children within a happy marriage and give them the tender care which is so essential? Is that situation not preferable to getting two unmarried people of doubtful background to harbour six very small children for a long time?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I agree with my noble friend. At this moment, however, the Government have no plans for an outright ban on infertility treatment for unmarried couples or single women. But the judgment certainly has to be made whether the child will be part of a stable family background. That is the important point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind a slightly different perspective; namely, that there are many good and responsible prospective parents who are unable to have children and who regard that as quite a deep wound, indeed almost a source of bereavement? Does she agree that a rational, organised, not haphazard approach to the matter is needed, so that people all over the country would have equal, sensible, access to the facilities that are available?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. I sympathise with the point that the noble Lord makes. I believe that not being able to have children is, in a sense, a great bereavement. But this particular treatment is still very new. Indeed, six out of seven courses fail. The average success rate of live births from IVF in the main age-group is about 15 per cent. I believe it is right that such a new treatment should be tried out in a few centres first before it is spread more widely.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does it not seem from my noble friend's original Answer that there is scope for saving public money on quite a considerable scale within the National Health Service on this matter? Is that a factor that will be borne in mind with regard to the development or otherwise of this service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is up to local health authorities to decide where they spend their resources. In this specific treatment a great deal of money comes not only from the National Health Service, but also from private, charitable and research funds.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, is it not true that we need further ethical guidelines on this subject? We seem to be wandering around without quite knowing what we are going to do. Will the Minister say what progress the Government are making in seeking those ethical guidelines?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, a document has been published by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for consultation on the question of ethics. The consultation period ended on 1st June. The Government consider that decisions on what, if any, further legislation or controls may be needed are best taken after the authority has advised on the outcome of its consultation exercise.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in anticipation that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which is about to be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington.

931
As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, Front Bench spokesmen at least 10 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, that means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 10 minutes in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and to a maximum of 13 minutes in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that 13 minutes indicated on the annunciator is the 14th minute in the making.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.3 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jay set down for today shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of the Baroness Jay of Paddington also set down for today to 3 hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that the fifth report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the fifth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 89) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:

1. CAR PARKING The Committee has approved new arrangements for car parking within the precincts of the House of Lords and nearby. The arrangements will be kept under review.

2. ACCRUALS ACCOUNTING, CAPITAL ACCOUNTING AND ASSET RECORDS The Committee has considered the appropriateness to the House of Lords of accruals accounting, capital accounting and asset records in addition to the cash-based accounting required under normal Government accounting conventions. The Committee has agreed—

(a) that accruals accounting is appropriate for the Refreshment Department (where it is already in use), and cash accounts should be maintained for the other operations of the House;

(b) that an asset register should be compiled for major assets; and

(c) that fuller costs should be established for the running of the Refreshment Department, including the cost of capital equipment.

3. CHILDCARE VOUCHERS The Committee has given approval in principle to a scheme for the provision of Childcare Vouchers to subsidise childcare required to enable staff with children to work at the House of Lords. This scheme is intended to help the House to recruit and retain high-quality staff, to promote equality of opportunity between men and women, and to provide an effective childcare facility. The introduction of the scheme will
932
be preceded by a survey to assess the level of demand. The Committee's endorsement of the scheme is subject to the outcome of the survey.

4. STAFF OF BLACK ROD'S OFFICE The Committee has approved the following changes in the staffing of Black Rod's Office, recommended by the Clerk of the Parliaments on the basis of a report by the Staff Adviser—

(a) the creation, for three years in the first instance, as recommended by the Staff Adviser, or longer if recruitment for so short a time proves difficult, of an additional post at Grade 7 in Black Rod's Office. It is proposed that recruitment to the post should be set in hand immediately; and that the employer should be the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, in accordance with the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992;

(b) the abolition of the post of Assistant Superintendent;

(C) the creation of a post of Principal Attendant to replace an Attendant post. This change will take place only after the abolition of the post of Assistant Superintendent.

5. APPOINTMENTS The Committee has been informed of the appointment of

(a) Mr. C.H. Rogers as Internal Auditor, on a period appointment for five years;

(b) Mr. G. Embleton as Deputy Establishment Officer, on secondment from the Ministry of Defence for three years;

(c) Miss A. Archbold, partner in W.B. Gurney and Sons, as Deputy Shorthand Writer.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank the committee for its work, particularly the chairman, and to say how much I welcome paragraph 3, where approval in principle has been given to a scheme for the provision of childcare vouchers. That will assist staff who work in the House of Lords, who have children, to have them looked after. It is a progressive step.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and surprised that at last we are able to please him with one of the reports. We have previously not been so successful. I agree that it is a move in the right direction.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to emphasise a point that is made in paragraph 2 of the fifth report. My first comment deals with a purely technical matter and my second deals with a matter that will affect every Member of your Lordships' House who uses the refreshment and bar facilities. It is therefore not a matter in which we take only an academic interest.
In regard to the accounting matters dealt with in paragraph 2, I find it a little strange that accruals accounting is operated in the Refreshment Department, but that cash accounting is operated elsewhere. That does not make for good accounting practice and means that any balance sheet ultimately presented does not really disclose a true and fair view of the situation.
In regard to the asset register, it must be quite clear to your Lordships that the Refreshment Department, and indeed your Lordships, have the use of a number of substantial assets in this House, including some of the costly chairs upon which we recline or sit and the tables against which we may prop either ourselves, our elbows or both. Those items can be extremely expensive.
I would infer from paragraph 2(a) of the fifth report that there is no asset register at the moment. 1 find that

933
a little surprising. Your Lordships' House has many valuable assets in its precincts. I should have thought that they would have been registered a long time ago, particularly in view of the fact that various administrations have always emphasised to us the necessity for the maintenance of strict accounting and "value for money".
Be that as it may, those are matters to which attention is being drawn. I have no doubt—it may take a number of years before the arrangements materialise—that a proper accounting basis will be adopted. Those are the technical points that I wish to raise.
Another matter that involves every Member of this House is seen by comparing what is said in paragraph 2(a) with paragraph 2(b). Paragraph 2(a) intends to establish an asset register, which will contain items worth thousands of pounds. But here is the rub. Paragraph (c) says,
"that fuller costs should be established for the running of the Refreshment Department, including the cost of capital equipment".
As any accountant or businessman knows perfectly well, that really means that if the report goes through, in the future there will be incorporated in the costs of the Refreshment Department a measure of depreciation per annum on the asset register that is established. In view of the fact that we may be sitting upon, leaning against or treading upon assets worth thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds, it only takes a little imagination to realise that the annual depreciation that is envisaged will involve a substantial increase in all refreshment bills. And that is the real purpose of the change.
I am quite sure that the noble Lord realises that that does not deceive me and, indeed, other accountants in the House. I sincerely trust that he will now come clean and say that that is the real purpose —to make all future restaurant bills and the costs recorded contain a measure of depreciation on top of the other overhead costs that are incurred.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as ever, for his interest in what the offices committee does. Before the anxiety of the House becomes too great, I shall deal with his final point.
It was at the request of his noble friend Lord Peston, who is anxious to put the Refreshment Department accounting on to a more sensible basis, that those matters were investigated. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was absolutely right. Whether or not the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will prove justified is a matter he could take up with his noble friend. I doubt whether they will prove to be justified. It is good accounting practice.
Since Ibbs, this House has devoted itself to making sure that we are making the best possible use of our resources. The preparation of the asset register began as soon as responsibility for the Palace of Westminster ceased to be exercised by the Property Services Agency, about which I do not believe the noble Lord
934
will wish me to say anything, either friendly or otherwise—it would be difficult for me to say otherwise.
We are now embarked upon a major project of discovering what exists within the Palace of Westminster. With regard to the Refreshment Department, which includes the kitchen equipment, a wider problem exists. The assets on which we sit, to which the noble Lord referred, and the tables on which we lean, are not contained in any inventory at this juncture. There is a complication, in as much as governments, both central and local, conduct their accounts in a manner with which the noble Lord is not familiar in his professional life. However, we are embarked on a huge project to make certain that the considerable assets for which we are responsible are used in the best possible ways.
I hope that the noble Lord's anxieties regarding the balance sheet will not exercise him too greatly. There is no balance sheet as such in the accepted sense of the term and there cannot be in the way to which he is of course accustomed. But we are doing our best and I hope that we are succeeding in bringing very quickly up to date the way in which we are accountable in this House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. Perhaps I may pursue the matter a little further. Will he convey my anxieties to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which I shall reinforce to him personally? When the committee is considering any change in the basis of determining fuller costs to Members of the House in the Refreshment Department, will he bear in mind that the Members of this House give their services free in the service of the community and in the service of the country, and that they would not expect any substantial change to be made to the present basis upon which they are charged?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, is it not the case, however, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the costing of our refreshment services is based more on variable costs rather than on fixed costs? As a member of both the committees, I am aware of no suggestion that fixed costs should be brought to bear any more than they have in the past.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is absolutely correct. That is the right way to approach this point. I will of course do what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, wants me to do, which is to talk to his noble friend. I look forward to seeing which of us has the most effect on his noble friend.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is on to a very real point here? If in future depreciation will be taken into account when deciding what prices will be—and it should be—it can either be met by raising prices or by having a subsidy to cover the extra. At this stage I do not think one would expect my noble friend to decide which that is likely to be. But it is just as well that at an early stage it should be

935
known that this new procedure will mean extra money from somebody, whether it is the purchasers of food or the people who subsidise it.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right. This is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has fully realised and is the reason he raised it. We shall take these matters very seriously into account. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport in London
3.12 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay rose to call attention to the problems of transport in London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to draw attention to London's traffic problems and particularly those of the London Underground. Before doing so, as I see the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the Front Bench opposite, I cannot refrain from complimenting him on the extraordinary versatility which enables him to appear as an expert on almost every subject and indeed to be a spokesman for almost every department in Whitehall.
Nevertheless, I do not believe that the Government realise the damage which is being done to London Underground by the continued under-funding and under-staffing in recent years, and in particular by the severe cut in funds for investment in the 1992 Autumn Statement. In answer to my Question on 25th February the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said in effect that there had been no cut. But in this respect the noble Earl was wrong. The facts are these. In their November 1991 Autumn Statement the Government promised London Transport a grant of £633 million for capital investment in its existing system of trains, structures and services in the year 1993–94. London Underground planned on that basis. But in the November 1992 Autumn Statement that £633 million was cut by £184 million to only £449 million—a cut of nearly 30 per cent. That was the cut I was referring to in February.
London Underground itself states that this return to "stop-go funding", as it justly calls it, is, in the words of London Underground's 1994 business plan,
"a severe setback to London",
and will lead,
"to the cancellation or postponement of many planned projects".
This damaging decision comes on top of nearly 10 years of deterioration in services due to under-funding which began when this Government took control of London Transport from the old GLC by an Act of 1984. Until the 1980s, for 40 years or more, services on London Underground had been remarkably reliable. Our Underground was recognised, particularly, I often found, by foreign visitors, as the most efficient such system in the world. One could regularly rely on the time taken for a particular journey. Indeed I found myself that even in the worst blitz months of 1940,
936
except where lines were actually physically damaged, the times did not differ very much from those prevailing in the 1920s and 1930s.
Since the mid-1980s all that has changed. There are repeated and exasperating delays. One is told, if one can hear the communications system, which is rather rare, that signalling failures have occurred, that engineering repairs are operating. that points have failed or that there are not enough trains. One finds, without needing to be told, that an essential escalator has stopped working. Totally unexplained stoppages occur. Hardly a day passes without a regular traveller being held up by one or another of these delays. As a result, one now has to allow 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. more time for a given journey than was normal before the 1980s. Indeed the situation has now been reached where every morning on the radio a list is read out of stations which are completely closed, something which never happened before the 1980s. That is largely due to under-manning.
All that is precisely what one would expect from protracted false economies on maintenance, renewal and improvement. We should not indeed forget that the King's Cross fire of November 1987 was caused by failure to clean an escalator for a long period, apparently due to lack of maintenance staff. The labour force of London Regional Transport, as it was then called, had been cut by 30 per cent. between 1984 and 1988.
The Fennell Report on the King's Cross fire quoted the lift and escalator engineer at King's Cross as saying that he did not succeed in monitoring escalator standards to his satisfaction or have enough staff to do so. The staff of that department had been cut from 350 to 250. The chief officer of the Safety Inspectorate said that his department was,
"under-manned by more than 30 per cent".
One would have thought that, in order to stimulate general growth and employment in the economy, which presumably we are all anxiously looking for, the economy urgently needs -capital expenditure on essential public services. The present would have been an ideal time to overhaul these arrears. After all 2.5 million people use London Underground every day. Most of them travel to and from work and sustain London's economy, including that of the City of London. Yet, instead of that, the cut in investment from £633 million to £449 million will, according to London Underground itself, have the following effects.
First, plans to renovate and refurbish 47 Underground stations this year will be postponed. Secondly, the installation of measures to protect travellers from crime will be postponed this year at 56 Underground stations. Thirdly, escalator replacement and upgrading will not go ahead this year at 24 stations. Fourthly, the redesign and improvement of trains on the District, Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines will not start this year. Fifthly, plans to ease overcrowding at 13 stations which would have started as planned will now be deferred. Finally, modernisation of the Northern Line rolling stock and signalling, so often criticised by the public, will be postponed from this year to at least 1996.
As a result of all those changes, orders for new trains are being cut down and skilled staff are being released. The total effect of the cut announced in the Autumn Statement means, in London Underground's words:
"It will take 20 years to reach an acceptable modern standard rather than 10 to 12 years as the 1991 Statement implied".
As I said, falling orders for new trains will increase unemployment elsewhere. I hope that the Minister can at least assure the House that the promise to preserve all the safety measures recommended by the Fennell Report in 1988 will be honoured.
As I see it, it is far more urgent to overcome those pressing and damaging deficiencies than to debate long-term enterprises (valuable as they will be later on) such as the extended Jubilee Line and Crossrail, even though, as I said, they will be valuable in their time. That applies in particular to the Jubilee Line in view of the fact that it is less costly, and it is also uneconomic nowadays to have a major tube line ending in central London. Whatever we do, Crossrail will not carry any travellers in that sense.
I conclude with just two thoughts on the basic economics of transport in London. Last November when the Government made their cut of nearly 30 per cent. in London Underground capital programmes, they increased the total road budget by 4 per cent. The method by which the figures are decided throws an interesting light on the Department of Transport's perhaps unconscious attitude. The adoption of a new road or motorway project depends—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—partly on the time estimated to be saved by those who use it. If they are thought to be people with high incomes, the time is counted as more valuable and the case for the road scheme is strengthened.
I should like to know whether, in the case of London Underground schemes, allowance is made for the time lost by millions of Londoners owing to the present delays. Unless the Minister can show me that that is allowed for, I shall assume that it is not so taken into account. It cannot be right to count the time lost or saved in one case and not in the other.
The case for a public grant towards maintenance and investment in London Underground rests on the basic fact that without it the economic life of London simply could not continue. Congestion on the roads would prevent a large proportion of London's working population from getting to work at all. The service that the Underground supplies to the individual traveller is paid for by the passenger's fare. But the service that it gives by enabling London, including the City, to carry on can be paid for only out of public funds. Indeed, it is because of that "externality", as the economists insist on calling it, that in Paris, where the public revenue grant is very much larger (over £500 million, I believe), part of that grant comes from a levy on employers who employ people in Paris and know that their staff could not get to work at all without the underground.
I hope that for all those reasons Ministers will reconsider this absurdly damaging cut and will restore the investment grant at least to the figure which the
938
Government themselves recognised in November 1991 as being necessary to end the present inevitable delays and so provide London with an efficient and modern Underground system at least within 10 years.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for once again giving the House the opportunity to debate transport in London. At the outset I feel that I must declare two interests: one on behalf of British Rail and one on behalf of the British Tourist Authority. In fact, I have a third interest. It is not a pecuniary one but one which I feel is particularly important; namely, I am a non-motorist and therefore depend on public transport in London.
Although it is natural to look at transport in London as a concern for Londoner's alone, we should not overlook the many millions of visitors who also use the various systems and contribute, so I am told, some 17 per cent. or 18 per cent. of London Transport's fare boxing, largely by using marginal capacity outside the rush hours. I find that slightly unbelievable as I am sure do many other noble Lords, but that is what we are told.
Londoners and our visitors share a number of public transport needs. First, we need an efficient and reliable system, embracing both rail and road, with good multimode ticketing and good information provision. Secondly, we need a free-flowing road system. I firmly believe that we need more red routes and clearways. We need parking and other regulations that are easily understandable and consistently enforced—not least when the London boroughs take over that responsibility. Thirdly, we need road investment, whether it is financed from central or local taxation, or from hypothecated tolls as happens, for example, in Bergen in Norway; or financed by the American system of tax exempt bonds, which I am not aware has ever been used in this country to finance infrastructure projects but which I feel would bear examination. After all, it has, for example, been used not only to fund Dallas Fort Worth Airport but also to fund tollways and indeed to fund a metro.
Fourthly, we need rail investment. As importantly perhaps, we need that rail investment ring-fenced for major projects and we need a steady timetable. I welcome Crossrail. I look forward to Chelsea-Hackney and to Thames Link 2000. I look forward to the Jubilee Line extension; expansion of the Docklands Light Railway; the Croydon Light Rail project; and the international terminus in the vicinity of King's Cross. But I wonder when, if ever, those much needed projects will see the light of day. I feel that we need a specific timetable for construction start-up and completion. We have to take a longer view there. We also need to ensure that that timetable is so devised that the works, which in the long-term will give us better transport infrastructure and thus better transport, do not cripple us short-term by means of the congestion penalty which is inevitable in any major construction work.
Next there are buses, which is a great under-utilised transport resource. London Transport tells me that

939
the load factor on buses—that is, passengers carried as a proportion of the capacity offered—is only some 40 per cent. in peak times and under 20 per cent. in off peak times. There must be ways whereby we can tap and exploit that under-utilised resource.
We can do it by the means that I have already detailed under the heading of roads. The bus cannot but benefit from red routes and clearways; it cannot but benefit from proper enforcement of all the parking regulations.
I hope that perhaps we can do it by privatisation and deregulation, provided that such plans secure increased investment, new marketing techniques and continued value for money, underwritten by that absolute essential, a good multimode ticketing system which takes account of all the franchisers who may be running our railways, the bus companies which may be running our buses, and that still nationalised industry, the London Underground. We also need the travel card. As I said before, we need good information provision because, no matter how much one invests in the infrastructure, in plant or even in staff training, if the system does not appear to be user-friendly the customer will not be attracted to it.
Multi-ticketing is particularly important and it is going to be a huge problem in a few years time for all the separate interests involved with public transport in London. If Holland can produce a ticket which is available on all transport modes nationwide, it should not be beyond the wit of us to do the same.
I have only one almost sentimental reservation about the changed scene which we expect for the buses, and that concerns the future of the big red bus which is so much a symbol of London, as are our policemen and our taxicabs. I would certainly support any move to preserve the red bus, even post-franchising and deregulation.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to two other topics. The first concerns taxicabs both for the London visitor and the London resident. They need a safe and reliable system of taxicabs and hire cars. The working party which has been looking at the problems of the London taxi seems to be an unconscionably long time in its deliberations. When can we look for progress? There is another working party topic which is about 50 yards behind me now; namely, London's river, which I seriously believe is an under-utilised transport resource. Again, I wonder whether my noble friend can report progress on that particular topic.
I believe, rather more than the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that we are well served by public transport, on which, as I said, I depend. I feel that I get good value for money and I find it generally very reliable. Of course it has problems both in terms of short-term investment funding and in longer-term capital project funding. But one man's problems are surely another man's opportunities. If we can address the former by seizing the opportunities which they offer us and perhaps by looking in different directions from those we have looked in before and looking for different means of finance to solve our investment problems in particular, I believe that we shall slowly but surely give London that world-class transport system which a world-class city needs.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I would like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for introducing this debate. There have been many debates in this House on the transport issue, particularly relating to London. I recall participating in a debate on 6th May 1991 on transport in the South-East introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am glad to see that he is participating today. On that occasion I said that in the past two years there had been about nine debates on this subject. There have been many since. Indeed, I put down an Unstarred Question in July 1992 on the subject of the London Underground. So in this House and in the other place we have been continuously concerned with the whole question of transport.
What is regrettable today is that despite deeply felt concern about transport arrangements, particularly in London, so little real progress seems to have been made. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, pointed out, in the present circumstances we are almost worse off than we were. We are worse off than we were because when I introduced my Unstarred Question in July last year the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who replied, gave me certain very firm assurances about the investment which the Government were going to put into the Underground. Regrettably, in the Autumn Statement in November of that year, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, pointed out, that investment was reduced by one-third.
I find that quite incredible. After all, we are now entering the Single European Market. We have had a lengthy two-day debate on the issue of Maastricht, Europe and the Single Market. We are the capital city, and hopefully we are going to play our part in these great new developments. On these Benches we fully support what the Government are trying to do. But if we are going to make it difficult for people to get to work then how are we going to perform that great task? The cutting back of investment in the Underground to such a substantial degree is something which I completely fail to understand.
The intention was to create a modern metro system within 10 years. In replying to my Unstarred Question in July 1992 the noble Viscount concurred that that was the Government's intention. But now we know from London Underground that as a result of the cuts we are unlikely to get this modern metro system within 20 years, if ever.
I really hope that in replying the noble Earl can explain to us what the Government's intentions really are on this matter. Do they want to make sure that in our metropolis and in the new, big European and world role which we hope to play, that we get things working efficiently, or not?
It is not only a question of the Underground. I turn to the buses. We have a reasonably efficient bus system at the moment. If it suffers from any defects it does so because of congestion on the roads. The buses have been going out to tender. Fifty per cent. of the bus routes are now under tender. If that process is continued then by 1998 all the buses will be out to tender. It is felt that it would then be a profitable

941
operation. But we are now going to get deregulation. Nobody knows what the impact of that will be. We do not know what impact deregulation will have on traffic flows, on the bus user and on the environment.
I am connected with the city of Sheffield in a business way. I know that deregulation there has brought no benefits. It has meant that there has been congestion on the favoured routes and a lack of interest in the less favoured routes. It has meant that because margins have been cut the quality and the standards of the buses used have deteriorated and therefore there has been an adverse impact on the environment.
I am not sure that the Government are right, for purely political considerations, to pursue the question of deregulation not knowing what impact it could have on London. They should consider this again very deeply. As far as the public services are concerned we have a problem with the Underground whose investment has been cut back arbitrarily by 30 per cent. We have an unknown factor being introduced as a result of the proposed deregulation of the buses which could have an impact which we cannot even guess at on the flow of traffic and the service to the bus users, let alone the cost of setting up yet another regulatory authority. Here again, I am a bit surprised at the Government's policy that, instead of using London Transport as the regulatory authority, they have decided to set up a different one. It has been estimated that that will cost several millions of pounds in additional expenditure per year. The more regulatory bodies that we set up, the more expenditure that creates.
So, we have those uncertainties, but we also have the uncertainty of the congestion on the streets of London. Over 30 local authorities and several other organisations, such as the police, are concerned in this matter. There is confusion in relation to parking. In some cases, the police have the authority, but in other cases it rests with the local authorities. How is that to be sorted out? On the question of congestion, what are our long-term solutions? The vehicle population of Britain will increase substantially in the years ahead according to the figures that had been given to us by the Department of Transport. What effect will that have on congestion in the metropolis? In spite of the fact that there is a Minister responsible for transport in London, there still seems to be a need for a total strategic review.
I have formed the impression that we are not making very much progress given the cutbacks in regard to the Underground, the uncertainty that could be introduced by the deregulation of the buses, the confusion over parking regulations and the lack of any policy for dealing with congestion at peak periods. I hope that the noble Earl will not regard these views as party political, but as expressing concern about what is happening in our capital city. If we cannot have an effective transport system serving the metropolis, what hope can we have of seriously competing effectively with the rest of the world? I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us about what positive policies the Government may have in these matters for the future.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jay for introducing this debate. He may well wonder why I, as an émigré from the west country, have the impertinence to speak in a debate about London's transport. However, I feel that we tend to knock ourselves too much in this country. I happen to know a little about the East End of London because I am the deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation. While others may dwell on the problems, I think that it might be appropriate if I were to tell your Lordships a little of the good news about what is happening there.
Your Lordships will know that the East End of London has had a rough time over many years. From time to time I attend meetings at West Ham town hall. I always pause to look at the Book of Remembrance which stands in the entrance hall and the pages of which are turned regularly. I do so not only to look at the names of the servicemen and women who lost their lives in the war, but also to see the list of the names of the people who were killed in their homes—often several people in one house—during the blitzes which were particularly heavy in the East End of London. The area has suffered greatly and we, in the corporation, are trying to assist in its regeneration.
Your Lordships will also know that the docks themselves ran down not through any fault of the labour force. Over many years it was the subject of a great deal of black propaganda. So it was not the fault of the labour force that the docks ran down and became disused; it was because of changes in shipping techniques, particularly the advent of containerisation which gave very great advantages to the new ports which were constructed and developed, particularly on the eastern side of the country. Something had to be done about the area and the corporation has, as I have said, tried hard to regenerate it.
A great deal of the transport infrastructure which is needed in the area is, in fact, already in place and serving London. For a long time the Docklands Light Railway was almost a standing joke. It was heavily criticised—and quite rightly. In my early years at the corporation I suffered a great deal of frustration when using that railway. Its lowest ebb was in about September 1991 and lasted to mid-1992 but things have improved immensely. It is now possible to travel on it. It is a reliable service. Its trains run on time and its efficiency is well up to 90 per cent., reaching the targets which have been set for it by the new management. Its ownership was transferred from London Transport to the corporation in April last year. The management team of Sir Peter Levine and Malcolm Hutchinson have wrought a sea change in the efficiency of the operation. The system is now not only of benefit to the people who have to travel on it into work, but also a great advantage to the local people who can use a reliable system.
It is also planned to begin the light railway extension to Beckton in the Royal Docks area later this year. That will provide a link for the regeneration of that area which, as your Lordships will know, is an enormous expanse which is at present undeveloped

943
but which contains literally miles of quayside around some of the finest inland docks in the world. So, things are looking good there.
Last month the Prime Minister opened the Limehouse link, which is the remarkable tunnel—a superb feat of British engineering—which has circumvented a lot of the travel problems. There is now a continuous highway running from Tower Hill right through to the Royal Docks. The possibility of a 15-minute car or taxi journey from the City of London through to City Airport is now a reality rather than just an advertising puff.
All that has helped. In addition, the bus services there are very much more efficient than some of the systems which were described by earlier speakers. City Airport is not utilised as much as it should be because difficult access to it in the past has not encouraged people to use it, but it is now fully available and it is actually faster to get from the City of London to City Airport than to travel from the centre of London to Heathrow or Stansted. Such things should be known. I certainly hope that the new services to Western European capitals will he used by your Lordships and others. It is a private sector initiative, but it is fully supported by the corporation and by the London Borough of Newham which realises the benefits in terms of jobs.
However, to follow what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I think that there is a need for a strategy for the planning of transport in London. We do not need a detailed plan, but some kind of framework is required. Recent work by the London First initiative and by the Confederation of British Industry has highlighted the present uncertainty which has inhibited private sector participation. We need a strategy which is founded on the better integration of transport and land use policies, better use of existing resources and assets, greater environmental awareness of developments and public and private sector joint working. If we can develop those, the future will be very much better.
I should like to mention briefly the need for the Jubilee line extension. Everything is now awaiting the final word to begin. The extension will be an important psychological boost for London because it will make people abroad, possibly looking to invest in the capital city and its surrounds, realise that we are in earnest about making our transport system work. The extension has all-party support. I understand that the European Investment Bank will invest some funds, so I hope that the final details can be tidied up and the go-ahead given.
The river must also be used more. It should be regarded as an asset and not a barrier. It is the biggest motorway in the country. It requires no maintenance or servicing. We must make better use of it, and sort out the problems of bridge control and consider further crossings.
I believe that we should regard our debates as the source of printed material which is read abroad. If people abroad are looking to invest in London, they should realise that there are not just complaints but that things arc going on, not merely in the East End of
944
London but in other places. I am glad to have the opportunity to tell your Lordships that all is not as black as it is sometimes painted.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for bringing today's debate. Like many of your Lordships, I have a London Transport permit of which I make extensive use. My contribution today is drawn entirely from my personal experiences. I find journeying far easier than it was a few years ago. We should be grateful to have the minibus companies operating within the region. They, I am glad to say, provide a much cleaner and more comfortable service than that provided previously.
I am inclined to write letters. When I have written to complain about the quality of the driving which usually, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, consists of people relying upon their brakes rather too much, or to congratulate other drivers on a smooth journey, each reply has been prompt and courteous. I cannot say the same about years ago.
The introduction of smaller buses must have speeded up the traffic flow. The underground system is no longer a system of which we should be ashamed. It is far cleaner than it was. Great efforts to improve it have been made with the vast refurbishment schemes. However, many of us find the long pedestrian tunnels at some stations somewhat threatening. I wonder whether security cameras could be installed to help provide greater safety.
As other noble Lords have said, congestion must be the main target. The various measures already introduced have improved matters. Some form of congestion charge might help, although I appreciate that that will meet with considerable opposition. There are two areas which spring to mind. Why cannot there be large car parks in the suburbs, as in Paris, with fast shuttle bus services into the centre, or, alternatively, car parks near to underground stations in the outer suburbs?
Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether consideration has been given to allowing cars to park with only their nearsides against the kerb? In other words, they do not park facing the traffic. That works well in South Africa. It seems to be much safer, because driving across a road to park is, of course, in itself a dangerous move. It has been a pleasure to take part in a debate when I can find much to praise.
3.54 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for giving us the opportunity, yet again, to talk about traffic in London. It will come as some relief to noble Lords who have taken part in similar debates that on this occasion I shall not be dwelling for any length of time on the benefits of two-wheeled travel.
On a previous occasion when I came into the House to make a speech on the subject of road safety I was arrested for speeding along the Embankment. It came as no surprise to me today that I landed up in one of the worst, if not the worst, traffic jams we have had in London this year. I was on my way to an appointment

945
near London Airport. It gave me an opportunity to ponder upon the state of London traffic. I was on my motor cycle, and so I was able to survey it with some detachment.
One of the points that first struck me, which has been confirmed by other noble Lords, in particular, my noble friend Lord Ezra, was that when things go wrong there is very little room for manoeuvre. This morning, one of the flyovers leading to the M.4 was blocked. It takes traffic onto the A.30 going West. The traffic was almost at a standstill for miles and miles and miles. As is inevitable on a hot morning, with engines reaching temperatures which made it difficult to stop them stalling, there were added difficulties because some cars and one lorry had stopped, causing various problems. There was chaos.
My noble friend Lord Ezra painted a bleak picture of the future of the London Underground and the uncertainty caused by the deregulation of buses. Whenever there is a problem or a diversion it further reduces the little margin that one has with which to work. What also struck me was how extraordinary is the British temperament generally. I saw very little ill temper over the 10 miles going out of London, and an acceptance of the difficulties which it would be hard to find elsewhere, especially in Europe. I have some experience of driving in France and Italy. There are great differences between us and those countries. In some ways we are worse off and in some ways we are better off. With our phlegmatic approach to difficulties, we behave well.
The only reason why there are so many cars, causing that lack of a margin, is, as other noble Lords have said, that we do not have an adequate or satisfactory transport system in our capital. It is extraordinary that our transport system does not compare with those in countries such as France and Italy, to name but two neighbouring countries.
The fundamental problem of public transport in London must be dealt with. People of course have a mystical relationship with the motor car. People drive motor cars, whether they are company cars or they have bought them themselves, because they prefer to drive them even in bad conditions rather than to chance public transport. When I use the bus system in London, I find it generally unsatisfactory. The service one receives, the standard of driving and the temperament of the driver when he is taking fares, are inconsistent. There are sometimes unpleasant rows on buses. Can one blame the drivers? They themselves have to put up with the astonishing congestion caused by all the motor cars coming into London with a driver only and no passengers. The situation is chaotic. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what is the Government's attitude to that problem and whether he has anything that will cheer us in the medium or long term.
In the meantime, we are fortunate in having a population which is generally good-mannered when using the roads. Some people may disagree. People have become more aggressive, but generally any foreigner who drives in London —particularly any Italian or Frenchman—will say how good-mannered
946
we are. We usually allow other motorists in to a line of traffic from side roads in a way which is inconceivable in Milan. Overall, the standard of driving is good, particularly during the week, although it is not of such a high standard at weekends. People who drive regularly drive well and safely. That is reflected in the accident statistics. Most accidents in this country occur at relatively slow speeds and at predictable places: road junctions and roundabouts.
Perhaps I may take advantage of this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to make one or two suggestions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, did, as to how we could improve the present chaotic situation. There are two factors in particular which have struck me as being in need of attention.
First, there appears to be confusion about the yellow hatched box which is found at road junctions and traffic lights. I wonder whether the appropriate organisations might not put more effort into informing people who are not quite sure what the position is that it is quite safe for them to enter the yellow hatched box if they are turning across traffic. They do not have to linger, dawdle or come to a standstill behind the box. However, it is, of course, illegal to enter the yellow hatched box when one is travelling straight ahead. One should not be left in that area when the traffic lights turn red so that one blocks traffic which has been released to cross the junction. I believe that the police should take more action—if they have the manpower to do so—to ensure that offenders who come to a standstill in that yellow box are reprimanded and warned. I do not say that they should necessarily be penalised, unless they are persistent offenders. However, it would certainly make a difference and speed up traffic if people realised that the further forward one goes when travelling across traffic the better, even when there is a yellow hatched box. That speeds up the progress of traffic overall considerably, particularly in the rush hour.
Drivers in London are mostly very good at giving way. Taxi drivers in particular are extremely thoughtful. They respond well to courtesy from other drivers, although if one creates difficulties for taxi drivers, which is an unwise thing to do at any time, they will probably respond in fairly forthright terms. Although I promised not to mention motor cycles, perhaps I may just say that motor cyclists are very well treated by taxi drivers, who do most of their training —what is called "the knowledge"—on two-wheeled vehicles.
I wish that drivers in this country would be less touchy about the situation when traffic is filtered from a three-lane carriageway to a two-lane carriageway. There is an enormous amount of sensitivity about whether one should go ahead of another car or stay behind it. That does not happen in France, where there seems to be a better understanding that one should filter into a line of traffic when one reaches the bottleneck. That is preferable to filtering into the other line of traffic a mile before the bottleneck. That results in two lanes being full of traffic while the third lane is empty for about a mile.

947
Those are just a few of the niggling points which could be addressed in order to speed up traffic. The present situation is unsatisfactory.
I return to what has been said by many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in particular said that we deserve better in this city. We deserve a proper transport system. We need to get people out of their cars and on to a public transport system. I am sure that even company car owners would use such a system if it were clean, reliable and reasonably priced. I ask the noble Earl whether there is any likelihood of that happening within my lifetime.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. This morning I had an argument with a motor cyclist. He was travelling very fast so I did not recognise him, but I do not think that it was the noble Viscount.
I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for initiating the debate this afternoon. I declare an interest in that I have lived and travelled in London for most of my student and professional working life.
Stringent parking restrictions, single and double yellow lines, red routes, parking wardens and clamping have helped but in practice have done little to cope with the increase in the numbers of private and commercial vehicles and have made travel in the capital very difficult. Public transport is unable to cope because of the sheer volume of traffic and the problem of what to do with the vehicles once they are in the capital.
The purpose of my brief intervention this afternoon is to make a further case for the encouragement of cycling as a means of transport in London. This is the second time that the subject of bicycles has come up today and I apologise to those noble Lords, if there are any still in their places, who earlier on declared a dislike of all cyclists.
I am aware of the fact that your Lordships have recently debated the case for the control of combustion-engined road transport in city centres and a proposition to maximise the environmental, public health and cost benefits of bicycling as a means of personal transport in Britain. I do not wish to go over the arguments again. However, my noble friends on the Front Bench have stated for many years that they are aware of the problems of increasing congestion in our towns and cities and have made minor gestures to the increasing number of cyclists. Yet surely the department, which is responsible for devising the strategy to control mechanised transport and should be promoting travel that is beneficial to public health, should have concluded that cycling now deserves the highest priority.
Annual cycle sales now rival those of cars, yet the relatively low use of cycles on the roads of Britain seems to have led our transport policy makers to ignore the massive benefits which could be derived from encouraging more people to cycle. Those of us who do cycle and take action to benefit our own and others' health do so, particularly at this time of year, in an environment which is increasingly polluted by traffic. I am concerned that there are relatively few
948
monitoring stations for air quality and none for noise. Cyclists are having to choose to wear smog masks to filter out some of the damaging by-products from motor vehicle exhausts.
Cyclists and pedestrians should benefit this year from a reduction in air pollution resulting from the inclusion of the check on exhaust emissions in the MOT tests and the requirement that all new cars be fitted with catalytic converters. They should also benefit from the requirement that utilities now have sole responsibility for making good road surfaces which they have dug up.
The Government must move away from a transport policy which is focused on increased ownership and use of the car. That policy has been formulated in the belief that growth in car use and expansion of the road network are indicative of progress and higher standards of living.
The gestures which the Government have made towards cycling have included the appointment of regional cycling officers and directives to local authorities that the needs of cyclists should be considered. Since 1978 about 30 innovative projects have been promoted jointly by the Department of Transport and certain local authorities. Recently the department has backed campaigns to give pedestrians, cyclists and buses priority over cars and lorries.
The attraction of cycling and the possibility of cycling becoming more popular for a proportion of the journeys that people now make must surely now be taken seriously by the Government. While the Minister acknowledges that cycling is a healthy and environmentally friendly method of travel and that cyclists have as much right to use the roads as anyone else, it seems that the admitted dangers of cycling may well bring about an unintentional outcome of policy that it is preferable for cycling to be discouraged.
Only 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. of civil servants in the Department of Transport deal with cycling, even on a part-time basis, and their effectiveness in promoting cycling is questionable as their sole focus seems to be on safety aspects. There is a considerable level of under-reporting of cycling accidents which, when compared with general casualty rates, under-estimate the relative dangers of cycling and dilute the strength of those campaigning for better provision for cycling.
There is also insufficient data to calculate the savings as regards health and the reduction of costs for the NHS by having a fitter population if cycling were to become a more common mode of transport as it is, for example, in the Netherlands. There is evidence that regular cycling could improve significantly physical fitness and would lead to a reduction in some of the considerable sums spent each year in treating patients with circulatory and respiratory diseases.
I agree with the BMA report on cycling which clearly set out three practical measures which might improve the prospects for cycling and reduce the problems of transport in London: first, the need for motorised travel to be reduced—cutting the volume of private cars and improving public transport; secondly, personal travel should be encouraged which incurs the lowest cost for the health and welfare of the community; and thirdly, the adverse effects on health

949
by motorised travel must be reduced. Accidents, pollution, noise and vibration, stress and anxiety, danger, loss of land and planning blight, and severance of communities by roads have all been identified as ways in which our current transport system damages public health.
The Government should take a much more positive role in using all the means at their disposal actively to promote cycling rather than treating it as a marginal form of transport. They could raise their standards on motor-traffic noise and pollution and properly enforce regulations and take steps to restrict speed through comprehensive, self-enforcing traffic calming measures, to reduce the risk of serious injury by allowing drivers more time to take avoiding action.
Cycling should also be better integrated with public transport. I refer to rail use and cycling—an ideal combination for fast and convenient travel which is still relatively rare in Britain and fraught with problems, as the regulations governing the carriage of cycles on trains are neither clear to the cyclists nor to the staff who operate the system.
Although, generally speaking, the public image of the bicycle as presented by the media and institutions has rendered it largely irrelevant, there are signs that it is changing. A survey by the Consumers' Association in 1990 found a majority in favour of alleviating traffic problems by providing more cycle lanes, even if it meant less road space for cars and reduced traffic speed and a Gallup survey in the Guardian a year ago found that 63 per cent. of motorists supported city centre car bans and that 85 per cent. felt that bus, rail and tube services should be improved.
Cycling should be actively promoted as a serious means of transport; the Department of Transport and local authorities should positively discriminate in favour of cyclists and pedestrians in planning transport routes and amenities.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, reminded us earlier of my noble friend the Minister's expertise in many fields. I look forward to hearing his solutions to the problems in 20 minutes or so.
A final thought for my noble friend—and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned it earlier—which might help to keep traffic in London, or perhaps out of it, is that as I cycled to the House this afternoon I passed a news stand in Bond Street declaring an Evening Standard headline: "M.4. melts in heat"!
4.12 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, as they say, follow that! I had not intended to talk about two-wheeled machinery, but the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, always makes an extremely useful contribution about cycling in these debates and on these Benches we support him. If we have any quibbles about bicycles it is as regards their slightly irresponsible use in certain areas where people ride on pavements and generally get in the way. Also, I notice the increasing frequency with which one sees bicycles at night which are not properly lit. That is not a general condemnation of cyclists, and I realise
950
that some of them ride on the pavements because there are no proper cycleways for them, which is the proper answer to that problem.
Like many other noble Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to join in the debate which has been presented by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. Some of us may have wished that it could have been somewhat delayed after our exertions of yesterday and the day before. I feel that the debate might have been rather better attended had so many Members of your Lordships' House not been here until ten to three this morning. Nevertheless, we shall do our best and, so far, noble Lords have done their best.
I am assisted in what I shall say by information provided by my noble friend Lady Hamwee who is chairman of the London Planning Advisory Committee. She has referred me to a report which was commissioned by that committee on London as a world city. The report has been widely regarded. One of the key priorities identified was easier and safer movement within the capital city. In other words, the report says that poor transport is a disincentive to overseas companies moving into our capital city.
The economy of the whole country depends to a large extent on the economic health of London. As noble Lords will know, I speak as someone who comes from the north and I am a great regionalist but, nevertheless, I recognise that the country is not healthy if the capital city is not healthy.
Transport is an important facilitator in the capital city. It enables other things to happen, and progress is stifled if transport is bad. Transport is a key factor in the quality of life of people who live and work in London, as has been apparent from the speeches that we have heard this afternoon.
A number of solutions are proposed by all sides to deal with congestion in London. Road pricing is being considered, but our view is that, although we should not dismiss road pricing, if there must be a stick there should also be a carrot. That carrot must be proper public transport which is reliable, which turns up when you expect it and which is clean and not over-expensive.
The report of the firm of consultants, Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte, concludes that:
"London is, and can remain, a pre-eminent world city but its status is at risk, not because of any inherent and irredeemable disadvantages, but simply by default".
On the subject of planning the report says that:
"The key priority is for easier and safer movement around London; we give this a higher priority than improving either national or international transport links".
I find that extremely interesting. It goes on to state:
"London also needs better bus and light rail systems. These public transport improvements must be given secure funding",
and that takes me back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Ezra and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in his admirable opening speech as regards security of funding. The Minister may tell us that funding for London Underground has not diminished, but it is not secure. In one part of the year it is told that it will be allocated a certain amount of money to spend in the next five years and a few months later that sum is cut. Security of funding is almost as important as the level of funding itself.

951
The report states that it believes that:
"An environmental audit of London is needed and we believe priority attention should be given to air quality, noise levels…".
My attention was drawn to an article in yesterday's Evening Standard, the headline of which is:
"This smog can shorten the lives of Londoners".
The rzeport says:
"Londoners' lives are at risk because of toxic smog smothering the city.
"High levels of tiny dust particles are damaging their health and could be shortening their lives, it is claimed, especially during the recent heatwave.
"The alert comes as an unpublished American report blames poisonous fumes from car exhausts and industry for increasing the death rate in cities by as much as 26 per cent".
That is in America, but the report goes on:
"worryingly, London has the same or higher pollution levels than six US cities in the I6-year study on the health effects of exhaust and chemical fumes".
Therefore, there is a serious problem in that regard not only in terms of inconvenience but also in terms of the physical health of the inhabitants of this capital city.
We have all said before and will continue to say that the answer to that is improved public transport. But what steps are the Government taking to improve public transport? No doubt the noble Earl will tell us that bus deregulation will be the great answer to the problem. Quite frankly, I do not believe that. Again, as has very sensibly been said, the present method of franchising has improved facilities on the buses in the City. I live in Pimlico when I am in London. The 24 bus route is now an excellent service which it was not before. That seems to me to be the better way forward; indeed, it is the way forward that we suggested when the bus deregulation Bill was before your Lordships' House many years ago and we talked about the possibility of compulsory tendering for buses rather than total deregulation. Now the Government seem to be wishing to go down the track of deregulation. I cannot for the life of me understand why. I do not understand why they have not learnt the lessons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which arose as a result of bus deregulation in Sheffield and in many other places. In my view, to deregulate totally brings all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.
One of the problems that we have referred to previously, and to which we shall refer again, is the lack of any strategic overview of transport in London. We know that the Director of Transport is looking after the red routes. But if he strays away from them, he has no control. I understand that even he is beginning to recognise his lack of ability as regards operating outside that'very narrow band of red routes. That was something we also raised many years ago.
There is no question that during the passage of the rail privatisation Bill, which will be before the House next week, one of the issues will be the possible loss of concessionary fares which is worrying people in the capital city. I know that Mr. Steven Norris, to his eternal credit, has put his job on the line by saying that he will resign if concessionary fares are discontinued.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there are reshuffles.
Lord Tordoff: Well, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, just said, and as I was about to suggest, no Minister will be in office for ever and,
952
whether he jumps or is pushed, we need a better assurance than that from the Government. We need an assurance on the Floor of the House from a government Minister. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has an opportunity this afternoon to give the assurance that such concessionary cards will be continued and legislated for in the future.
In a brief 10 minutes it is impossible to cover the whole spectrum of London transport. We have not discussed the airport situation, although the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, rightly referred to the City Airport. No one is more pleased than I that transport to that worthy venture is now much easier than it was originally. I wish it well, as I have done from the start. But we are now talking about an extra runway for London and a fifth terminal for Heathrow, without contemplating the impact that such developments will have on surface transport in our capital. The City Airport is a very useful way of alleviating those problems.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, had returned from her overseas trip earlier, I am sure that she would have joined in the debate on the subject of minicabs. Again, that has already been referred to this afternoon. I believe that the Government really need to sort out their ideas. Many people are most worried, especially women, about the dangers that they face in travelling in unlicensed minicabs.
One could continue across the whole wide range of London transport. However, there is not sufficient time to do so this afternoon, although we are running a little early. What is necessary is a strategic overview of London transport and traffic. We are not getting that from the Government; indeed, we have not had it from them. It is a crucial matter. If such problems are to be solved at some stage in the future, then it is crucial for the comfort and health not only of the great city of London in its widest sense but also of the individual people working in London that such matters are taken on board by the Government in the form of some sort of strategic overview.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have thanked my noble friend Lord Jay for having initiated the debate and for having made such a powerful case at the beginning. It has been an interesting debate, albeit a short one. As with most debates about transport, the contributions have given rise to innumerable issues which in turn have given rise to major criticisms of government transport policy. For example, I noted the slightly more muted criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans; but, nonetheless, they were criticisms. He posed some most important questions: questions about the use of cars and about other issues to which I hope the Minister will respond.
In opening the debate from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, observed that he was staggered by the lack of progress in resolving the massive transport problems of the capital. He wanted to know what the impact of deregulation would be. I should also like to know, as I am sure would the whole House. But I doubt whether the Minister would be

953
able to give us any real answer, at least not today. However, I hope that he will observe the precedents that have been taking place throughout the country. They are not wholly good; indeed, I think that even the Minister has conceded that point in previous speeches.
The problems affecting the capital today, such as traffic congestion and pollution which are choking the capital, the daily trials of Londoners and commuters (an experience from which Ministers are largely shielded) the overcrowding, the inadequacies of a public transport system—and that not through a lack of management expertise, but through chronic under-investment, a lack of strategy and a failure by the Government to pursue an integrated transport strategy—all indicate that the Government have failed lamentably to deal over the past 14 years with the major problems affecting the capital.
How all that contrasts with the position in other major capitals of Europe. There was the First World War song,
"Take me back to dear old Blighty, Put me on the train to London Town".
If today that train was on a Network SouthEast route, that soldier would be lucky to get on in any degree of comfort, lucky to avoid signal failures or some other technical reason for delay; and, indeed, lucky to arrive promptly or at all. Of course, he would have the Passenger's Charter. I do not wish to denigrate the idea of that charter. After all, it was a Labour idea, as was the Citizen's Charter. But what passengers would prefer is not compensation but an assurance that the problems to which your Lordships referred in earlier speeches will be dealt with; for example, they want clean trains, trains running on time and safely, clean and safe stations adequately staffed that do not represent a threat to the safety of passengers and proper provision for passengers with disabilities and, indeed, for women.
What we have had from the Government is an obsession with privatisation and deregulation, but no strategic planning to provide greater access to the public on public transport at lower environmental cost. There has been a pathetic failure to link land use and transport planning. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was right to emphasise the fact that a good public transport system is central to the health of London, to its environment, to its economy, to its social problems and also vital to tourism which is a pretty good money earner for the country. The fact is that public and private transport in the capital is in a shambles today. The cost of congestion in London is estimated by the CBI to be in excess of £10 billion a year. Yet our long-suffering commuters pay the highest fares in Europe and also pay a dreadfully high price in terms of inconvenience and delay.
Radical change is called for, but all we get from the Government is, at best, an ad hoc response: there is no vision, no strategy, no certainty that major projects like the Jubilee Line, Crossrail and the urgent modernisation of Network SouthEast or the
954
rehabilitation of the Northern Line will actually go ahead. What we are getting are statements saying that this or that is now on line. I shall come to that matter in a moment because such statements are far from being the reality.
The Government should he asking themselves what all this prevarication is costing the City and indeed our nation. The Secretary of State is a member of the Magic Circle. He is an illusionist of enormous skill and he has translated those powers to his position as Secretary of State. Unlike the man who manages to construct lovely patterns from bits of torn up paper, all we get from the Secretary of State, rather in the manner of the late Tommy Cooper, are the torn up bits of paper.
Let us take, for example, the Jubilee Line. One moment we have it and then it is gone. So with Crossrail, the Tunnel link, the west coast main line, and the Northern Line. There were bold announcements followed by qualifications about financing and whether joint ventures would be available and who the partners would be. Today we are none the wiser about those matters despite the fact that yesterday the Crossrail Bill received its Second Reading in another place. Yesterday the Minister for Transport in London said in that debate that the private sector wanted to see legislation in place and then it would consider investment. Can we be sure that whatever proportion is expected from the private sector will be forthcoming? Can we be sure that the Government will make their provision? Can we be sure that the crossrail route will ever be constructed? It would be enormously sad if Crossrail were not to go ahead. It was the idea, incidentally, of the late GLC but that has never of course been acknowledged by this Minister or by the Conservative Government.
Prevarication is costly—it is continuing—in terms of jobs on the railways and in the railway construction industries. It is also costly in terms of continuing congestion in London and in terms of deferred hopes for Londoners. We on these Benches support Crossrail and the Jubilee Line but a sense of urgency needs to be injected into these matters to relieve overcrowding and to reduce journey times right across the South East. These new routes are also critical as a stimulus to creating more economic activity in the country as a whole as well as in the capital. What is the Government's thinking as regards where the money is to come from? Are the Government prepared to underwrite the required capital if need be?
According to an article in the Independent of 22nd May, the Jubilee Line tube extension is facing the axe to counterbalance the Government's commitment to the £1.8 billion London Crossrail project. The article stated:
"Ministers told banks on Wednesday to remove a key clause in a private sector financing agreement which would oblige the Government to repay the banks' money if the line was not completed by 2000. A banking source said that if the clause were to be removed it would wreck the deal".
The article also stated:
"Mr. Portillo says other infrastructure projects represent better value".

955
What is the truth of all that? Is the article wholly misleading? What is the truth in particular about what the Minister had to say in that regard?
The Government fail to provide any coherent policy in relation to London Transport. I believe that what we need is a public transport system that must provide an attractive alternative to use of the car. We need a public transport system that is safe, clean, efficient, reliable, comfortable and is good to travel on and for workers to work in. We need an authority that is capable of and responsible for providing a strategic and integrated transport plan for the capital and that is capable of directing investment; promoting greater integration between rail, Underground and bus services and giving greater priority to cyclists and pedestrians, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned.
All new road and rail developments need to be made subject to stringent social, economic and environmental cost benefit analyses. Clearly private sector support must be maximised but it must not become, at best, a much delayed condition precedent for building schemes that may last decades or, at worst, an unfulfillable condition precedent altogether. We must build on the Passenger's Charter and we must build on the standards for service that London Transport and other transport bodies in London are seeking to provide. We must also maximise the use of Travel Cards and Network cards so as to offer an easier integrated journey when using rail, tube and bus services. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to that matter and we shall return to that point during debates on the railways legislation.
I noticed, incidentally, that the Minister for Transport in London, Mr. Norris, has been in the habit of giving a number of undertakings. He has given undertakings about Travelcards and other matters. He is a great giver of undertakings but the trouble is that this Government have become the great undertakers for London Transport altogether. We need to adopt a wide view as regards an integrated strategy for London. However, the Government have opted to deal with this matter in a piecemeal way which is absolutely shambolic.
I do not have time to talk about matters affecting roads. However, the situation as regards the private sector and roads is equally shambolic.
I shall now turn to a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Traffic pollution is choking the capital. That observation emerged from a report prepared recently by the Conservative controlled London Boroughs Association which built upon its previous report issued in 1990. The later report stated that the Government must stop permitting such high levels of air pollution in London and implement drastic measures. The report also stated:
"It is negligent for the Government not to take a stronger role than it is currently, when the health of London's residents and environment is at stake".
The association indicted the Government for failing to deal with the levels of toxic gases emerging from the over-use of motor cars and other vehicles in London. What is the Government's answer to those criticisms that come mainly from their own supporters?
956
I also wish to refer to Network SouthEast. I do not know whether many noble Lords watched the television programme about Network SouthEast. That programme illustrated the enormously difficult task that faces the management of Network SouthEast through a chronic lack of investment. That lack of investment has brought about the chaotic situation that so many commuters experience every day of their lives. That situation is not the fault of British Rail or of the people who work for British Rail. It is the fault of those who have operated a stop-go policy on investment in London Transport. That situation is not good enough.
My noble friend Lord Jay has already referred to the matter I am about to mention. At one time the Government made a pledge that they would provide substantially more investment than ultimately was the case. This stop-go policy on investment is acutely damaging not only to British Rail, London Transport and the Underground system, but also to the interests of London. The chairman of London Transport, Sir Wilfrid Newton, said on 8th March 1993:
"London needs vision and resolve to ensure its continuing success. London's future success as a world city demands further improvements to the fabric of its public transport. In today's circumstances this is a testing challenge for all concerned—but most of all for the Government".
In my submission the Government have failed to measure up to that challenge and have acted irresponsibly. There is no indication that the Government will measure up to the challenge in the future.
4.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, London is on any account one of the largest and most important cities in the world. Like all major world conurbations, London faces difficult and complex travel demands. The task of dealing with those demands is enormous and expensive. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for raising this important subject this afternoon. I welcome the opportunity it gives me to respond on behalf of the Government.
It was the recognition of the complexity and scale of the transport problems facing London that led the Government to create the new post of Minister for Transport in London following the last General Election. As far as I am aware, no other city in the UK has a full-time Minister devoted to improving a particular aspect of its affairs in this way.
Some of your Lordships, like the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Tordoff, would like to create a new tier of local government or a new transport agency, elected or unelected, to take over the activities of all the existing bodies in London. We do not agree with that but we do accept the need for improved co-ordination. My honourable friend the Minister for Transport in London is responsible for co-ordinating policies for all modes of transport in London. His role is to encourage the various organisations involved to pursue consistent policies and, where necessary, to address deficiencies in the market. The Minister is a member of the Cabinet sub-committee on London. He also chairs the Transport Working Group, which

957
brings together representatives of public and private sector transport operators, the business community and consumers, and provides an important forum for exchanging information and ideas.
A good example here is the initiative taken by the Minister for Transport in London to establish the River Thames Working Group, which is examining the scope for maximising the transport potential of the Thames for both passengers and freight. My noble friend Lord Mountevans will welcome that initiative. But the Government are certainly not seeking to impose a detailed strategic transport plan on London. On the contrary, we want to set the private sector free to play its role to the fullest possible extent and we want the travelling public to have as much choice as possible in deciding how they travel in London. Our objective is to develop a framework of policies within which others can implement their plans in response to the demands of people to travel or to move goods around London.
A great deal has been said this afternoon about the deficiencies of London's transport system. Unfavourable comparisons have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and, needless to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with the transport systems of other major European cities such as Paris. We hear a lot about how good the transport system of Paris is; indeed, I am the first to pay tribute to what has been achieved in Paris, but I think some of the comparisons that have been made are very selective. I could easily quote selectively to demonstrate London's superiority. It is, for instance, quicker from central London to Heathrow or Gatwick by public transport than from Charles de Gaulle to the centre of Paris. For all the hype about French planning, there is no direct rail link from Charles de Gaulle airport to the centre of Paris. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, was right; it is in the nature of the British character to dwell unduly on our shortcomings. The French, in stark contrast, are more concerned with advertising their achievements and future potential to the world.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl hut, having mentioned Paris, would he agree that Paris has already completed three cross-city lines, that it has a fourth under construction arid is planning a fifth, while the Government dilly and dally here?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was absolutely right. The noble Lord has the true character of the representative Briton. He is very keen on exposing all the shortcomings of this country. We hear it in every speech that he makes. Overall, London's transport system does not compare too badly by international standards. But the Government certainly accept that there are deficiencies which will need to be overcome to enable London to retain its position as a leading world city and as the premier European capital in the years ahead.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl, instead of rebuking the noble Lord, Lord Clinton Davis—which must be a great temptation and one which I can understand from his point of view—could answer the question that was asked. It seemed to me to be a perfectly valid question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am going to answer many of the points that your Lordships have put to me but, needless to say, because of time constraints I shall not be able to answer them all. We must never forget that London has to compete with cities like Paris to maintain its position as Europe's foremost financial and business centre. As all your Lordships are agreed, to be competitive we will need a transport system which can respond efficiently to changing patterns of demand and which—within the practical constraints—will be safe, cost-effective and will respect the environment. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was right to remind us that we are restricted by our existing infrastructure. Let us not forget that 12 per cent. of London is covered by roads whereas in Paris the percentage is 20; and that compares to a modern city like Milton Keynes, where 30 per cent. of the city is covered by roads. It is perhaps a pity that the burghers of London rebuilt the road system in 1667 on the old mediaeval plans and did not plan for the M.25. A key priority must therefore be to address the problem of congestion, and that means addressing both the quantity and quality of transport which will be available in the years ahead. It also needs the co-operation and good sense of all transport users and pedestrians. Although we are all fallible, I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will be only too keen to set a good example in this respect.
The Government's strategy has three main elements. First, we are improving the management of the road and rail networks in order to make more efficient use of the existing system. Secondly, we are injecting large sums of public money into investment projects, with the bulk of the resources targeted on modernising and expanding the Underground and surface rail networks. Thirdly, we are making greater use of private sector resources and management through the privatisation of British Rail and London Buses, the deregulation of bus services in London and the development of joint ventures to build and operate major new schemes like the Heathrow-Paddington Express, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and CrossRail. In terms of the road network, we are no longer planning major improvements to the radial routes within the M.25 which would attract more cars into central London. Our roads programme is geared to upgrading the North Circular Road to help to improve orbital movement, providing better access to Docklands and the rest of east London, and dealing with congestion black spots. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, welcomed the recent opening of the new Limehouse Link by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which completes the new road system giving quick access from central London to Docklands and London City Airport. Your Lordships may have seen from the press that passenger figures for London City Airport in the first

959
five months of 1993 are up 44 per cent. on 1992. The airport is expecting the launch of four new routes over the coming months, to Amsterdam, Belfast, Dublin and Frankfurt, bringing to 12 the number of destinations served. I am delighted that there is better road access.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn will welcome the fact that increasingly we are switching the emphasis to improving road traffic management in order to make more effective use of the existing network. The measures include the Red Route system, more effective on-street parking control, more priority for buses, the extension of integrated signal control, with greater emphasis on safety and traffic calming, together with provision for pedestrians and cyclists. Red Routes will benefit cyclists in a number of ways, including reducing accidents and complementing the strategic 1,000-mile network for London. The measures include cycle lanes, shared-use bus lanes, and signals and crossing points where established cycle routes intersect with a Red Route. However, as my noble friend Lord Colwyn will realise, inevitably most of the provision for cyclists must come from the local authorities who have responsibility for 96 per cent. of London roads. It is not just the department that has responsibility in this area. If indeed it was only the department that had responsibility there would be even louder complaints from the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Clinton-Davis.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans was right to say that a key requirement is effective enforcement of parking policies. The new system will start being phased in from next month and I am sure it will bring substantial rewards. Our transport management initiatives, in combination with limited road improvements, will go part of the way to dealing with the problem. But as prosperity returns we can expect renewed traffic growth and deteriorating traffic conditions overall. That is why we are investigating the possibility of measures such as congestion charging. We are engaged on a major research programme which will be completed towards the end of 1994.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, welcomed the fact that the main aim of congestion charging would be to reduce congestion; but that would not be an end in itself. We shall also have to look closely at the possible impact on London's economy, environment and quality of life. Irrespective of whether congestion charging is introduced, our aim is that Londoners should have a much improved public transport system, capable of responding efficiently to the extra demand and offering a good-quality, reliable alternative to the private car. This will require investment in the rail network—both overground and underground—and my noble friend Lord Colwyn will be interested to know that in London the ratio of spending of taxpayers' money is £3 on public transport to £1 on roads. That is in marked contrast to the remainder of the country where it is £1 on public transport and £1 on the roads.
Over the past few years the Department of Transport and the operators themselves have carried out a number of major studies to identify the key
960
worthwhile public transport schemes which will relieve congestion and support the economic development of London over the next decade or so. Most of those schemes have been mentioned in the debate. They include the modernisation of existing lines, such as the Central Line on the London Underground and the Kent Link and London Tilbury and Southend lines on Network SouthEast.
By replacing obsolete equipment, modernisation results in a more efficient, more reliable and more comfortable service. It also generally produces an increase in capacity through the use of modern signalling systems and more frequent and, in some cases, longer trains.
As well as upgrading the existing system, there are the plans to create new capacity. The 1992 Autumn Statement made it clear that funds were earmarked for the building of the Jubilee Line extension, provided that the promised private sector contribution was forthcoming. The negotiations with the administrators have taken longer than we had hoped. I cannot comment on them until they are concluded. The private sector, London Transport and the Government must be satisfied on the terms of what is a detailed and difficult agreement.
The Budget Statement in March included the announcement that the fast rail link between Heathrow and Paddington would go ahead as a joint venture between British Rail and BAA plc. It also reaffirmed the Government's commitment to securing the benefits which CrossRail will bring to London but suggested that the project might best proceed as a joint venture, an approach which has since been confirmed as the way forward. The CrossRail Bill received a Second Reading in another place yesterday, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, welcomed that.
We have also recently announced the Government's readiness to provide public sector support for a joint venture to build the proposed Channel Tunnel rail link to central London. Other proposed projects include Thameslink 2000, extensions to the East London line, and the Chelsea-Hackney line.
Our strategy depends crucially on major investments in rail schemes, and those are very expensive. Until the mid-1980s there had been a continuing decline in population and employment in London. It was a period of retrenchment in investment in public transport. There was no golden age under the GLC. There was then a huge expansion in demand for public transport. Travel on the London Underground was more than 40 per cent. higher in 1990 than it was in 1980, while travel on Network SouthEast was nearly 18 per cent. higher. That led to the ambitious investment plans to catch up with the increased demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I think surprisingly for him, asked only for more money to be thrown at the problem. I should have thought that he would have welcomed the fact that we also sought to improve the efficiency and quality of public transport services by setting British Rail and London Transport tight financial controls and agreed objectives. Investment

961
levels increased. Where new equipment has been introduced, the quality of the service has improved and capacity has been enhanced. More recently, the Citizen's Charter has given management a new impetus to raise the standards for passengers on all services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. I referred specifically to the problem of the investment in London Underground and to the debate which I initiated in July last year during which certain figures were mentioned which seemed encouraging. However, in the Autumn Statement those were cut by a third. That is what I expressed anxiety about.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall come to that point in the next few minutes. I have it ahead of me.
The recession has, of course, affected the revenue flowing into the operators reducing the funds they have available to carry out the investment themselves. Inevitably, that has led to calls for more support from the taxpayer, often by those who call equally loudly for Government adherence to spending targets.
I now turn to the crucial point. I understand the disappointment voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and backed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the Autumn Statement of 1992. It undoubtedly represents a scaling down of their aspirations, although investment is still on a firmly upward trend and much higher than in the 1970s and 1980s. Everyone was aware that this was a particularly tight year. Difficult decisions will doubtless have to be taken, but no more difficult than those being taken by other parts of the public sector and by hard-pressed private sector businesses. However, investment in public transport has been maintained at a high level. London Transport, for instance, expects to invest some £1.5 billion in its core business over the next three years. In real terms, this is about twice the average annual level of investment which London Transport achieved in the late 1970s, and early 1980s. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jay. This means that the £750 million modernisation of the Central Line is continuing and is well on course for completion in 1995. The Underground's train refurbishment programme is also continuing apace.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked the Government whether we would be prepared to underwrite the capital. In total, the Government are now putting the huge sum of around £2 billion of taxpayers' money into transport investment in London each year. That compares within an overall budget for the Department of Transport of around £7 billion.
I will excuse the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but the noble Lords, Lord Ezra, and Lord Jay, must surely agree that we have to recognise that there are limits to what we can expect the taxpayer to contribute. Higher expenditure often means higher taxation, and that will certainly not assist the recovery of London's economy. It is therefore essential that we tap the resources and expertise of the private sector as far as we can. The proposed privatisation of British
962
Rail and London Buses, together with the deregulation of London bus services, will give the private sector a much bigger role in the provision of transport services in London and make the service, with which my noble friend Lady Sharples is much happier, even better.
Existing British Rail services will be franchised to the private sector. The aim will be to give the private sector the fullest possible opportunity to manage and operate railway services, receiving grants where those are justified in return for meeting required levels of service and quality standards.
I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the privatisation and deregulation of London's buses will take account of the experience gained outside London. Operators will be free to operate services on a commercial basis, subject to meeting the necessary safety standards. This will allow the development of new and innovative services that meet the needs of passengers. Most services will be able to operate without the need for subsidy. Experience outside London has shown that 80 per cent. of bus routes operate without subsidy. But where a commercial operation would not be viable, a new London Bus Executive will be able to arrange for commercial operators to provide socially necessary services on a subsidised basis. We will also need to ensure that comprehensive information is available to passengers. Our proposals will also provide for the preservation of a London-wide concessionary fares scheme, the scope and funding of which will, as now, be a matter for the London boroughs.
I shall not touch upon Travelcard, because I should hate to pre-empt what I wish to say next week. I look forward to the debate on the Railways Bill and, having given it, of course, due consideration, to the speedy passing of that excellent measure through your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I can sum up our approach to transport in London. What we are seeking is a system that will help and support economic recovery and prosperity in London in the years to come. We want to set the market free wherever possible to serve the customer and to provide optimum choice. But we also recognise the need for an overall framework of policies within which the various players in the market can operate and make their plans. We face major challenges ahead. The public sector has an important role to play in meeting those challenges, but increasingly we must look to the private sector to help us in finding solutions. That is one area in which we are among the world's leaders.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I have one confession to make: my enthusiasm for bicycling is less intense than it was 70 years ago.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I find the Government's attitude on the issue extraordinary. The modest request which I made to the Minister was that he should restore the funding for London Underground's capital spending to the figure which the Government approved only 18 months ago. If I

963
understood his speech correctly on that point, the Government flatly refuse even to do that. That is extraordinary. Here is a modest improvement which would have been welcomed by everyone, but the Government turned it down flat. This is not the most popular Government we have known in recent times and here is something which would at least please some people. I am reminded of the ancient classical tag that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad. Perhaps that is the best comment on the Government's attitude on this issue today. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Health Service: Role of the Private Sector
5 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to call attention to the increased role of the private sector in the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my purpose this evening is to suggest that the NHS is under threat, that the growing role of the private sector in the health service is being driven by powerful political and ideological forces which must eventually undermine the fundamental principles on which that service has been built for the past 45 years.
My fear is that the Treasury's determination to cut public expenditure, combined with the opportunistic activities of private health care providers, will inexorably lead to a redefinition of what the health service is all about. A growth of private sector involvement in the financing and management of our hospitals, our GP surgeries and our community services must, I suggest, produce a mixed economy in health care where there is a tiered structure of provisions and little democratic accountability. No doubt when the noble Baroness speaks, she will deny that the basic tenets of the health service to provide universal health care free at the point of delivery are in danger. I am perfectly sure that she will be sincere in that denial. But my concern is that, pressurised by the Treasury and by their 1992 manifesto promise to ensure a year by year increase in the levels of real resources committed to the NHS, health Ministers are rushing to square the circle by attracting private money, without really considering what the long-term impact of commercialisation may be.
I should like to take a few minutes to remind your Lordships just how quickly the current enthusiasm for private financing in the health service has accelerated. Last month, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said in reply to a question from my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick that:
"this is not a new idea. We have been working with the private sector for … years".—[Ojficial Report, 13/5/93; col. 1365.]
But I would suggest that what is happening now is of a different order from anything we have seen before.
In the last Autumn Statement, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Treasury imprimatur to schemes to secure a greater level of private sector investment in public sector projects. On 21st April this
964
year, the specific rules which govern the use of private finance in the NHS were relaxed. Hospital trusts and health authorities can now authorise up to 10 million to contract privately funded and managed projects. The previous limit was £¼ million. At the same time, it was announced that one of the Department of Health junior Ministers in another place would be formally responsible for "private health and income generation in the NHS".
The political momentum has continued apace, with the Secretary of State for Health making a significant speech to the CBI on 26th May, entitled "Private Finance and the NHS". In it, she looked forward enthusiastically to private sector financing of community care; to expanding private sector involvement in local health clinics; and to privately owned and operated "recovery hotels" for people who had just had operations.
At the same time as the political machine is driving forward down this particular road, the ideological, intellectual right has stepped in to provide theoretical justification for what might otherwise be seen as a pragmatic exercise in the face of cuts. The honourable Member for Fareham in another place, who was previously the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, has just written an influential pamphlet, published by the Social Market Foundation. It develops the theme, "Opportunities for Private Funding in the NHS". He lists six different areas of action which include ambitious ideas: building and operating a medical unit, operating a complete hospital, providing full scale primary and community care.
In her CBI speech, the Secretary of State commended the pamphlet as "an important paper". The author has clearly provided Ministers with what I would describe as a glibly attractive case for radical change in the health service. The Secretary of State also said on the same occasion that,
"as a spending Minister when the Treasury opens a door, you move smartly through it".
I am sure that this is often true, but not when the open door leads into the trap of increasing privatisation in an essential public service.
My alarmed reaction to these rapid developments is not based on dogma but it is based on principle. As I said before, Ministers have said that there is nothing new, they are simply extending and making more flexible a useful practice. It is true that this practice has been going on since 1983 when some subsidiary services and support services, such as cleaning and catering in hospitals were, in the jargon, "market tested", and sometimes privately contracted out. Most of us have come, somewhat reluctantly, I have to say, to accept that arrangement. We have also accepted the important role of private nursing homes for the elderly used by the NHS. A strong case has been made for leasing some major items of medical equipment from the private sector. It may well be common sense for the NHS to raise credit in the money market if this can be appropriately accounted for and directly invested in the service.
None of those activities by themselves provides a threat to the underlying principles of the NHS. But if

965
private companies raise capital to build and develop health services for themselves there is a real danger that their priorities will be commercial, not concerned with providing equitably for the health needs of a population. If private companies build and run hospitals and health centres, they are private organisations whose performance and accountability may be difficult to question. We have already seen some examples of that in the recent past.
Perhaps we may examine briefly some possible scenarios which those developments could produce. It has been suggested that the public expenditure review may recommend that hotel charges are made for hospital stays and that there may be charges for visits to GPs' surgeries. So, if hospitals are to be like hotels, why not let an experienced hotel company run them? Let us say that Trust House Forte acquire the contract; soon they, together with the local NHS trust boards, are offering the kinds of attractive packages for which they are famous: winter breaks, for example, at the new Westminster and Chelsea Hotel —a luxury room with breakfast and dinner plus surgery on one's varicose veins.
Similarly, we hear that major retailers may be brought in to provide health service premises. One can see the attractions—a bright new health centre next door to the coffee shop in Tesco's car park, or just past the sweater counter at Marks and Spencer. But can we really believe that any of those extremely successful commercial companies will not be interested primarily in their profits and their market position rather than the comprehensive social priorities which guide the NHS today?
Who will use and be able to choose the commercially run services? Are they really going to be available to everyone at the point of need? I heard an interesting interview the other day with the Secretary of State for Transport discussing how road tolls for new motorways could be financed. He talked about a dual licence system in which motorists who wanted to use the motorways could pay a premium, others would be second-class drivers, driving on second-class roads. I really do not think that it is too fanciful to imagine an adaptation of that kind of arrangement developing in the health service. For example, one could buy a first-class voucher for a four star hospital room or a limited number of visits to the local GP's private clinic. Or, on the other hand, if one is poor or chronically sick, one would probably find oneself getting a progressively depressed, resource starved, exclusively public service. The lock-up surgeries which were so violently criticised in Sir Bernard Tomlinson's recent report on health care in London will, in that case, go on being a feature of inner city health care well into the next century.
General access to health care is bound to be reduced. History has shown time and again that whenever any kind of charges are introduced, whether for prescriptions, eye tests, or dentistry, demand—probably from those who are most in need—falls rapidly away.
My fears are not just about access but are also about accountability. We may, in a few years' time,
966
have privately organised health providers working with undemocratically selected independent NHS trusts. To whom will they be ultimately responsible? Where will the public accountability lie? Where are the national safeguards to protect financial probity and standards of service?
We have already seen some disturbing results of dubious entrepreneurship between health authorities and the private sector in the West Midlands and Wessex regional health authorities. Those have only now been exposed, years after they took place, by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. My worry is about what happens when independent local trusts are contracting services from commercial organisations, when no public funds are involved. Who will be the watchdogs then? Surely the NHS does not want to be exposed to the same kind of embarrassment and ridicule as has hit the Prison Service as a result of the activities of Group 4. But a privately run hospital or GP service must be the same in kind as a privately run prison or escort service. There is little scope for quality control or public accountability.
Ministers talk about increased private sector involvement as a way—perhaps the only way—of bringing new money into the health service. But before the Department of Health succumbs to Treasury pressure and Ministers accuse those in the Labour Party of being unrealistic in insisting that the NHS is funded from increased public sources, I hope that Ministers will look again at the UK's international record on health expenditure and compare our rather appalling figures with those of other countries, which, we are constantly told, have suffered the same recent economic misfortunes as ourselves. Incidentally, it is disturbing to see that in Answers to recent parliamentary Questions, both in this House and in another place, Ministers have said that comparative data is not available. International comparisons are indeed published. Given all the caveats about comparative statistics, they make alarming reading. The Compendium of Health Statistics published by the Office of Health Economics states:
"Health care expenditure in the UK remains one of the smallest among industrialised countries both in relation to population and to national wealth … allowing for currency fluctuations the UK figure of £582 per person suggests British spending is i below the EC average".
It is also worth looking at the figures of our European neighbours, both in terms of the totals of expenditure and the breakdown between public and private funding. In this country, if we accept that 6 per cent. of GNP goes on health care, the public contribution to that is 87 per cent. In Belgium, 7.2 per cent. goes on health care, 89 per cent. from the public sector; in the Netherlands 8.3 per cent. of GNP goes on health care, 73 per cent. from the public sector; and in Sweden 8.8 per cent. of GNP goes on health care, 90 per cent. of it from the public sector.
The question that we have to address is how much as a nation we can afford to spend on health care and whether we are willing to spend it. There can and should be ways of devising an increase in public funds for health. Handing over key functions to the private

967
sector is not acceptable to those of us who are committed to a free and comprehensive service. It is privatisation by the back door.
The public are beginning to recognise the situation. A poll published last weekend showed that 74 per cent. of those questioned were suspicious of the Government's intentions towards the NHS; and 62 per cent. believed that the Government planned to create a two-tier system in which the better off paid for treatment and only a safety net was provided for everyone else. Interestingly, 71 per cent. of those questioned would be prepared to pay higher taxes to maintain the NHS in its present form. Another recent MORI poll showed that public concern over the health service has jumped very sharply in the past month and is now regarded as an issue of concern for one-third of Conservative voters.
None of this is surprising, when the media are full of speculation about charges and changes, and conservative commentators say, as Charles Moore does, writing in the Spectator on 29th May:
"In 50 years or so people will look on the NHS rather as they look on council housing today—as a necessary, if badly run, piece of public benevolence which serves only a minority and from which it is best to be emancipated".
My Lords, that is precisely what I fear.
Surely health Ministers must listen to public anxieties, and must not respond to the siren voices of Right-Wing theorists or surrender to the sharpest blows of the spending axe, both of which demand an even greater reliance on the private sector. I urge the Government to think again about jeopardising the principles of the most trusted public service in the country. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it is six years since I last spoke in a debate on the health service, when I was still in the House of Commons. I am tempted to do so tonight only because of the mounting sense of incredulity that I have experienced as I have listened to the criticisms that have been voiced in recent months about the possibility of extending the contribution of the private sector to the National Health Service. Certainly all my fears were reinforced by the speech that I have just heard. They were reinforced, not in the sense that the noble Baroness intended—namely, to make me think that the health service was at risk—but in that there is a great deal of thoughtless nonsense being talked on this subject.
During my time as Secretary of State for Wales with responsibility for the health service in Wales, there was a lot of talk about cuts. Between 1979 and 1987 the amount of money spent on the health service in Wales increased by about one-third. By the time I left the department (in 1987) we had more doctors, nurses and professional employees than ever before. There were well over 4,000 more nurses. They were being paid 30 per cent. more, after allowing for inflation, and we were treating something like 24 per cent. more patients. During the same period we carried out the most massive programme of capital building in the history of the health service. Spending in Wales over half a billion pounds, we completed five general hospitals in those years and started one, as
968
well as a number of smaller hospitals and specialist services. But despite those substantial increases in expenditure, we never had enough. I found, as indeed, Aneurin Bevan had found within months of setting up the National Health Service, that demand always exceeds supply. The extraordinary advances in medical science help to ensure that that is so. When I took up my responsibilities, hip replacements (to take just one example) were comparatively rare. By the time that I left, very large numbers of those operations were being carried out.
During the early 1980s—I suppose at a time when the noble Baroness suggested we were taking rash steps towards privatisation by contracting out cleaning services—I decided to go rather further. I was engaged on providing what I believe today to be probably the most comprehensive service of renal dialysis anywhere in Europe. One of the things we did was to decide to market test the provision of subsidiary renal dialysis units. The first two National Health Service hospitals that we market tested were in Carmarthen and Bangor. We of course allowed those hospitals to tender themselves, but we tested them in the open market. As a result of that competitive tendering exercise we appointed two international companies to provide the service for us. One I recall was American. I cannot remember where the other one came from. They were both major companies, providing similar services elsewhere.
As regards the patients, they probably never knew. The unit was contained inside the National Health Service hospital. It was not identified in any way as being a private sector provision. But the service was quite outstandingly good. It met all our hopes and aspirations. I asked myself the question early on: how was it that a private sector company charged, as the noble Baroness reminded us, with the job of making profits for its shareholders, could provide a more cost effective and efficient service inside a hospital than could the local health authority?
As I was going round that renal dialysis unit in Carmarthen, I asked the nurse. She said, "I'll give you just one example. It's the way you do things. The business of renal dialysis depends crucially on a piece of plastic in the apparatus. It does the filtering job. In a normal national health hospital it would be used once and thrown away. We have found that we can use those items 12 times and what is more, for probably the third, fourth, fifth and sixth times, you actually get a better performance than you did the first time you used it because you've got rid of the newness and the effects of the plastic in the apparatus. We've simply tested to optimise the effective use of that one piece of equipment." They are not very expensive but a very large number of them were being used. That is just one example of the way in which a private sector operator sets about running a service and does it comprehensively and efficiently.
Encouraged by those experiments I decided that we should go further. I remember telling the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, Norman Fowler, that we had been successful and hoped that we would press on aggressively down that road. Against that background, to be told that we are

969
going too fast when it has taken six years to jump the limit from ¼£ million a project to £10 million seems to me to be a rather remarkable statement. I believe that we are going much too slowly. We ought to have been doing much more.
Let me take another example. I remember that we looked at a problem that we had in providing for cardiac operations in North Wales. We were about to construct a major cardiac unit in the hospital in Cardiff. Given the rural and scattered population of North Wales, it did not make sense to provide the same facility in a hospital in the north of the country. So we sent some of our cardiac patients to private sector hospitals which provided that service within the locality and they did the job excellently. That was a sensible and proper use of resources. So we made that start. We did not go rushing down that route for ideological reasons. We asked the private sector to tender for a comprehensive cardiac service in Cardiff and we rejected the proposals because we did not think that they met our standards.
I speak now in this debate with the wider experience of working for various organisations in both the public and the private sector. I am chairman of the National Rivers Authority. In that authority we are enthusiastically going down the road of market testing and going out to seek competitive tenders for the various operations that we conduct. We are not doing it because we are forced by the Government to do it. We already contract out a large number of our operations and we find that in many cases we can obtain a more efficient and cost-effective service if we go down that route.
I shall give another example. I am a director of Associated British Ports which used to be a public sector organisation. It used to employ 12,000 or 13,000 people in the docks. It now operates in rather more docks and employs 2,000 or 3,000 people. It subcontracts and contracts out most of the services provided in the docks. We do it because we believe that we obtain a more efficient service. We do not tell ourselves that we are not able to decide on priorities or that we cannot control the business or audit it—that was the suggestion that was made by the noble Baroness who introduced the debate. We control it and audit it rather efficiently and effectively.
I remember going recently to the container wharves at the Port of Tilbury where my company has just taken a joint interest. We have only just taken it, so we have not set up the arrangements. I asked the dock manager how he found contracting out the engineering services. There is nothing more important than the engineering services of a dock because if the lock gates do not open or the pumps do not work, the port ceases to operate. I was told that it had taken a huge load off him as port manager. He said, "We have extremely tight contracts which give big rewards for successful management and impose heavy penalties if one does not get it right. I go away and sleep at night. I concentrate on the job that I should be doing, which is assessing the management priorities of my port."
I have yet another example. Even now in the studios and workshops of the television industry much
970
of the work that used to be done by the companies themselves is being privatized—in the private sector more and more companies now use that word; they talk about "privatising" particular operations because they get a most cost-effective service that way.
All my experience leads me to believe that that is a good route in order to obtain more resources and better value for money. The reality that we have to confront is that there will never be enough money to meet all the demands for health care. There will certainly never be enough money to meet all the demands that fall on government. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber earlier will have heard considerable demands made for more money to be spent on public transport in London. The sums talked about were in billions, not hundreds of millions. That goes right across the public service. It is not a problem that hits only Conservative governments. It has hit every Labour Government that ever existed too.
I believe that if we want to provide an efficient health service for our people we should go down that road; we should get in those extra resources; and we should benefit from the additional efficiency and cost-effectiveness that the arrangement will provide. I only wish that we would do it more aggressively and with greater enthusiasm than we have done over the past five or six years.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this important and timely topic. I hope to shed more light than heat upon it. First,un peu d'histoire. Over the years there has been a remarkable stability in central government expenditure on health as a percentage of GDP. In the period 1974 to 1979 under the Labour Government, it was on average just under 5 per cent. Under the Tory Government from 1980 to 1990 it was just over 5 per cent. Similarly, central government expenditure on health as a percentage of total government expenditure has varied remarkably little over the same period from 1974 to 1990. It was 12.75 per cent. in 1974 and 13.29 per cent in 1990, with a high point under the Conservatives of 14.45 per cent. in 1989. That blip was in the "loads o' money" boom period; otherwise the picture is again one of relative stability.
Turning to private health expenditure as a percentage of GDP, we have a different, but not dramatically different, picture. From 1973 to 1992 it rose gradually from 0.4 per cent. to an estimated 0.8 per cent. of GDP today. As a percentage of total health expenditure in the country it rose from 3.03 per cent. in 1973 to an estimated 6.85 per cent. in 1992. By either measure it has roughly doubled over the past 20 years but still remains a smallish percentage of the whole.
Therefore we have a fairly stable picture over a period of two decades giving us, in 1990, a total overall health expenditure—as the noble Baroness said—(public and private) of around 6 per cent. of GDP. That compares with 14 per cent. in the United States of America with 37 million citizens without cover—a problem that Mrs. Clinton is trying to address but

971
God knows with what prospects of success. With that comparison in mind we should give at least two cheers, and possibly, I suggest, two-and-a-half, for our achievements to date, even at 25 per cent. below the EC average.
It must be about 10 years ago—the noble Lord, Lord Rea, recalls this and may refer to it—when we debated in this House a report by the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust called Public/Private Mix for Health. It is a collection of essays by the leading health economists of the time, some of whom are still active. It is the only time that I can remember debating an entire book in your Lordships' House. I thought that I would refresh my memory of its contents and see what the main fears and concerns were a decade ago.
Cost containment, according to Professor Forsyth (one of the contributors) was a major preoccupation then as now—and against an even more harrowing background. By 1975 public authorities accounted for nearly 60 per cent. of GNP, and half of that went on the welfare state. Taxation did not keep pace with expenditure. Total state revenue rose from 42.7 per cent. in 1951 to 46.6 per cent. in 1975, but even so the PSBR had to rise from 2.2 per cent. in 1951 to 11.3 per cent. in 1975—an even higher figure than today—to accommodate expenditure.
That clearly could not go on, and it did not. In 1976 the IMF had to be called in and the Labour Government began the painful process of reducing public spending. After 1976 the target for real growth in the NHS was trimmed to 1.5 per cent. until 1982, when it was reduced to 0.5 per cent. by the Conservatives. But the out-turn, since that turn of the screw, has been consistently higher with an average of over 3 per cent. per year and a leap to 7 per cent. last year. Whatever the target, it is hard to cap health spending. The Red Book target of 1993–94 is only 0.6 per cent.—at least that is the figure I was given by the Library. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say whether or not it is correct. If so, it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
The debate in 1982 was somewhat different from today. The merits and demerits of insurance-based systems were under discussion. The attempt to exercise overall control of public and private sector beds through the Health Services Board had been dropped. There was a running argument as to whether the private sector should contribute to nurse and doctor training. It was recognised that the abolition of the private sector would infringe liberty, but it was thought that it should be regulated so as not to conflict with NHS aims. It was felt that it should be an additional resource rather than a shift from one sector to another. If it continued to grow, especially if encouraged to do so by tax concessions, it was thought that it should be made correspondingly more accountable. But the general feeling was that it should not be encouraged to expand too far. Rudolf Klein wrote,
"If the private sector continues to grow, the risk is that the overflow mechanism may turn into a waste-pipe; that the exit of the most articulate, politically resourceful customers of the state sector will drain away effective political support for it. This would suggest that there is a point at which the growth
972
of the private sector would threaten the whole balance of health care in Britain, tilting it away from the social equity model to the market model".
So in fact the argument was not really about a "mix", which was in the title of the collection of essays, but about a "balance". A 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. private sector share in total health expenditure was okay; anything more than that was a threat to the NHS.
I am sorry to go into so much history, but I felt that it was important as a background because I believe that the nature of the debate has changed since then. The private sector share has crept up to nearly 7 per cent. of all health expenditure—a little above Klein's ceiling but not a lot. The main change is the introduction of an internal market together with the purchaser-provider concept—probably the most original contribution to thinking on the public sector for the past 10 years. There is a move away from the polarisation between the social equity and market models towards a greater interpenetration of the two. The idea is to make the market work in the interests of social equity. Some noble Lords may, and evidently do, think that that is neither possible nor desirable. But I shall suggest otherwise.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the framework needs to be clear. The British electorate has voted repeatedly for the continuance of a tax-based system, free or largely free, at the point of use. No government have dared to move significantly from that position, and nor will they. There are economic advantages in maintaining the Government as a monopsony buyer. That brings a downward pressure to bear on costs and avoids both the American-style escalation and lack of cover.
Despite a new army of managers, administrative costs are much lower than in an insurance-based system. Of course we have national insurance but as we all know here—perhaps it is not so clear outside —that makes only a small contribution to the NHS. There could be a case for an earmarked health tax, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Owen, meaning that parties could go to the country with a specific pledge to add a penny to the health tax, to maintain the status quo, or reduce it and switch to private insurance. People could vote accordingly. There is some merit in that.
Yet even a change to a more transparent tax base would not change the basic parameters which I am sure will remain. Public finances in this country are in a state of near crisis, with the PSBR higher than anywhere other than Italy and Greece, and pushing up towards the level that brought in the IMF in 1976. The Treasury will look for savings. Cost containment will be paramount. That will be the pattern for the rest of the century and probably beyond. Therefore, if we want to preserve the many advantages of our system, which still has massive public support, we simply have to look at new types of delivery; we have no choice.
The Social Market Foundation, with which I am associated, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred, recently published a paper called The Opportunities for Private Funding in the NHS by David Willetts MP. That was followed by a seminar addressed by a colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady

973
Cumberlege, Mr. Tom Sackville, who started from the base of the private finance initiative in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, raising the level of expenditure below which trusts and HAs can make their own decisions about using private finance from £250,000 to £10 million, as the noble Baroness said.
Mr. Sackville also pledged, very significantly, that,
"The private sector capital input into joint ventures or contracted-out services will be additional to NHS allocations in every case".
He agreed,
"It would always be difficult to rival the public sector in its ability to spread risk",
but he went on to say that,
"The private sector often has a comparative advantage in managing risk".
I believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was saying. He gave the example of short-term contracts, with BUPA and others, to clear waiting lists and also longer contracts for long-stay accommodation.
I do not want to go into detail on the merits or otherwise of those various schemes. They are there as available policy options, as are all such ideas which emerge from the think tanks. I know that they will stick in the gullets of some people because of the introduction of a profit motive. That has been confirmed already this evening. I believe it needs a conceptual or philosophical debate, for which there is no time today. But into such a debate I would inject the following thoughts.
The charge of "privatisation", or "creeping" or "backdoor" privatisation—as the noble Baroness said —can be answered by saying that the public sector needs to decide what should be provided collectively, but does not have to run that provision itself. In last Sunday's Independent on Sunday Christopher Hulme wrote,
"A road built by a private contractor is not necessarily a private road".
Next, profit rewards a private supplier say 10 per cent. return on capital; public services are paid for out of taxes and Government borrowing. If government borrowing rises, the cost of borrowing may be 10 per cent. interest. There is no essential difference in economic terms between profit and interest. It is at least arguable that the private sector may deliver some —not necessarily all—services more cost-effectively and in a more user-friendly way.
"What about the 'ethos'?", people may cry. The public sector ethos working in the public interest must be better than the private sector's self-interest. That will be the argument. It is a fascinating question and requires more debate. But if the game between rent-seeking public servants and profit-seeking private providers is played on a level playing field, the result may not be a foregone conclusion. One should never forget Shaw's aphorism that every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.
I am being provocative, and deliberately so. I am aware that there are also political questions which I have not touched on. Further private involvement in the National Health Service will mean a decrease in union power. That is a political question and there are no doubt others. My contention this evening is simply
974
that unless we are prepared to confront these questions honestly and openly, we are not going to reach the best public-private mix for all our people.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, all noble Lords can understand why the Government are interested in encouraging more private sector involvement. First, there is the apparently laudable aim of shifting some of the burden from the taxpayer or the public sector borrowing requirement to the users of services at the time. As my noble friend said, at present some 87 per cent. (according to the OECD figures) of total health expenditure in this country is met from public funds. That may seem quite high but we are by no means the top of the league. Believe it or not, Luxembourg is at the top of the list, where 92 per cent. of all health expenditure comes from public funds. Among those with a lower proportion of public expenditure on health there are several countries where the public spend on health per head is actually higher than the total expenditure per head, both public and private, in this country, the United States being the leader, with only 42 per cent. of all expenditure on health care coming from public funds. Their expenditure from public funds on health per head works out, according to the 1989 figures given by the OECD, which are slightly out of date, at around 1,000 dollars per head out of a total spend of some 2,500 dollars per head. That compares with 900 dollars per head from all sources in this country. There is little doubt which country has the better health service. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock—I do not envy the First Lady her task.
Less often publicly stated, although we have covered this ground, is the opportunity which private expenditure on health provides for investors to make a profit. Clearly no firm or individual will run a service if there is nothing in it for them. We on this side of the House in principle oppose profits made from other people's misfortune. I am aware that innovation and enterprise can be spurred by the pursuit of personal gain, but there are equally effective and more honourable incentives in the search for better health care. The health service itself could have discovered that plastic sheets used for renal dialysis can be re-used. It did not necessarily require the private sector to come up with that one. A properly-run health service could do that too with the right incentives.
I thought it might be useful to subdivide the ways in which the private sector is becoming increasingly involved in the National Health Service and health care in the United Kingdom. In the first place there is health care provided independently of the NHS—private medicine as such—where the patient pays the provider directly or through a private insurance scheme. This sector, while increasing fairly rapidly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, pointed out, has been levelling off, if not falling, in the past year or two. The rise in the cost of private health schemes is now running at more than twice the increase in the cost of the National Health Service. This, coupled with the recession, is making people and firms think twice

975
before taking out private medical insurance. While it is held that an increasing independent private sector could save the National Health Service money, there are dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, quoted a passage from Professor Rudolf Klein that I had also picked out to illustrate my point. I should like to remind noble Lords of the last sentence:
"This would suggest that there is a point at which the growth of the private sector would threaten the whole balance of health care in Britain, tilting it away from the social equity model to the market model".
Read 10 years later, is that not rather prophetic, considering that the whole National Health Service is now being forced into a pseudo-market model?
Another way in which the private sector is being brought into the National Health Service is that mainly addressed by my noble friend's Motion—the purchase of private medical care by the National Health Service, using taxpayers' money. Two examples from my own practice, which I remind noble Lords is not a fund-holding practice, may illustrate this. There was a major push last year—and it is still being maintained to some extent—to reduce waiting lists of more than two years' duration. Several of my patients had relatively minor skin blemishes—one a tattoo—which they wanted removed by plastic surgery. They were offered, and accepted, surgery at a private clinic in Welbeck Street, at taxpayers' expense. This came out of the budget of the district health authority, which left less money for keeping wards open, many of which were closed during that same year.
Several other patients who were mentally unstable suffered breakdowns and required urgent admission under the Mental Health Act. There were no National Health Service beds available and they were admitted to a private mental hospital, Grovelands Priory Hospital, at a cost of some £3,000 per week. I gather from an article in the Observer a few months ago that other private psychiatric hospitals charge up to £5,000 a week—again, at taxpayers' expense. The number of National Health Service acute psychiatric beds had recently been reduced without regard to the higher than average needs of the locality—Camden—in which I practise. Grovelands Priory Hospital was still caring for National Health Service patients when I was last in contact with it recently. It is almost certain that looking after those patients in National Health Service hospitals would have cost less.
There is a third way in which the private sector can be involved—through the provision of capital. This has been discussed by more than one speaker. Trusts and health authorities can now borrow up to £10 million of finance from private sources. This will help to keep the PSBR down in the short run but the National Health Service still has to pay the interest. It is the taxpayer who pays it. Capital expenditure in the NHS should surely be regarded as different from its recurrent running costs. If the money were provided by public borrowing there would be more control of the assets. I believe that it will be found that, if private finance is used, private rather than public interest will tend to predominate, which is the point made by my noble friend.
976
In publishing The Health of the Nation the Government recognise that factors outside the Health Service play a major, if not the major, part in determining people's wellbeing and health. While the publication of that report was a major step forward by the Government, the document carefully avoided stating that a major determinant of health in the United Kingdom—or in any country for that matter —is the extent of deprivation experienced by sections of the population. Recent work has emphasised how important are early life experiences—particularly nutritional experiences, even in the womb—in the subsequent health of individuals. Those who are least well off or who come from the least well-off backgrounds, suffer the most serious illnesses in later adult life. Deprived communities and individuals need more medical care to compensate for that. They are the least able to pay for it. So the tilting of health care away from the social equity model to the market model is precisely what is not required to address the major public health problems of this country.
A final word about the market model. One of the problems of the internal market is that more administrators are required. The experience of everyone working in the National Health Service is that managers are now everywhere. There is now an army of administrators, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can attempt to tell us when she winds up how these costs have changed during the years since the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 has been implemented.
Perhaps I may quote to her a passage from the debate which we had 10 years ago. It is from the speech of her noble friend Lord Trefgarne, who was replying to the debate. He said:
"it does seem that our administrative costs compare favourably with those of other countries. It would not be sensible to move to any alternative system which, while theoretically meaning less Government involvement, in practice led to more bureaucracy and more involvement in the detailed regulation of health services".—[Official Report, 27/4/83; cols. 998–91
I sometimes wonder whether the noble Baroness is not rather sad that those words were not listened to.
5.52 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness for introducing this debate. I was not quite sure what the debate was going to be about. I had hoped that we would have something young, vigorous, enthusiastic and happy but, alas, we have just had the usual depressive, morbid propaganda. There is the undermining of the NHS. It is usually that the NHS is sinking fast. I have heard that for 30 years now but it seems to be still afloat. There was reference to creeping privatisation by the back door. Then, of course, there was the usual attack which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the army of administrators. I wish people really would stop attacking the civil servants and administrators. I do not believe that it is a fair thing to do considering that we spend less on administration than most other western countries as far as the health services are concerned.

977
Then, of course, we have had the usual international comparisons, which were highly selective. Why quote only Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden? It is simply that they happen to fit what is being said. But if one actually considers the proportion of GNP put in by most western governments it is about 5 per cent. It is about 5 per cent. in this country and 5 per cent. in the United States. It is that percentage in many of the Western countries, but the difference is how much the private side contributes. It is 1 per cent. in this country but 7 per cent. in the United States and considerably more than our 1 per cent. in most of the western European countries. So there is a case to be made out for having a greater contribution from the private side.
Then we have had the usual criticism that we are going to have a two-tier system. Having worked for the past 40 years in the NHS, and having seen the private side as well, when I hear about a two-tier system I always ask the question: which tier are they saying is the better tier? As someone who is working in the NHS, I have been confused over the years by the very differing signals coming from the Labour Party about charging patients and about private practice and privatisation. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, a year after the NHS was introduced, said in another place:
"We propose to make a charge of not more than Is. for each prescription under the National Health Service. The purpose is to reduce excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists, of which there is evidence which has for some time troubled my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland".
Here is the fascinating piece:
"The resultant saving will contribute about £10 million".
In fact, it went up to £30 million, which is about 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. of the total expenditure of the NHS in those days and is, of course, considerably more than we raise from prescriptions, and so on, at the moment. He went on to say:
"although this [saving] is not the primary purpose of the charge".
No, no, perish the thought!
I am confused about the influence which the Labour Party has had on private practice in this country. After all, it was the Labour Party which provided the greatest boost to private practice. I do not believe that that was their intention, but by trying to phase out the private pay-beds under the NHS, which amounted to 4,000 in 1974 and which was only 1 per cent. of the total number of beds, it galvanised the forces into a great increase in private practice. When some of the major trade unions took out block contracts to provide their members with private insurance that also had a tremendous impetus on the private side.
The other confusing signal was that the Secretary of State for Health herself was a private patient. So that confused the issue. However, to be fair, there was another Member of the other place who went into St. Thomas's Hospital at about the same time. Although she was an NHS patient, they very kindly put her into a separate room. Five minutes later she came out and told the sister that she must be "among the people"
978
out in the ward. So she went out into the ward. She had not been there more than 10 minutes when the people in the ward rose up in rebellion and told the sister that if that woman did not get back into the single room they were all walking out.
To continue with the subject of cash and finance, who was it who introduced cash limits for the first time into the hospital service of the National Health Service? It was the Secretary of State in those days, David Ennals. He went on to begin to move resources out of London. That was the Resource Allocation Working Party. I believe that he was right so to do. But why now that these movements continue are they being opposed by the Labour Party? Is not that rather strange?
In 1985 I had the privilege to chair a government working party on the supply of artificial legs and wheelchairs. That was an amazing state of affairs. The civil servants were working with the monopoly suppliers of artificial legs and wheelchairs to provide a service which can only be described as somewhat "cosy". There was no competition and the key was that there was no export of those items. That is always a very good indicator of what a service is like. Why did they not export? Well, they had no need to export because they had "cost-plus" contracts going on for 30 years, with no system for controlling the costs and the "plus" very much in excess of the agreed percentage. The moment that we introduced some competition and tendering so that we could increase the number of companies supplying artificial legs and wheelchairs —the moment that we brought in some competition and a bit of privatisation—the service began to improve.
There have been many pleas from many of the million people who work in the National Health Service that petty party politics should be taken out of the health service. They are not saying for one moment that they do not want to remain accountable to Parliament. No, but they do want the propaganda to stop. The classic example was "Jennifer's ear" in the last election when prominent politicians appeared with a little girl who was said to have a pain in the ear. That was claimed to be the fault of the Government because she was on a long waiting list, waiting to have grommets put in. Of course, the British people knew that there was something wrong with that because the British people know that the treatment for a child with a painful ear is not to have grommets put in but to have antibiotics to treat the infection. There is no waiting list for antibiotics, and the treatment can be given today. That sort of irritating propaganda really ought to stop.
I should like to make a strong plea that we take such propaganda out of the health service. After all, 7 million people are being treated in hospital and most of them are very pleased with the results. They simply do not believe the propaganda because it does not accord with their own experience. My plea that the propaganda should stop is made because the folks who are worried by it are elderly, defenceless people who, by and large, may not vote at all, but they sit at home listening to the radio and television and hearing all these dreadful stories about how terrible the health

979
service is becoming, and they are becoming frightened. My plea is: please stop grinding the heel into the faces of those defenceless people.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, plans for bringing private finance into the NHS have been discussed for many years and, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to whom I am very grateful for the initiation of the debate this afternoon, the Treasury has changed direction since the 1992 Autumn Statement and is now keen to encourage joint ventures with the private sector.
The current crisis in health care is faced by the NHS and by other healthcare systems throughout the world. It is a crisis caused by the common problems of rising population levels in a world threatened socially, economically, politically and environmentally. In Britain, as in other Western countries, the problem is specifically one of a mounting population of elderly, rather than the baby boom of the third world—but the effect is much the same. An increasing number of people are suffering ill health.
As I have said many times in this House, the solution is not necessarily one of throwing more money at the problem. An increase in funding usually means spending more on the same. But that is precisely the formula which is not working. There is a need for a more radical rethink—a rethink which I believe the Government's reforms of the NHS do start to address.
The real solution to the problem—the long-term solution —is, as any good doctor knows, to treat causes, not symptoms—that is, to practise prevention before intervention. That is absolutely routine in my own profession—that of dentistry. We have been practising prevention for many years and have been very effective in bringing down levels of dental disease throughout the country. Some 25 years ago, no fewer than 41 per cent. of adults between the ages of 45 and 54 in the UK had lost all their teeth. Today the equivalent figure has fallen to around 11 per cent. and is set to fall even further. Not only is this a reflection of the hard work of the dental profession—a record we can justifiably be proud of—but it is also evidence of the increasing demands and needs of patients. Dental science has progressed to the extent that it is no longer inevitable that we all end up with a full set of artificial teeth. However, the high quality technical work does often require expensive materials which are individually crafted for each individual patient. There are high labour costs.
While there would be widespread acclamation for the state if it were able to cover every individual for any and every item of health care, we know that this is impossible, involving funding beyond acceptable Treasury limits. We must seek to preserve current levels of expenditure on the NHS, but look to other methods for raising the extra resources. The British Dental Association has provided a responsible lead in this regard. In its response to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, which outlines the options for altering the system of remuneration for dentists working within the NHS, it has proposed that for all
980
adults and children, the examination and diagnosis should be entirely free—and surely this right if we wish to encourage regular attendance—and for those adults who are not currently exempt from charges, the cost of treatment would be a matter for the dentist and patient to agree.
In a speech to the General Dental Council on llth May, the Secretary of State stressed her commitment to a
"high quality dental service, one which is effective on both cost and clinical grounds",
but no mention was made of that dental service being, or remaining within the NHS. I am looking forward to the publication either today or tomorrow of the Select Committee report on dental services.
Intervention is what modern western medicine is mostly all about. It is better described as "emergency" medicine. Almost by definition that means hi-tech, drug-based medicine —in other words, high-cost medicine. It is the perception which lies behind the criticism of the National Health Service or—as more accurately described the "National Sickness Service". A public service genuinely seeking to promote and maintain optimum health among its citizens—a genuine National Health Service—would espouse prevention as a first principle.
Prevention is largely a matter of public, and to some extent also professional, education over questions such as the link between food and health, exercise and health, relaxation and health, stress-management and health and the environment and health—questions, in other words, largely of diet and lifestyle. It is also a matter of teaching self-responsibility. People should be encouraged, through comprehensive and accurate information, to take responsibility for their own health, to understand a wide range of choices in health care, to be given access to those choices and to be shown how to take advantage of them.
This, I venture to suggest, is precisely what that element of the private sector which interests me as well as dentistry—the field of alternative and complementary medicine—is strongest on, and why it has so much to offer. Its growing appeal to more and more people suggests something important, something which no policy-maker should ignore: that a public national health service—the emphasis being on the positive promotion of health as opposed to sickness —should distinguish between health and medicine. It teaches that health is not synonymous with medicine, nor medicine with health. A genuine NHS should distance itself from medicine to some extent and instead adopt aspects of social and education policy. It may be the role of a genuine NHS, for example, to show people how to manage on less funding and still be healthy and happy.
Clearly there is public spending implied here, but my belief is that the savings as a result of such a policy would more than offset the cost. The amount of savings to the Exchequer are only possible to guess at this stage, but some estimates have put them at billions. In particular, there is likely to be a huge reduction in the massively high level of spending on drugs, many of them causing more harm than good.

981
Undervalued alternatives like EDTA chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease, which I have written to many of your Lordships about recently, would also save huge amounts. There are other examples that I could quote. That element of the private sector, at least, is not about making money, but rather making people well. It is about low-cost, low-profile health care. That is the only sensible option, probably the only realistic option, left in the world into which we seem to have already moved.
In conclusion, I remind noble Lords of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's words at the 1991 Conservative Party conference:
"There will be no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, nor in part, nor as a whole, not today, not tomorrow, not ever while I am Prime Minister".
I have difficulty in associating his statement with the changes in dentistry, but I shall look forward to hearing my noble friend's comments.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Jay for giving your Lordships the opportunity to debate this subject. I noticed that the first speaker from the Conservative Benches did not afford the usual courtesies to the mover of the Motion. I hope that that was done by mistake and not deliberately. If he did that deliberately, he would be better served if he started to understand the courtesies of the House.
However the noble Lord gave us the benefit of his experience as chairman of a highly paid quango. He told us of the benefits of privatisation and how it could save money. Would he have put forward that argument if he was now Secretary of State for Defence? The maintenance of the engines of our Phantom strike force was contracted out by the Government against the wishes of the defence chiefs. That has resulted in a substantial part of the RAF's top strike force being grounded. The people doing the maintenance work on the engines were not just inadequate, they were so damned awful that they damaged the engines. That will mean that taxpayers will have to find a substantial sum of money to correct that damage. The contracting out was the result of political ideology. Privatisation is making this country's defence a gamble dependent upon price and political philosophy. I suspect that the Government are far too hooked on privatisation. They would do well to look a little more at the merits of each case.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who spoke for about eight minutes. He made a political speech. He even went back 40 years and quoted Clem Attlee. I do not know what that has to do with the situation today. He then tried to advise everyone else not to become political. It may be his privilege as a distinguished doctor to give out such advice.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am not giving way. I am sorry. We do not give way in these debates. The noble Lord got one thing wrong. He castigated, in
982
his absence, my noble friend, Lord Ennals, for being the first man to start moving resources out of London. I believe that the noble Lord said that.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I may make it clear that I was not criticising the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I was saying that he did the right thing and that I was surprised that he now criticises the Government for continuing what he started.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my memory of what took place is different. The first Secretary of State after the Conservatives won the 1979 election was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I seem to remember that he was taken to court for breaking the law by cutting resources in London. I believe that my explanation of what took place is more accurate. However, we are not discussing that matter.
Two Members of your Lordships' House have mentioned Mr. Willetts. We do not usually mention the names of Members of another place in your Lordships' House. However, one cannot get away from naming David Willetts MP because he is the architect of what is now happening. He produced a document. So I took the trouble to see what qualifications and credentials he has which enable him to pose as an expert on the privatisation of the NHS. He is the Member of Parliament for Havant. He served on the Social Security Select Committee. From 1978 to 1984 he was an official at the Treasury. From 1984 to 1986 he served as a member of the Prime Minister's Downing Street Policy Unit. He was also political adviser to Mr. Nigel Lawson, as he then was, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that when he was doing all that he had two little sweeteners going because the Government had placed him on two quangos. He was a member of a family practitioners' committee and also a member of the local district health authority. He was not doing too badly.
I do not know whether the Government placed Mr. Willetts on those committees as a Trojan horse to see what was going on. I understand that he is also listed as a consultant to a private health group. I have Hansard of another place dated 26th January this year. Mr. Willetts made a powerful speech on the NHS, but he forgot to mention that he had a pecuniary interest in what was being discussed. While it is not a hanging offence in another place, the normal courtesy is—although the interest is registered—to declare the interest openly when one speaks on a subject. Everyone then knows about it. His judgement may be found to be lacking on one or two things.
I happened to be in another place today when Mr. Norman Lamont made his statement. It was more of a factual than a political statement. There was a great ring of truth in what he said. We have had two debates in your Lordships' House in the past 12 months or so when another former distinguished Cabinet Minister, who I understand is not too well at the moment (the noble Lord, Lord Joseph) made a similar statement. He said that the country was in a mess at the time because, "We got it wrong". He meant that his own

983
Government had got it wrong at the time. Norman Lamont said the same thing today from the Back Benches in another place.
Mr. Willetts was one of the advisers who advised the Government to go down the road that they have gone down. Does he have any credibility or qualifications which enable him to tell us what is best for the health service? I say he has none at all.
There are some interesting points from a report produced by Mr. Willetts. He gives some of the reasons for privatisation. He states:
"Many of the efficiency gains from bringing in private money and management come from escaping traditional NHS labour practices. Many of the firms involved would not wish to negotiate with NHS unions, nor accept conventional job demarcations.
"The political sensitivity surrounding private provision is much reduced if it is manifestly supplying an extra new facility".
There are some highly paid people employed by the NHS. Thousands of people at the lowest end of the wage scale in this country are employed in the NHS, and those are the people who are Mr. Willetts' target.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, mentioned the uprating to £10 million of the sums health authorities are able to negotiate without going to the Treasury for approval. When I asked my Question a few weeks ago I was not opposed to that. The Minister will remember that in my supplementary question I was concerned about public accountability.
An article on the front page of yesterday's Financial Times calls the NHS to account and highlights two cases which I raised in this Chamber. One is the scandal of the £63 million which went west in Wessex in deals between the regional health authority and the private sector. Mr. Willetts' constituency is right in the centre of the Wessex region. He has never said a word about the matter. He is not worried by the fact that £63 million has gone down the drain and it has been necessary to close beds, reduce operations and reduce other activities of the National Health Service in that region as a result. Therefore, where do we stand in relation to this question of looking after the public purse?
If the Government continue to go down the road of involving more private investment, so be it, if it is genuine and it works. However, if there is no control over those sums of money as mentioned in the Financial Times yesterday, there will be a bonanza for fiddling. It should not be thought for one moment that the private sector is full of guardian angels and that it epitomises honesty. It is not. Noble Lords are probably aware that the Chief Executive of the National Health Service, Duncan Nichol, has asked the Audit Commission to investigate fraud in the National Health Service on the basis of what was uncovered in the West Midlands and in Wessex and is now emerging elsewhere. If it is known to be happening and the facts are now emerging the problem will be enormous.
When my colleague asked the Minister whether she could guarantee that there would be no more scandals like those in the Wessex and West Midlands regions, she had to say that she could not. She does not know. I know. Some of them are on the way. We know about thern already. It is the biggest scandal concerning
984
waste in the operation of public finance by fiddlers, and in some cases deliberate lawbreakers, that we have seen in this country for a long time. It is a shame if Members of the Government are prepared to stand back and say that it is happening in the private sector and they can do nothing about it. If those people were in local government they would have been surcharged and brought before the courts.
I ask the Minister whether in any future measures involving private sector investment the Government can include penal clauses so that if people are found to be breaking the law deliberately, even if they are favoured sons of the government party who have been made chairmen, they will be subject to the processes of the law. No appointed person should be exempt, and some appointees are involved.
Having said that, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for introducing the subject. I have to tell the House that the question of computer fraud which I mentioned will not go away because next month the Public Accounts Committee will publish its recommendations as to what should be done about what has happened.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, one of the good things about debates in your Lordships' House on subjects of this nature is that we can usually rise to a level of debate which is not found in another place. Like other speakers I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the subject so that we can debate it in the House today.
However, speeches like the one I have just heard give credence to the idea that there is no thinking about the health service on the Opposition Benches and that the Opposition have to put forward speakers who bring the debate to a political level. That is not helpful or constructive.
When she opened the debate so ably and usefully, the noble Baroness said that she hoped that the subject would be discussed without ideology or some of the hifalutin ideas which we are led to believe our political masters regard as important. She mentioned a report produced by a Right-Wing organisation—whose name I forget—which searches for a justification for privatisation or private sector involvement in the health service. I do not know whether there is any need for justification other than the pragmatism which the noble Baroness mentioned. I have no personal feelings about what my noble friend Lord McColl called creeping privatisation when he discussed the propaganda which surrounds the subject.
I believe that we need only two underlying principles when discussing the subject: quality of care and cost-effective treatment. I believe that private sector involvement in the health service can bring both. There are enormous benefits to be had from private expertise, management and quality of care.
There are huge benefits to be gained from the injection of private capital into the health service. Even after the raising of the limit of the amount which may be spent before Treasury permission must be sought to £10 million, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that is still peanuts, relatively

985
speaking. The most important asset in health care is the building. Where can one find a building now for a quarter of a million pounds? The cost of the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital has been mentioned. I cannot remember the exact figure, but we are talking of millions of pounds. When starting out on providing proper health care, £10 million is still small fry. I should like to see the amount increased still further, even if we were to go one step at a time.
If I have any qualification to speak in today's debate it is that I have been involved in a relationship between a health authority and a private company. That was not in the same way as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, but on the other side as a director of a private company which entered into a contractual arrangement with a health authority in the Midlands. That was an interesting experience. I am no longer involved, having been concerned only with the start-up period.
It was fascinating. The object of the exercise was to provide a 24-bed in-patient facility for the care of those suffering from drug and alcohol problems, which is a subject in which I have an interest. We started by offering a partnership deal to the health authority, in the same way as two doctors in a practice. We were told that that was not acceptable and that it had to be a share deal. We said that that was fine and we would have a share deal. We even offered the health authority a majority shareholding. That was fine. Then two weeks later the health authority came back and said that it could not do that either.
After 18 months of negotiation the health authority asked whether it could have partnership deal. We said that that was what we had offered 18 months ago, but we were happy to go along with it. Finally, amid great rejoicing, we signed a partnership deal with the health authority. Two weeks later the health authority rang us up and said that it had made a mistake and had been told by London that that was illegal and the health authority was not allowed to sign partnership deals. We said that it might not be legal for the health authority but it was legal for us to do so. We said that if the health authority liked to renegotiate the deal we should be delighted, and would it like the share deal we had suggested after we had offered the partnership which the health authority had originally turned down.
At the end of the day we succeeded in making a deal. We bought, built and opened a 24-bed facility, 15 per cent. under budget and within six months from the day of purchase to the day of opening. The health authority had not managed to achieve that before. The facility was popular, even though the local clinicians were not very keen because they saw us as being in competition. They said that the facility was not necessary because very few people attended what used to be called the "drunk tank" at the local general hospital and there was no great call for the service. We were full in three weeks and the facility has remained full ever since. That may have had something to do with the fact that we provided an infinitely better level of care at £169 a day whereas the health authority had
986
provided a dreadful Victorian level of care at £220 a day.
The health authority contracted for eight out of 24 beds, which cost it about £400,000 per year. That is quite a lot of money but the authority was our partner and owned half of the facility. Therefore, it received half of the profit, which was £400,000 per year. In other words, the authority had its beds for free. I believe that that is quite a good deal. The patients thought it was quite a good deal and the parents, relatives, children and employers of the patients thought it was quite a good deal, as did the neighbouring health authorities. They queued up to buy beds from us.
There are benefits to be had. However, I am concerned about one aspect which the noble Baroness mentioned; that is, the ability of health authorities to monitor such projects. My experience of the health authority in the Midlands was that it had no ability to monitor. It was known what was in the contract because that was in black and white but when the officials of the authority came in, they had no ability to see whether or not they were getting what they were paying for. We had to say to them, "You paid for this", and show it to them. We discovered that the clinicians who were purchasing and responsible for managing existing facilities within the health authority were not qualified to do that. That is a cause for concern.
We discovered also that the managers who were running the health authority—and they had a budget of £180 million which is not a small budget by any standards—had no ability to manage even our small affairs. Their ability was zero in that regard. They were late for meetings and never had the paperwork together.
I tell your Lordships a fascinating story about that. Originally we decided to purchase the building together and three weeks before we purchased it the officials rang us and said, "Listen, we have spent under budget this year. We should be most grateful if you could let us buy the building. In that way, we could hide some of the money". We told them that if that is what they wanted to do, they should go ahead and do it. In many ways that was good because it meant that they continued to own the building. We asked the officials whether they would like to use their lawyers or our lawyers. They asked to use our lawyers because they said that they did not retain lawyers.
We asked our lawyers to take on the work. They rang us up and said, "Are we buying the building on behalf of the health authority?" We told them that they were. They then asked us to guarantee payment because on the last occasion that they had been retained by the health authority, it had not paid the bill. That is not satisfactory but that is the way in which the authority conducted its business. We taught it that that was not a good way in which to do business. It would be extremely beneficial for health authorities to learn that lesson.
There are huge problems as regards forming contractual relationships between private limited companies, which are governed by the Companies Act and the rules of the Inland Revenue, and an

987
organisation which has never heard of the Companies Act, and not only has never met the Inland Revenue but also does not know how to read a balance sheet. Therefore, forming a marriage between those organisations is problematical. That is an area in which the Government could do some work.
My honourable friend Mr. Sackville outlined how he would like the Government to proceed, but I suggest that the health authorities need much more practical experience than the Government are planning to give. They need assistance as to what kind of deals should be done and how the contracts should be written, monitored and audited. I believe that the Department of Health should provide a small team to visit health authorities and teach the finance departments what they should look for and what kind of contractual arrangements they should have in mind. That would be extremely constructive.
We need to think about levels of profitability. It is unacceptable that private contractors should make ludicrous profits from their relationships with a health authority. We need to sit down in advance to consider what is an acceptable level of profit. When we did our deal in Nottingham I visited the Department of Health and I said, "I think this is what it will cost. This is the kind of deal that is envisaged. What do you think?" The department thought about it and wrote back to me saying that it thought that a 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. profit on turnover is acceptable. We then geared the project to that figure. We said that we would look at it again after a year and if we thought it was unacceptable we would change it. When starting out on such projects, there is a need to be open. One of the nice things about doing a deal with the health authority is that however incompetent it is, it will not rip you off. It is extremely pleasant for anybody operating in industry today to know that.
I believe that these ideas are good and could be developed. I believe that the Department of Health needs to look at removing the largest capital feature of the relationship—buildings—from the equation. I see no reason that health authorities could not lease or let their existing buildings to private providers. I do not know whether or not it would be a repairing lease; that is for them to work out. However, I believe that that would be a good idea because it is difficult for a company to say that it would like to do a deal with a health authority but it must spend £10 million to provide the building when it does not know whether or not there will be any business at the end of it. Therefore, there is no reason that health authorities should not allow private operators to operate within their existing buildings. I believe that removing the property side of the deal from the relationship would be helpful but, again, that is an area for negotiation.
The other area which needs to be looked at is the resistance of clinicians. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, mentioned working practices in his speech. We found that most of the employees who came from the health service to work for us had no concept of what work was about. At 5.30 they went home whether or not there was a patient to process; that was unacceptable. The chief nurse whom we employed came with a list of
988
qualifications as long as your arm but lasted for only five minutes. She was not prepared for the rigours of the real commercial world. That was very sad.
The highest level of resistance we met was from a local clinician who fought us tooth and nail. The reason was that merely by opening our doors and welcoming in patients, we showed up the appalling quality of service which he provided. I have been aware of that feature of health service life for some time in that particular area of operation.
I believe that increased private sector involvement, if it is very carefully monitored and audited, must be good. We should do all that we can to encourage it. However, progress needs to be made slowly, although not slowly in financial terms. It needs to be watched much more carefully by the Department of Health. If the department expects health authorities to act in a more commercial manner—and it should expect that —then it too must learn to act in a more commercial manner.
Having said that, apart from two exceptions—accident and emergency and mainstream medical care —I believe that every other specialist area would, should and can benefit from private expertise. I hope that the Government will continue to encourage that.
6.38 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I have along-standing engagement and I ask your Lordships' indulgence if it is necessary for me to leave before the end of the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for initiating the debate on such a topical and important subject. I find that I am developing a theme to which my noble friend Lord Mancroft has just spoken.
I too must declare an interest as a director of a company in the private health care sector. A brief history of that company may be relevant to the debate. The company was originally concerned primarily with nursing agencies, which survived the onslaught against them by the Labour Government in the 1970s. In 1977 the company was acquired by the National Enterprise Board and, largely because private health care was not the flavour of the month with the then government, it was disposed of two years later. Fortunately the company prospered in its new home and in due course it became a publicly listed company.
Let us contrast the environment in 1977 with the position today. Under the purchaser/provider regime, the private sector has the freedom and opportunity to compete on a level playing field and to provide good medical services at affordable prices. That one company's activities currently provide an interesting snapshot of how it now relates to the National Health Service in any number of ways but primarily in four areas. First, there are the company's nursing agencies, where 25 per cent. of the company's nurses and carers provide supplemental staffing to the health service across the whole of the UK.
Secondly, the company has contracts with a number of health authorities and helps them to cope with the large number of mentally ill patients who are in the community as a result of the Mental Health Acts. Treatment is provided in a specialist unit of a

989
hospital owned by the company which serves a wide geographic area in which it would be uneconomic for individual health authorities to establish their own units.
Thirdly, the company runs a National Health Service rehabilitation unit under contract. Here again, the workload spans several health authorities.
Lastly, there is a doctors' deputising service in centres of population in the Midlands and the North of England. It is probably true to say that, without the services of that and similar private-sector companies, the family general practitioner service in cities such as Liverpool and Manchester would not be able to function. I hope that that is not an unrepresentative example of one company's involvement with the National Health Service.
I should like to make one further point. I was talking recently in a totally private capacity to the chief executive of a large NHS hospital which was contemplating the development of a private wing with private-sector funding. How, I asked, did that go down with those concerned and particularly with the health service unions? He said, "Oh, everybody is happy. More patients will get treated because the consultants will not waste so much of their time poisoning their fellow humans with carbon monoxide in traffic jams between two or more hospitals and the hospital will make money out of it". He particularly mentioned that the ancillary staff and their unions appreciate that, at the very least, they are better off working for a profitable rather than an unprofitable employer—and that hospital is not yet a trust. However, perhaps my friend was having an easier ride compared with some of his colleagues. But, nevertheless, it is an interesting example of the very welcome attitude of the unions in such cases.
We live in an exciting and challenging time for both sectors of the health care industry. Let us not try to score points by questioning who needs whom more. It is just clear for all to see that the public and private sectors can derive great benefit from each other. The gainer is quite simply health care in this country. Now that the purchaser-provider system is becoming ever more widespread, the simple criterion for private health involvement is the product, what it offers and what it will cost. The challenge and opportunity are there for both sectors. All my observations lead me to the conclusion that the challenge is being accepted with enthusiasm by both sectors.
6.42 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate. My interest in the broader spectrum of health on this occasion stems from two facts. First, my grandfather, and the colossal strivings which he made as first Minister of Health; and, secondly, my involvement in complementary therapy, initially through my wife's training as a fully qualified aromatherapist and then a later involvement with the International Federation of Aromatherapists. Having been used by all and sundry as a "massage guinea pig", and having constantly tested my wife's obvious knowledge in anatomy and
990
physiology and in the chemistry of oils, I feel that I have enough—to coin a phrase—"hands on knowledge" to speak.
It is becoming imperative that the broader band of both complementary medicine and therapy is controlled by government legislation. Neither the First Diploma Directive 89/48/EEC of April 1991 nor the Second Diploma Directive 92/51/EEC, due to be implemented in June 1994, appear to regulate occupations in the field about which I wish to speak.
I believe that there is a strong consensus that it is wrong to say, "Let's wait and see what comes out of Brussels". There is a need for the tightening up of ground rules in the quality of training offered in the various complementary therapies, as well as educating the general public in order to safeguard them against the hazards brought about by the ignorance of poorly trained therapists.
There are many aspects which require attention in the care sector. For instance, in aromatherapy, anyone can give the public a treatment after having received the minimum of training; in fact, he or she can actually start teaching the subject. Technical colleges, run by local authorities, are one of the offenders. Aromatherapy courses are offered which probably cover a few hours of an evening each week. Tuition is given for a fraction of the fee required at a registered aromatherapy school.
Those quickie courses do not include any knowledge whatever on anatomy and physiology, client care or the chemistry of oils. Students attending those establishments are taught some kind of massage and knowledge of a few oils. The students have no idea why the oils are beneficial. They are not taught the oils' constituents or properties so, therefore, they are also unaware of the toxicity of certain oils.
Aromatherapists who have gone to great lengths to get trained properly in a recognised school are finding themselves having to struggle to earn a living because they are continually in competition with someone who has done a quickie aromatherapy course, who then does the therapy on a part-time basis and is in a position to undercut anyone else. There are nurses who have been medically trained who have now taken up complementary therapy instead of orthodox medicine. They, too, are finding it very difficult to survive because of the commercial angle which is very rife at present.
Recently there has been grave concern about children accidentally ingesting the oils. Properly trained aromatherapists are made aware of the dramatic safety precautions required on labels and on the labelling of bottles, and of the use of child-proof tops and bottles. Here, marketing within certain companies is clearly at fault for not labelling oils more clearly.
Associations like the IFA can monitor their own members, but they have no control over the therapist who does not go through a recognised training route. The public are also at risk when, after reading a book on aromatherapy, they may obtain essential oils over the counter. The IFA receives hundreds of letters a week—written in by members of the public who have read some magazine or other and now want

991
information on the oils. Both time and money are spent by the IFA (which is a charity organisation) on educating the public about contacting a registered IFA aromatherapist. Brochures containing those names are given out to the public. But the public are under the impression that they, too, can buy any of the oils and give themselves a do-it-yourself treatment.
The International Federation of Aromatherapists is the only organisation that has set up its own Education Council, Examination Board and examiners. A registered school must implement certain rules regarding the experience of their tutors and teach to the IFA syllabus. At the end of the course the student not only has to pass the in-house examination, but must also enter the IFA's own external examinations which have been in progress since March 1990—examinations which cover anatomy, physiology, massage, business and aromatherapy in all aspects of theory and practical—before being admitted as a full member of the IFA. Those external examinations are evidence that the student has been taught to the high standard required by the IFA. That then protects the student and, ultimately. the general public. Moreover, an insurance cover of £1 million is obligatory.
Because of the demand by the public in particular for aromatherapy, there has to be some legislative hacking from the Government in an effort to tighten up a complementary therapy which not only is in the interest of the public but which is also in the interest of the medical profession. I say that because it is now being used in hospitals, hospices and in intensive-care units.
In September, the nursing profession is introducing its own magazine based on information on a number of complementary therapies. It includes aromatherapy and details where to go for training. This, now, is another threat to the qualified aromatherapist. It is visualised that, naturally, the public would rather have aromatherapy treatment from a medically trained person rather than from a qualified aromatherapist who, incidentally, has probably gone through the same extensive training in anatomy and physiology as the medically trained therapist. So where does that leave the aromatherapist'? It will be another struggle for survival unless something is done to acknowledge the people who are prepared to go through a training worthy of legislation.
In summary, it seems that associations like the IFA leading the way by its demands for good training can control some schools and can make a difference to some extent. Yet, with legislative backing, more can be done. Not only will it support the properly trained qualified therapist, it will also serve the public with something that is evidently wanted; namely, complementary therapy. But most important is the fact that the safety of the public will be guarded, as well as their satisfaction. It is now evident that these complementary therapies can be used for most health problems without the side effects often brought about by some conventional medicine. At the same time they would release much of the burden weighing heavy on the massive shoulders of the health service
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for introducing this debate this afternoon. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who said it was a coincidence that we should have two debates today which have called attention to the private sector contribution in our national life. The first debate concerned transport and roads and rail, and this debate concerns the National Health Service.
I find it easy to accept the fact that it makes sense to encourage the private sector to contribute to roads and railways. My only reservation is that I believe the Government have not raised an enormous amount of enthusiasm within the private sector for this kind of investment. I am also happy to accept that the private sector can make a contribution to the National Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, accused us of always bellyaching about the National Health Service and of only talking about what is wrong with it. He said we never praise it. I must inform the noble Lord that in my view the NHS, which was introduced in 1948, was and remains one of our finest institutions. It has completely transformed the lives of people in this country. The National Health Service is considered by British people to be almost a right of citizenship. All of us in this House, as well as the majority of the public, are aware of the ever increasing demands that are being placed on the service due to technical advance and demographic change. The public are quite rightly worried about where the cash for those ever increasing demands will come from.
The Treasury is at the moment considering the introduction of further charges on, for example, prescriptions for exempt groups. That has created a fear in the public's mind that the principle of the NHS, which is that it should be free at the point of need, is being further eroded. The possible introduction of bed charges has added to that fear. Perhaps the Government should consider taking the public more into their confidence before these possible changes ppear in the press and create a natural fear among the public. Mrs. Bottomley's statement on the increased involvement of the private sector at a conference organised by the CBI on 26th May needs careful examination, despite her assurance that the NHS does not exist to make a profit and is "not for sale". She also said that,
"care had to be provided on the basis of clinical need, irrespective of the ability to pay".
Private involvement in the NHS is not a new idea. That involvement already exists and has done so for years. In 1974 I was the chairman of the South-West Thames Regional Health Authority. That authority began to introduce private contracting. We had a fully staffed legal department. It did not take long for us to realise that we would be financially better off contracting private firms to carry out our legal work. There was also a works department at the regional health authority. That department was solely responsible for all new hospital design in the region. We began to dismantle that works department by

993
introducing private firms of design consultants and thereby reducing our staff within the regional health authority. I believe we saved some money by doing that, but I doubt whether in the end we saved a great deal of money as we still needed to keep engineers and architects to oversee the design and construction of our hospitals to ensure that standards were maintained.
It is important to stress that when one contracts out to the private sector one still needs to monitor standards. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the private sector is already involved in the provision of kidney dialysis and the leasing of medical equipment as well as providing facilities for patients recovering from operations. The private sector also provides practically the majority of residential and nursing care. Facilities for residential and nursing care and for recovering from operations are all governed by a licensing system which can ensure a reasonable control of standards and the monitoring that must follow the licensing system. The fact that residential and nursing homes must be licensed gives a feeling of security. But what concerns all of us is how the NHS will deal with the contribution of private industry to the health service.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, mentioned the tragic waste of money at Wessex Health Authority, the West Midlands Health Authority and in the London Ambulance Service. According to the article in the Financial Times in those cases the entire health authority board were only informed of the contracts when they had already been signed. We must ensure that the non-executive directors on any health board or any trust board take complete responsibility for the actions of the health authority. It is not right to leave decisions to an executive administrator, however efficient he may be. The decision must be taken by the whole board. That is, after all, a responsibility that all company directors have to fulfil. The department must emphasise that point again and again to ensure that these tragedies do not recur.
I have said that it is possible because of the licensing system to maintain some kind of control over the provision of residential and nursing care. However, what worries me greatly about Mrs. Bottomley's statement is her forecast that the private provision of home help and other domestic care services might be entered into. That gives me great cause for concern because adequate control of standards will be difficult in such a dispersed service. Mrs. Bottomley made no suggestions on how supervision will be carried out. We all believe in community care but the increased emphasis on it is already causing problems because of a shortage of finance. We do not want any further problems with community care because of a lowering of standards in the service provided.
The other matter that Mrs. Bottomley very often omits to mention—it was not mentioned in the Tomlinson Report, Mrs. Bottomley did not mention anything about it in her address to the CBI and nothing is mentioned in her statement—is the enormous contribution made by the voluntary sector on both finance and provision of care. The
994
organisations involved are non-profit making, and much greater support by the department of these bodies might be of enormous benefit to both patients and staff.
I happen to be chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends, which raises £31 million a year for the health service. That is not an enormous sum of money compared with what the health service absorbs, but it provides much-needed equipment for hospitals. Above all, an enormous number of voluntary hours are put in, not only by my organisation but by all the health care organisations. I hope sincerely that the Government will not disregard that in their reorganisation of the health service.
Of course we all recognise that the private sector has a role to play in providing choice in health care for those who can afford it. However, the provision of private health care must not result in a reduction in the health services available under the National Health Service. Our foremost concern is that access to health care services may be reduced through an increased role for the private sector. I am not satisfied that there are, as yet, enough safeguards, but it may be that the noble Baroness will be able to tell us that the safeguards are built in. As far as I know, there is no independent national body to oversee how the NHS operates or how changes impact upon patients and users of the service. That will be even more important the greater the contribution of the private sector.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. I have listened to your Lordships' contributions with great care. I cannot overlook in the beginning my old sparring partner the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. He has said on previous occasions that the inevitable consequence of anything that I say to your Lordships is to confirm him in his former views. I am happy to reassure him that he does exactly the same for me. If I may say so, I was touched by the care which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, applied to this matter, without bogus party dogma and with an interest which was informed and impressive.
In my view, what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, lately said is right. There is a significant danger that this galloping privatisation, whipped on —urged on indeed—with vim and vigour by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will have deleterious effects. There is a chasm between us. We shall never agree because we differ fundamentally on a philosophic basis. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, had not been quite so wilful and headstrong and had listened to the advice of an older man—namely, myself—we could have had this debate next month. We would have achieved perfect symmetry. In mid-July it would have been the 45th anniversary of what I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is one of the noblest achievements this country has brought about.
Nothing will be heard from us, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, which will run down the National Health Service. I entirely agree

995
that people should not be frightened by bogeymen, nor should they be left fearful and afraid because of political uncertainties, which is how they presently are. We do not govern those political uncertainties. The noble achievement, it is worth repeating, is the provision of health services and care to those who need them on a national basis, accountable, admired, loved.
There are many of us here who know America and have a good deal of regard for part of its way of life; but the fear of being ill, of being old or of becoming infirm stalks that country even now, despite its wealth and advantages. That fear has been vanquished here and it has been vanquished here on one basis only: the construction and maintenance of the national health system. I do not wish to play with figures about which country on the continent of Europe provides one-half per cent. more of its gross annual product. The true comparison is what we have here, what we fought for and invested personal commitment in, not just money, as compared with what America lacks.
The worry that we have—and it is independent of party political achievement—is that fear is going to return that you will not be able to be old, infirm or ill because you will no longer have the benefits for which you thought you had contributed. It is deeper than that. Those who have no knowledge of this country and its meaning do not understand that it has different characteristics. It is still, despite its recent misfortunes, ordered, calm and peaceful compared with its neighbours. It is in that fortunate state because there is a consensus that some things must and should be provided by us all for us all and that there is still a moral perspective beyond that of selfishness, greed and private profit. That is why I said when I began that there is a gulf and a chasm between us which we shall not bridge: nor do I want to.
The Prime Minister has spoken of his desire to see a country more at ease with itself. This country is becoming uneasy. There is a deep malaise. Much of the fabric is disintegrating. Who can walk around this great capital without a sense of shame and anger that the physical fabric is falling apart and that public services are being devastated? I see a head being shaken in dissent. It must be a lone dissent among the people who inhabit this great city with the flotsam that lives in its streets.
I say, for your Lordships' consideration at least, that these things do not come about by chance or misfortune. We refuse to believe that nothing can be done. We decline to accept that these consequences have no human cause nor any human remedy. This present Government, so long as it remains, is distinguished by two characteristics. Those are, first, incompetence and, secondly, arrogance. I have done my best to work out in my own limited way which had done more harm to this country, and I simply have not been able to decide between them.
When I began, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, was not in his place. I wished to refer to his speech, since he has provided a useful quotation which I was about to seize on. Since Colwyn is not too far from Mostyn, perhaps he will forgive me. I am sure it is Colwyn Bay and not Old Colwyn, but I will use his quotation if I
996
may. In the last century, those who ran companies on bogus prospectuses used to go to prison. Nowadays they seem to go to Northern Cyprus, but I put that on one side. If one floated a bogus prospectus, one went to prison. They did things differently then because, as we all know, the past is a foreign country. Perhaps I may follow behind the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, with regard to the false prospectus, quotation for quotation, perfectly virginal and intact. The quotation is:
"There will be no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, nor in part, nor as a whole, not today, not tomorrow, not after the next election, not ever while I am Prime Minister".
I quote John Major, October 1991. What a hostage to fortune: "Not while I am Prime Minister".
How that statement is capable of being reconciled with what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell urged, I cannot understand. His point is quite separate. I respect his approach; it is plain, and clearly expressed. We shall wait, silent, respectful and agog for the Minister to be able to explain it to us. I hope that there will not be too much smoke and mirrors but just a straightforward explanation. Alternatively perhaps we might even hear those little words, "We got it all wrong", or, "We have changed our minds".
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give ground, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say this. If I was discourteous to the noble Baroness who opened the debate, I apologise for that. However, I am quite unable to understand why anything that I said—I described having presided over the greatest improvement to the health service in the Principality that has ever taken place—was irreconcilable with the principles spelt out by the Prime Minister, with which I wholly agree. What is the conflict in providing those services with the aid of the private sector?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I listened to the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It was that we have been far too slow at privatisation; that we need to be much quicker at it; that we should have got on with it more quickly in the past. That is on one hand. On the other hand, I repeat the words:
"There will be no privatisation of health care, neither piecemeal, nor in part, nor as a whole, not today, not tomorrow".
I do not find those principles reconcilable. I have not had the benefit of a substantial Jesuit education, my own having been Calvinistic Methodist. If the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, cannot understand the difference, I believe that the chasm remains.
The contention for which we stand is that the National Health Service is unique. It is the provider of treatment and care, in the community and in hospital, for surgery and for accident, and because the vast, overwhelming bulk of our fellow citizens prefer it that way. That is the truth. Whatever political allegiances people have, they revere the service that is provided. They wish to be able to trust in it. They feel affection and regard towards it.
I entirely agree with the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that one needs efficient management. One needs the efficient management which was referred to when considering contracting

997
for artificial limbs or working out the difficult conclusion that a filter might be used more than once. But that is a defect of internal management. It is not a defect of the National Health Service in public control any more than one could say—I never would, of course, in your Lordships' House—that the failure of the Lloyd's insurance market means that no private organisation ought to conduct a private business in this country. That would be an absurd suggestion. Therefore I shall not make it.
What is worrying to us is the corruption of the National Health Service. It is a word that I choose with some care. It has become corrupt when we have a situation in which a hospital of the quality of Bart's can be spoken of by the Secretary of State for Health, in words which will come to haunt her, "I am not an arm of National Heritage". Harefield, with its personal commitment and investment of people, may well be axed on a superficial, careless, contemptuous review.
The corruption is this: that the National Health Service is increasingly being run by place men. They are not accountable. The chief characteristic which commends them to those who appoint them and direct them is malleability. Whatever our political views, we should not be content with that. A good many of the 127 speeches given yesterday and the day before—some of which, alas, I missed—were on the basis that our democratic controls were to be stripped from us. They are going, my Lords. They are eroding before our very eyes. It should not be a qualification for public life and public control in these important sectors that one is simply there to take one's riding instructions. That is a corruption which we shall live to regret.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the other corruption. Now is not the occasion to deal with it. We shall return to the issue when we have better ammunition and fully primed guns, and when notice has been given to those who may be criticised.
The fact is that this Government do not listen, do not read and are not capable of having an open mind. The impression abroad is that they have become stale and arrogant with too much power—that they are already terminally concussed after a year of existence. Confidence has gone away, as has my time. I must apologise to your Lordships. I should have listened to the Leader of the House more carefully and have realised that 14 minutes meant that 13 minutes had gone.
As I say, there is a chasm between us. We shall not resolve it. However, what is being done in many areas of the National Health Service is vandalism; it is barbarism; and come the next election this Government will have lived to regret it.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for initiating the debate because it gives me an opportunity not only to acknowledge the benefits which the NHS gains from its partnership with private enterprise but to lay some ghosts, some fears, concerning its fundamental values.
998
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, I should like to start with a little history and a look back with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the start of the NHS and the 1946 Act.
Re-reading the Act it is disappointing in that the people for whom the NHS was established scarcely merit a mention. It is more about doctors who at that time were fearful about the introduction of the new service. To win their support the Act ensured that GPs should remain as private contractors. So today "My doctor" is self-employed, not employed by the NHS. In that sense, the privatisation of GPs was written into the 1946 Act.
I make that point because it illustrates that pragmatic decisions have had to be made from the start which have tarnished the "white as driven snow" theory. Since its earliest days, there has been cross-party consensus that NHS charges for those who can afford to pay them have a limited, but useful, part in raising extra revenue. As my noble friend Lord McColl pointed out, the Labour Party still denounces that principle in opposition; although it has embraced it in Government.
The NHS is reliant on the drugs used for combating disease, the vaccines used for immunisation, and the equipment used in theatres, wards, X-ray departments, kidney dialysis and so on. Those are manufactured by the private sector. The NHS has never sought to enter the drug industry nor the manufacturing industry in a serious way.
I know that there was a time, and perhaps there still are instances, where long stay hospitals have had gardens and farms to produce food in order to create a therapeutic environment for patients. But the NHS feeds 7.5 million acutely ill people a year. It buys its food from the private sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, referred to the South West Thames region's capital programme. She is a former chairman of that region. We shall invest a huge amount—over £2 billion this year—in a hospital building programme. Although the design in the past may have been in-house, construction has always been largely undertaken by private contractors. Fortunately, the NHS has never fallen into the trap of having large direct labour departments like local government.
The point I wish to make is that the NHS has always been a mix of public service and private enterprise. The demarcation line between the two is one of tradition rather than one of logic. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, was absolutely right when he said that the NHS ethos is not eroded if the NHS does not supply every service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, painted a fanciful picture of people paying for a better service within, the National Health Service, but it was a Labour Government who, in 1971, made payment; for amenity beds a policy.
When I started as a district chairman of the Brighton Health Authority I was surprised to find that for years much of the laundry had been done; by a private company. I was surprised, not because I did not think it was a good idea but because it was

999
happening locally, long before it was national policy to test the market. To pick up the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, it was a contract that was closely supervised and well managed.
The involvement of the private sector in aspects of the work of the health service has brought enormous benefits to patients. The savings that have resulted from putting domestic, catering and laundry services out to tender have achieved a staggering £1 billion over the past 10 years, all of which has been ploughed back into patient services.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out in his interesting speech that it was only a few years ago that hip replacements were unknown. In 1990–91, 44,500 of those operations were carried out, relieving many of the elderly people, who benefited, from severe pain and enabling them to lead active lives. But one of the problems until recently with that particular operation has been the waiting times for the operation. Three or four years ago, people believed that waiting times of over two years were a necessary evil, a price to be paid for treatment on the NHS. Last week I visited the Mersey region, where there has been an almost total elimination of waiting lists over one year, accompanied by a stringent monitoring of the time to see a specialist, with a maximum wait of 13 weeks. Other regions are catching up. These are very tangible achievements and we take pride in them. But the Government are not complacent. Where we can reduce these waits further by using resources more effectively, then that is what we must do. If we can save £1 billion on domestic services we must ask: Where can we find more savings elsewhere, to improve services still further and translate those savings into shorter waiting times and better patient care?
Again, while I was chairman of the Brighton Health Authority in the early 1980s, when hip replacement operations were getting behind we bought them from a private hospital, the King Edward VII at Midhurst, whose services were excellent. There was no question of NHS patients paying for the treatment, any more than if they had been treated in an NHS ward. No one that I can recall complained about being sent to a private hospital. On the contrary, they were relieved to have had their operation, because people are pragmatic. They want good efficient health care and they are not terribly worried from "whence cometh their help".
Despite the huge cumulative expenditure invested in the NHS outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, we must continue to be pragmatic. Public expenditure is under review and however much those on the Opposition Benches would wish otherwise, the NHS cannot be immune from that task of reviewing its expenditure. Controlling borrowing is vital to sustain economic growth and we need that growth to provide resources for the NHS. For without wealth there is no welfare.
My noble friend Lord McColl pointed out that it was a Labour Government who placed a ceiling on NHS expenditure. None of us wants to return to the days when the IMF governed this country because the
1000
Labour Government could not balance their books. If we are to control expenditure, let us at least be in charge and set our own priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, gave some interesting comparative international figures but I am sure she agrees that expenditure is no measure of the health of the country, nor the quality of services given. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that the greatest disservice we can inflict on the NHS is stagnation and fossilisation of thoughts and ideas. The NHS must be a part of today's world. The speed of change in medical advance has to be matched by a readiness to change the services that back up medical treatment. The Government have found that change has been propelled by medical advance and social expectations rather than dogma. If the Government are accused of having as a dogma the elimination of waste and inefficiency, then that is a banner this Government are proud to parade. If this Government are accused of innovation, of freeing hospitals from bureaucracy under their new trust status, then that also is a banner that we will parade. If we are accused of trusting our own GPs as fund holders to arrange the best treatment for patients, we will also march behind that banner.
The Government are aware that the speed of change is fast. We are witnessing a development of three strands of health care: high-tech hospitals, lower-tech nursing homes and care in the community. Each has its place and each must be sustained and improved. I particularly commend to this House the good start that community care has made, the anticipation of so many organisations in healthy alliances and the strides being made in the Health of the Nation programme which is aimed to reduce preventable disease and to promote health.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn, in a powerful speech on dentistry, showed how dentistry has led the way in this respect. He also went on to talk about complementary medicine, as did my noble friend Lord Addison. This is an important aspect and both those speeches highlighted the importance of people taking responsibility for their own health. That is a view very much shared by this Government.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned the highly successful and effective health scheme for renal dialysis which he introduced when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Six years ago those of us on the other side of Offa's Dyke looked not only with interest but with envy as the Welsh were able to expand their services, making the most of all their national resources. I am glad that his patience has been rewarded and that we are now able to follow where the Principality led.
My noble friend Lord Addison, in giving a very informative speech on the value of complementary medicines, recognised the part that they can play in the NHS. I am impressed how increasingly lay and professional people recognise that complementary medicines are a very useful alternative source to traditional medicines and we are now increasingly seeing GPs, and particularly GP fund holders, using those services, I believe with good effect.

1001
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, mentioned the huge contribution made by the voluntary and independent sector and I endorse very much her views. Our services would be much the poorer without them. But again, increasingly we are placing contracts with the voluntary sector and using their skills and expertise in new ways.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman mentioned his experience of a private sector company which provided nursing agency, mental hospital, rehabilitation and a doctors' deputising service. I am grateful to my noble friend for sharing with us that experience of working with a private company providing a variety of services to the NHS. As I said earlier, the Government welcome the provision of such services from the private sector and accept that they can often play a significant role in enabling the service to provide a fuller comprehensive range of services.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, urged us to strike a balance on the level of health care expenditure in the private sector. I was interested in the figures given by him on the percentage of the total health expenditure spent in the private sector. The Government, though, have no target figure or maximum percentage for which they are aiming. We are committed to purchasing health care services as cost-effectively as possible, whether from the public or the private suppliers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft addressed the issue of quality of health care if provided by the private or independent sector. I can address the noble Baroness's fears. Purchasers will endeavour to let contracts only if the suppliers can provide a quality service and prove that they can give good value for money. I agree with my noble friend that the experience to date shows not only the good value for money but also the better quality of care that can be achieved.
My noble friend's personal experience was of great interest. He may be right that not all managers are sufficiently street-wise to deal with the private sector. That is why the Government are putting so much investment into management and administration—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The noble Lord asked me about the proportion of health service expenditure that goes on these areas. Of course we wish to keep it to a minimum; but we are very determined, in the multi-billion pound business that we are running, to have effective management, skilled in that particular field.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, were concerned about accountability and safeguards where the private sector is involved. The issues concerning, in particular, the West Midlands and Wessex regional health authorities have been very well rehearsed in this House. As the noble Lord is aware, the Government fully recognise the seriousness of the issues concerning the management structure and controls in both the Wessex and West Midlands authorities. Those concerns have been echoed in the Audit Commission reports in the public interest, and in the Public Accounts Committee hearings. The
1002
Government are determined that every action is taken to ensure that the problems do not occur elsewhere. But as noble Lords will be aware, it would be unrealistic for me on this occasion, as on others, to give a categorical undertaking that that situation will never ever happen again.
Even with its few shortcomings—and I would never profess that the National Health Service is perfect; it is too large an organisation for me to make any claim of that sort —I believe that we have a superb health service with an army of dedicated, committed people working in it. We are rightly very proud of it. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I do not believe that the NHS is disintegrating or falling apart. On the contrary, I believe that it has been enormously strengthened by the reforms that have been introduced. I believe that it has a new lease of life.
The noble Lord quoted the Prime Minister. I cannot understand the noble Lord's ambivalence on the statement made by my noble friend the Prime Minister. Unlike the Labour Party, we have a very clear policy. But we also welcome new ideas and new thinking. We do not stagnate in old philosophies and old dogma. But our new thinking must be anchored to the timeless values of the NHS: a service available to all on the basis of clinical need, regardless of the ability to pay. That is written into our manifesto.
I agree with my noble friend Lord McColl that there is nothing so destructive, so unkind, or so demoralising to old and sick people as to raise a spectre of the NHS betraying its principles. Trying to put the Government down is fair sport, but causing grief to vulnerable people is totally unacceptable. No one denies the Labour party its place in the history of the NHS, but for 31 of the 45 years that the health service has existed it has been Conservative governments who have looked after it and who have pursued the policies which have enabled it to evolve and improve. If it was really believed that the Conservative Party wished to destroy the NHS, it could surely have achieved that after 31 years.
By being prepared to embrace change we have improved patient care and strengthened the NHS at a time when the external pressures on it are mounting. The health service needs a constructive debate about how to respond to those pressures, so that we can continue to preserve its fundamental values. Casting doubt on the Government's motives, or seeking to scare through the emotive use of the word "privatisation", has no part in that debate. I hope that we can cast aside ideology, ditch dogma, and concentrate on how to build an even better health service for this decade and beyond.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask this question in the simplest of forms: Is it, or is it not, still government policy that there will be no privatisation of health care, piecemeal, in part or as a whole, not today, not tomorrow?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe I made it absolutely clear. We stand by what was written in

1003
our manifesto. We want a service that is available to all on the basis of clinical need, regardless of the ability to pay—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I must not trespass, but my question—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my question was not that. My question was quite simple. It was the question of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, which I respectfully reinforced. It is a perfectly simple one. Is that declaration still government policy, or not?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course it is. I have explained very clearly what we mean by privatisation. I can understand that the definition may riot be the same as that which the Labour Party wish to put on it. But our policy is absolutely clear and for a third time in this debate I shall state it. We will offer a service to all on the basis of clinical need regardless of the ability to pay.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. I think that what has been demonstrated, not least by that last exchange, is how political an issue the National Health Service is. I do not think that we should duck that or run away from it. But perhaps it was something to do with the temperature outside today which led to some of the remarks about the contributions made by myself and other people.
I was surprised, for example, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, describe my contribution as thoughtless, and to hear the noble Lord, Lord McColl, say that I was a propagandist. Were they to look at some of the criticisms of the health service, about which they were so concerned, made, for example, by their noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Colwyn, they would find them at least as formidable as those made by speakers on this side of the House. Indeed, echoing my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I can say that I am a total supporter of the National Health Service. I want to see it succeed, and I am very glad to hear the reassurance that the Minister has just given us.
Of course, the old concepts of debate about whether the private sector has any role in the health service are irrelevant. Perhaps I may respectfully say to the noble Baroness that whatever problems the Labour Party caused in that respect, I do not think they can have caused them in 1971, when Sir Edward Heath was Prime Minister.
My argument was designed to suggest that we are now on the verge of a very new system. We are not concerned with an argument about the old priorities, but that the joint pressures of the public expenditure cuts, which the noble Baroness frankly recognised, and the pressures of the private health care sector will, as she says, take us fast in the direction which concerns me very much.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said—and the point was emphasised again by my noble friend
1004
Lord Williams of Mostyn—there is a deep philosophical divide on this issue. I do not wish to see the National Health Service become simply a regulator of health care in this country. That is what we cannot accept. That is where the philosophy is different. It must be a provider; and its provision must be free at the point of need.
I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams that we should debate this question again at the time of the anniversary of the health service. We should have the philosophical debate. I look forward to it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Bail (Amendment) Bill
7.40 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill seeks to confer on the prosecution a right of appeal against decisions to grant bail. It has been inspired by a feeling which is widespread in this country, to the effect that a certain type of offender or suspect frequently re-offends while on bail. This is a matter of concern both to the police and the other forces of law and order. It has been highlighted by recent research. For instance, it has been suggested that in the county of Northumbria as much as 51 per cent. of detected crime is committed by people on bail, if one takes into account cautions and admissions of previous offences by convicted people about to be sentenced. Research by the Home Office suggests a rather lower figure but there is no disputing the fact that the figure is most significant.
The case which first raised deep concern on this issue in recent times was that of Andrew Hagans who raped and murdered Mrs. Anna McGurk in August 1991 while he was on bail and charged with another rape. He had been ordered by the court to stay in a bail hostel. Her constituency Member of Parliament, Mr. Douglas French, and a group called the "Friends and Family of Anna McGurk" have been campaigning to change the law relating to bail and admission to bail hostels for sex offenders and violent offenders. In particular, the "Friends and Family" group wrote to all Members of Parliament in August 1992, the anniversary of Mrs. McGurk's death, continuing to keep the issue alive. I believe that it was largely in the wake of that case that my honourable friend Mr. Michael Stephen took part in the campaign when he introduced this Bill into another place under the 10-minute rule.
Other high profile cases which have highlighted the issue have involved tragic circumstances, including the death of Daniel Davies and Donna Cooper, young children who were mown down by people in stolen cars and, in February this year, the murder of Cathy Ainsworth, shot by her ex-boyfriend, Adrian Black, while he was on bail.
Deep concern has been expressed not only by the Association of Chief Police Officers but also by the Police Federation of England and Wales, for whom I am a parliamentary adviser. Their concern is based on

1005
the fact that, as the number of people granted bail increases, so does the number of offences committed by people on bail. Home Office research suggests that the number of such offences increased by 26,000 in the five years leading up to 1990.
Supporters of this measure take into account the fact that any offender who is refused bail by a magistrate is entitled to appeal against that decision before a judge. We now believe, because of the circumstances just mentioned, that in certain cases the prosecution should also have the right to appeal, specifically when a defendant is charged with an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of five years or more, or if he or she is charged with an offence under Sections 12 or 12A of the Theft Act 1968. That is the provision laid down in Clause 1 of the Bill before your Lordships.
Those last mentioned offences involve removing a vehicle without the owner's consent or authority, including the offence commonly known as joy riding. On many occasions the offence is seen as trivial but on some occasions recently it has resulted in tragic consequences. There are those who feel that something must be done to prevent it, especially when committed by those who have already committed or are charged with a similar offence.
It is proposed under Clause 1 that the prosecution should have the right to appeal against the granting of bail to offenders on those charges to either a High Court or, more usually, a Crown Court judge. However, certain strict conditions are laid down which limit the right of the prosecution or the police to launch such an appeal. That has been done since we have fully realised the need to take into account the rights of any accused person and the danger of keeping in prison any suspect for any length of time, however small, after a magistrate in effect has said that he or she may go free.
Subsection (2) of the clause provides that an appeal may only be made if the prosecution objected to bail being granted and the objection was made before bail was granted. Court clerks are required by existing rules of court to take a note of arguments for and against bail, ensuring that there will be no dispute as to whether or not such objection has been made.
Subsection (3) provides that oral notice of appeal is necessary. That seems to be the most effective method of launching the appeal to all parties concerned, so long as they are present in court and there is no doubt as to the status of the defendant.
Subsection (4) provides that written notice of the appeal must be served on the court and the defendant within one hour of the conclusion of the proceedings in the magistrates' court. Rules of court will allow the prosecution to discontinue the appeal at any time up to its hearing, such circumstances causing the defendant to be released immediately on bail, with conditions if necessary, imposed by the magistrates.
Subsection (5) provides for the magistrates' court to remand the defendant in custody on receipt of oral notice of appeal.
Subsection (6) provides that the hearing of the appeal must commence within 48 hours from the date
1006
on which oral notice of appeal against bail is given. That is one of the key measures in the Bill and I draw it in particular to your Lordships' attention. The intention is to keep to a minimum the time held in custody of anyone under this measure.
With this Bill we believe that we have achieved a reasonable balance between the demands of good order and protection of the public on the one hand, and the rights of the accused person on the other. We do not quarrel with the fact that a magistrate should make a presumption in favour of bail and grant bail unless there is strong reason why he or she should not do so. There have been many recent cases of people held in custody for many months on end only to be released after trial, having been found not guilty, without a stain on their character. Whenever that occurs it is deeply regrettable.
Magistrates will rightly hesitate before following the prosecution's advice unless they are satisfied that an accused may be a danger to the public, may interfere with a witness, or abscond (as happened recently in one well known fraud case). There is no criticism of magistrates in the way that the Bill is drafted. It is merely designed to provide an additional safeguard to the public interest and to give the prosecution the same right of appeal as is presently enjoyed by the defence in certain circumstances. The law, if enacted, will in some cases of special concern put the prosecution on the same level.
I appreciate that the Government may wish to return to this issue later when tackling the whole question of bail, but they may wish to broaden the type of case where the right of appeal is available to the prosecution to enlarge the two categories listed in Clause 1 of the Bill. In the meantime, I hope that they will find it possible to support this Private Member's Bill.
It is made clear in Clause 2 that the law will apply only in England and Wales. I do not propose that the provision should be extended to Northern Ireland since there is not a general presumption in favour of bail in that part of the United Kingdom. I am often reminded that in Scotland the right of appeal of the prosecution has existed for a great many years without apparent problem.
I should like to make one final point. As I pointed out, this is a Private Member's Bill and it was only with some difficulty that its sponsor, Mr. Michael Stephen, was able to have it passed through another place. The problem is always one of time. Your Lordships will examine the Bill with great care and are perfectly entitled to table amendments, press them and pass them. That is your Lordships' prerogative. However, I think it right to point out that if any amendment should be passed in this House the effect would certainly be that the Bill would not reach the statute book. There would not be time available in another place to consider any changes made by your Lordships' House. In other words, an amendment to the Bill would effectively kill it. I point that out so that it is clear to all where we stand on the matter.
Therefore, I can only draw the Bill to your Lordships' attention. It does not cover the whole question of the granting of bail, which remains one of

1007
considerable debate throughout the country. But I believe that it takes us a step in the right direction until such time that the Government find it possible, when their agenda is less crowded, to tackle the whole issue anew. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Lord Bethell.)
7.50 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for the clear way in which he explained the purpose of the Bill. He placed many apprehensions in my mind—and that may be true of other Members of your Lordships' House—when he said that any amendment to the Bill would kill it. That places a grave responsibility upon those like myself who realise that the purpose of the Bill is a worthy one, but also that when the liberty of the subject sounds in the corridors of our courts, great care—great priority—is given to the subject. When liberty of the subject is affected by a Bill in this House, the tradition of this House and of Parliament as a whole is to give it the greatest care in order to ensure that that liberty is not infringed. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that there was no Second Reading debate in the other place and therefore the responsibility on your Lordships is extremely grave.
We have had debates in this House dealing with the question of bail and this House pronounced from all sides its wish to see that bail was granted, as provided in the Bail Act 1976, wherever possible—the presumption being in favour of bail. There is not the slightest doubt that we had in our minds at that time not only the overcrowding of our prisons, but also what happens to somebody who is remanded in custody. There are risks to his marriage; there are risks to his home from the point of view of landlord and tenant; there are risks from the point of view of his job. In those circumstances we decided to see that bail was granted—and I repeat—wherever possible. The result has been that many more are on bail now than there were before. In cases where there is any doubt the presumption applies.
As all of us will, I share the noble Lord's anxiety about the cases which he narrated so clearly and about which all of us are concerned. There is little wonder that with more people on bail, more offences will be committed. But, according to my information, the proportion of those on bail who commit offences has not increased.
I repeat that there is every reason for a Bill with the purpose expressed by the noble Lord being passed by Parliament, but he has placed on me an onus to show your Lordships that the Bill has been hastily drafted. It contains many points that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention, and I repeat my sorrow that he should have said that any amendment, if passed by your Lordships, will defeat a Bill which deserves to have another end.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that originally the Bill was intended only to apply to cases where there was a serious risk to the public. That has been taken out. The Bill now before your Lordships merely
1008
provides for the cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell; namely, where there is a term of imprisonment of five years and where there are offences committed under the Theft Act.
That means that there is no limit, so far as the prosecution is concerned, when it gives notice that it intends to appeal against the magistrates' decision. We also find that it is not limited to a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service. We all know that there are private prosecutions and that institutions can prosecute. It is not the preserve or the monopoly of the Crown Prosecution Service. Therefore immediately an amendment occurs to one as to whether or not there should be a limitation upon who the prosecutors are and the responsibility cast upon them. As the noble Lord told the House, as soon as somebody representing a prosecution gives notice to the Court of Appeal, the person concerned has to be—I repeat, "has to be"—committed by the magistrates for at most 48 hours. But that excludes weekends and public holidays. Is that right?
I could go on, as indeed I must, with the other provisions of the Bill which are at the least doubtful in regard to their fairness. For example, the Bill provides that,
"Upon receipt from the prosecution of oral notice of appeal from its decision to grant bail the magistrates' court shall remand in custody the person concerned, until the appeal is determined or otherwise disposed or.
The next clause reads,
"The hearing on an appeal … shall be commenced within forty-eight hours".
It does not say that it shall be determined within 48 hours. That means that there is a possibility of a judge adjourning the matter. In the meantime the person who has been granted bail by the magistrates and has not had his appeal heard, is remanded in custody. Something must be done about that.
There is no reference in the Bill to whether the appeal is to be heard in the Crown Court in open court, or in chambers. If it is to be in chambers—one magistrate has already referred to this in criticism of the Bill—it means that somebody is granted bail in open court before the public and then is denied bail, if the appeal is successful in private. That magistrate has asked whether that is in accordance with our normal view of the way in which justice should be carried out.
There is no reference, and the noble Lord did not refer to it, to the effect upon legal aid. In criminal cases legal aid is granted with a criminal law certificate. The appeal is a civil appeal. That means that the person concerned—now the prisoner—has to apply for a civil aid certificate. If the hearing is to be in open court, has the solicitor the right of audience or must it be counsel? If it is counsel, a special application must be made under legal aid, which I can tell the noble Lord takes a considerable time to determine. What is to happen in the meantime?
I am sorry to have to point out all those matters. I do it not on my own behalf but so that the House realises the seriousness of the matter, with which they need not necessarily associate me. NACRO has pointed out that it finds the Bill full of deficiencies and hopes that it will be amended. The Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society feels that the Bill is

1009
wrongly drawn and ought to be considered by the Government in the following way. I hope that the Minister, with his usual courtesy, is listening to me.
The Home Office has set up a group to consider bail and all the problems associated with it, and is listening to the researches that the group is carrying out. All the right people are represented on the group—the Justices' Clerks' Society, the magistrates, the probation service, the Law Society and the police. At a committee meeting of the group —I will obviously not read out the copy of the minute that I happen to have but the Minister will know about it—there was criticism of the provisions of the Bill.
Is it not sensible that we do not panic, that we do not have slotmeter legislation, and that we and the Government carefully consider the recommendations of that group which they themselves have set up before we rashly go in for legislation in regard to which we are told—this is the sorrowful thing we are told—that if we dare to amend it in any direction the Bill will fall. Is it not better for the Government to do that? The purpose of the Bill, as I said in my introductory remarks, is a perfectly worthy one. But it is hasty legislation that we are asked to pass affecting the liberty of the subject. This House should never do that.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, after the high excitement of the past two days it is perhaps salutary to busy ourselves once more with down to earth, but nevertheless important, legislation. We are accordingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethel!, for introducing the Bill this evening. Before dealing with certain points in it, I ought to disclose two interests. First, I am a magistrate, and, secondly, I represent the interests of the Justices' Clerks' Society of England and Wales in this House.
That this Bill has moved so rapidly through the other place indicates the widespread concern which exists within the community about the matter of bail. There have, alas, been many instances which have been referred to already this evening of serious offences being committed by those who have been bailed, and no doubt some aspects of this will be taken into account in any future measures which may be considered by the Government at a later date. But why is the present position with regard to the granting of bail so unsatisfactory? I would suggest that there are three main reasons for this state of affairs.
First, if the issue be a monster, it is a monster created by Parliament itself in the shape of the Bail Act 1976. Magistrates, who are frequently reviled in the popular press —not an entirely dishonourable position to be in, given present standards—for giving bail in unsuitable cases, do so because that Act quite specifically requires them to give bail unless there are compelling reasons, which are formally laid down, for them not to do so. The presumption has been, and will continue to be, whatever the implications of this Bill, to give bail. What we on the Bench are therefore doing is carrying out the wishes of Parliament. And who is to say that that is a wrong position to adopt? After all,
1010
under English law a man or woman is presumed not guilty unless subsequently found against by a jury of his or her fellows.
A second, less frequent, reason may be that the prosecuting authorities have not been in a position to provide the necessary information which would enable a Bench to take an informed view. And lastly —the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to this and has shot some of my birds already this evening —there is always the underlying fear that, the criminal justice system being what it is—bureaucratic, cumbersome and largely insensitive—the period between any plea and the eventual disposal will be a long one, often running into months. There is therefore a powerful disposition not to remand in custody for many months a person who may well ultimately be found not guilty of the offence with which he or she is charged.
These are all powerful arguments where there is the least doubt for tipping the scales in favour of bail. However, though of course there are mistakes—and they are very much regretted—do not let us become obsessed with the matter as a result of every tabloid scare story, often based on wrong or insufficient information.
Having said that, I clearly cannot oppose a measure which seeks to redress the balance in some degree. After all, in natural justice, if an offender has the right to appeal against a Bench's decision not to grant bail, a similar right should surely exist the other way for the prosecution. Perhaps therefore I may make certain points which I hope will prove useful in some fine tuning and interpreting the Bill in the corridors of power. I beg those in authority to listen to the points that I make. I do not know how matters will fall out following what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. But these are matters which do at least imply that, to say the least, there has been some looseness in the drafting.
In Clause 1(1) (b), taking a vehicle without consent or aggravated taking alone are listed—presumably on the grounds of public safety—as offences on which an appeal may be made. But, if the safety of the public is the issue, why are driving while disqualified and drink driving offences not included as well? And, conversely, taking without consent also embraces the offence of "being carried", which, though serious enough in criminal terms, cannot be seen as a threat to the safety of the public. Accordingly, it is my view that these additions on the one hand and exclusion on the other should be made clear in the Bill.
As regards subsection (2) my only comment would be a technical one, in that the use of the word "objected" to bail being granted implies an adversarial context to the proceedings which clearly cannot be intended. "Make representations" or some other form of words would be more appropriate. Subsection (3) of Clause I, however, poses some problems. The phrase "conclusion of the proceedings" is used. Does this mean that oral notice of appeal must be given immediately after the case in question, or at the end of the day's business? I believe that this should be made crystal clear. Then again, presumably oral notice of appeal immediately after the case in question—if that

1011
is the intention—will provide sufficient authority to detain a defendant for one hour despite the original granting of bail by magistrates which would legally permit that person to walk freely from the court.
Turning to subsection (4), several problems present themselves. I quote:
"Written notice of appeal shall … be served".
By whom? The issue should surely be of sufficient importance to warrant the proviso that, say, no one below the level of branch crown prosecutor should issue such an appeal. Otherwise, there is always the danger of frivolous applications. And on whom should such an appeal be served? It is no good, my Lords, sticking the notice under the court front door during the lunch break and hoping that the law will be served thereby. In my experience it is human nature to get rid of something for delivery in the quickest and least troublesome way. I am strongly of the opinion that service should be on the Clerk to the Justices or on his named, delegated representative. Otherwise, tears will flow, mark my words.
And then, what happens if written notice is not served within one hour? Should the defendant then be released, even though subsection (5) provides that such persons should be remanded in custody until the appeal is determined? Natural justice suggests that he or she should be.
Finally—and this point is not covered by the Bill at all —if a defendant, as he or she has every right to do, appeals to a judge against a Bench's decision to refuse bail and that appeal is granted by the judge, it ought perhaps be made clear that the prosecution would have no future right to appeal against that bail decision since it would, so to speak, be giving the prosecution two bites at the same cherry.
As I hope I made clear at the beginning, the points which I have raised are neither intended to impede the passage of the Bill nor to emasculate it in any way. Rather, the intention is to strengthen it and remove any ambiguities. I am sure that it will receive the same sympathetic support from your Lordships, and improvements, as it had in the other place, for the matter, like so much in the field of law and order, is an urgent and important one.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am pleased to support this Bill which was introduced by the honourable Member for Shoreham in another place. Having spent 25 years as a magistrate, I fully understand that a defendant is innocent until found guilty and has a right to bail unless certain criteria apply. I support that stance wholeheartedly and of course in the vast majority of cases bail is appropriate. In no way do we want to see a draconian society where everyone is locked up, but it is right that in some cases a defendant should be refused bail. Sadly, all too often, we see people back in court having been arrested for allegedly having committed another offence.
I am very conscious of our duty to try to give protection to the public. That has been emphasised to me by my husband's involvement as chairman of our local Victims Support scheme. I believe that the Bill
1012
will be widely welcomed by the public and particularly by those who nave surtered as a result of a defendant's actions. Of course, we should never forget that it does not follow that someone charged with an offence will be found guilty.
I also share the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, over drafting points in the Bill. I hope that, if we are not able to amend—to do so would kill the Bill—these points will be taken on board, whether it be by a rule or some other appropriate instrument. It seems to me that unless the situation is made clear to all courts, there will be different interpretation. I particularly go back to the question of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, regarding the end of the proceedings. There could be a difference depending on whether the matter is raised at the end of that particular case in the morning session or, as the noble Viscount said, at the end of the day.
It is important that these matters are clarified. The bail information scheme now operating in many courts is giving them much more detailed information on which to come to a decision. It seems to me that if a defendant has the right to challenge the magistrates' decision so should the prosecution. I have always felt that bail applications are some of the most challenging situations that magistrates face as the implications can have such a profound effect on the defendant and his family. But certainly magistrates do not have a monopoly of wisdom and we can only do our best. So it is in that spirit that I welcome the Bill and I am delighted that the Government are supporting it.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, not for the first time my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, have done your Lordships' House good service. We on our side give our fullest and firmest support to the principles behind the Bill. I say that quite unambiguously particularly since our colleagues in another place, Mr. Blair and Mr. Alun Michael, have been among the first to articulate the concerns of the public. Indeed, last year, when I was chairman of the Bar Council I made a number of speeches about this problem having consulted members of ACPO and the Police Federation.
Suggestions by way of improvement by Mr. Alun Michael were accepted in another place in some significant respects. We wish to honour the principle of the Bill, but to have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, an effective and competent piece of legislation that will not break the record of the Criminal Justice Act and have to be amended in less than seven months' time.
But there are some specific areas of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, mentioned the Scottish experience and I believe that we need to learn from that. The giving of these powers should not be contemplated unless the prosecution has a sensible apprehension of danger to the public or that there is some other weighty reason in the public interest like, for instance, absconding in important cases.
The Bill is silent as to that. It is not sufficient for us to have silence and hope for the best because the best,

1013
alas, very rarely happens. So we respectfully ask for the Minister's explicit assurances on the rules for Crown prosecutors. I endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon; namely, that this is a decision which should be in the hands of the Crown Prosecution Service and not those of a mischievous, interfering private prosecutor. The only way to cure that at the moment would be for the director to take over a private prosecution and therefore disentitle the private prosecutor to continue. That is an absurd bureaucratic sledge-hammer to crack a nut.
I respectfully endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said. There ought to be an explicit mechanism whereby the sanction for appeal must be in the hands of a Crown prosecutor of a specified seniority, whether it be a regional director or whatever rank. One simply cannot have a junior employee coming to a decision of this kind.
I believe that nothing which the Government can say by way of assurance will cure the point made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon on Clause 1(5) because it is mandatory that
"the magistrates' court shall remand in custody the person concerned, until the appeal is determined".
That seems to me to imply that if a Crown Court judge started to hear a case and thought that he was unlikely to allow the appeal, but it went over into a second or third day, the unfortunate defendant would have to be remanded in custody. That cannot be right. I do not believe that it is an intended consequence of the noble Lord's Bill. After all, what one needs is to deal with the present mischief which undoubtedly exists in our view. But we want an ordered, uniform approach in England and Wales without clogging up the system with inappropriate appeals.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon mentioned the 48-hour limit. It is a significant improvement. The Bill originally spoke of five days. Mr. Michael in another place secured Mr. Stephen's assent to a limit from five days to 48 hours, but it still excludes public holidays and weekends. So one can have a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day on Monday and Boxing Day on Tuesday. That is quite a significant deprivation of liberty as the noble Baroness has pointed out, and contrary to the principle which we normally apply.
Some strenuous effort should be made to enable bail appeal courts to sit in the evening and at the very least on Saturday morning. The courts are available. It is a perfectly simple device and from my own experience most bail appeals do not last very long as most bail applications, however vigorously disputed and contested, do not last very long in the magistrates' court. The issues are fairly simple.
Therefore we generally support the Bill as firmly as we can. But there are significant defects at the moment. My colleagues in another place have given every fair wind to the Bill but they have sought explicit assurances from the Government. I respectfully repeat the question put by my noble friend Lord Mishcon as to whether this matter should be in Government hands and receive a degree of expertise and consideration that it has not been able to receive because of the pressure of time. That is not a criticism
1014
of the sponsor in the other place and it is no criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who has patiently expounded his aims. Despite the fact that we very much support the Bill and recognise and honour the public's unease, we are deeply concerned as to whether it will have the right consequences. I do not reiterate the technical questions which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, raised, but they are well worth paying attention to.
8.20 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Bethel! on introducing the Bill and on giving us such a clear explanation of it.
As your Lordships will know, this Bill comes to us from another place where it was sponsored by the Member for Shoreham, to whom we also owe a debt of gratitude.
The Bill has made remarkable progress so far, no doubt because it seeks to deal with an issue which has, justifiably, given rise to much public concern. As we all know, magistrates up and down the country daily take decisions about the granting of bail. In taking those decisions, they are required to make very difficult judgments about the likely behaviour of defendants, often on the basis of limited information.
It is, therefore, a great credit to them that the vast majority of such decisions are sound and give no grounds for concern. We have good cause to respect the conscientious and professional way that magistrates—both stipendiary and lay—approach their duties.
But at the same time, we are all aware that there have been a small number of cases in which the decision to grant bail has had serious and, in some cases, tragic consequences. It is, of course, very easy to be wise after the event and I am sure that in those cases all concerned acted in what seemed to them to be the correct and most responsible manner. But once the decision to grant bail had been taken it could not be challenged, even if the prosecution had grave misgivings about the risks involved.
It is this element of the process which the Bill before us seeks to address by providing specifically that where the defendant is charged with certain serious offences and is granted bail despite prosecution objections, the prosecution shall have a right to appeal against that decision.
This is a very significant step and one which, as noble Lords have said, should not be taken lightly. Nevertheless, the risks are such that, provided there are adequate safeguards for the position of the defendant, the Government accept the general principle. It is, I fear, inevitable that the defendant should be held in custody pending the hearing of an appeal. It is all the more important, therefore, that the appeal should be heard as quickly as possible and we are pleased to see the requirement for an appeal to be commenced within 48 hours. In our view, this strikes the right balance between the practicalities of arranging for an appeal to be heard and the principle of holding a defendant in custody no longer than is absolutely necessary.

1015
There have been a number of interesting points raised in connection with this Bill which my noble friend will certainly wish to comment upon, but perhaps I may deal with a couple. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that there had been no Second Reading debate in another place. That is entirely true, but there was a debate in Standing Committee E on Wednesday 21st April, which took up 23 pages of Hansard, so the Bill was considered in another place. I think it is important that all of your Lordships recognise that point. The noble Lord also asked me about all the work that is going on. It is absolutely true that a lot of work is being undertaken to investigate offending on bail and to improve the decision-making. But this Bill is a safeguard against bail decisions that can have serious consequences. We therefore feel that the Bill could go ahead without affecting all the work that is taking place with regard to offending on bail.
To answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, perhaps I may say that if my noble friend is successful in securing the passage of this Bill, it will be necessary to draw up rules of court before it can be brought into force and that will provide an opportunity for consultation with practitioners. The rules of court will cover procedural arrangements, including the service of documents, arrangements for hearings, and discontinuance procedures so that no one is kept in custody unnecessarily if the prosecution decide not to pursue the appeal. Rules of court will make provision for several matters which have been mentioned, including the service of documents and time limits. The Crown Prosecution Service will be issued with guidance on the circumstances in which appeals should be lodged. These will include consideration of the seriousness of the risk to the public.
Once again, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Bill and wish him success with it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he kindly inform the House, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Bethel!, said about amendments killing the Bill, how rules can possibly provide that only the Crown Prosecution Service should be able to make the appeal, or that only a senior officer of the Crown Prosecution Service can deal with the question of whether there should be an appeal? Lastly, can he say whether the word "commence" is the correct word in the Bill, when it is quite obvious that the purpose behind the Bill, one imagines, is that the appeal is determined within the limited period, not commenced within it? As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn pointed out, one has to carry in one's mind the question of adjournment. With great respect, how can all these matters be dealt with by rules? Should not the Bill be taken over by the Government and dealt with as only the Government's draftsman can deal with it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, makes an important point. I am dealing with this Private Member's Bill from the Government's point of view. As your Lordships are aware, it will be my noble friend who will answer some of the more detailed points that have been raised
1016
about it. I am simply putting the Government's view of the Bill, and it is to the Bill that I am addressing my remarks. The noble Lord asked me about the Government's future intentions. I am afraid that I cannot be drawn on that because I must concentrate my remarks on the Bill. I believe that my noble friend will be able to answer the points which I am leaving to him.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, although I have not taken part in the Second Reading debate, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question because the situation is not clear to me. If the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is right and amendments are made to the Bill on Report, would that mean that the Bill would automatically not go through the Commons?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not think that I can speak for another place. I think that my noble friend was saying that there is a timetable difficulty if Private Member's Bills have to go back to the Commons at this stage. I know that the noble Lord will realise that I cannot commit another place any more than its Members can make commitments on behalf of your Lordships' House.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting Second Reading debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it. I appreciate the points that were raised by those who participated from the Benches opposite and in particular the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. With their specialist knowledge they have no doubt raised certain areas that need to be covered by the rules of court which will be laid down at a later date, as the Minister has suggested.
I am advised by those who are familiar with the timetables in another place that it will not, I am afraid, be possible to amend the Bill in this House if it is your Lordships' wish that it should become the law of the land. That is a result of the political situation as it exists today—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bethell: My Lords, you may find this unsatisfactory, but if you do, may I ask you please to bear in mind the opposite: that there is overwhelming support for a measure of this sort not only in another place but in the country at large? There is deep concern in the country about the number of people who re offend while on bail, particularly about those who commit violent offences while on bail and about those who go joyriding, who take cars and who very often plough, with tragic results, into children or people going about their lawful business. No disrespect is meant to your Lordships' House, but it is for those reasons that Members of another place have acted swiftly. I hope that they have also acted with due care. I do not know whether it is in order for me to point this out, but I shall do so until I am corrected. An Early-Day Motion was presented in another place which attracted more than 100 signatures from right across the political spectrum—from Mr. Tony Benn to

1017
Sir Teddy Taylor, with all the gradations in between. That was not a sign of agreement with every jot or tittle in the Bill, but a feeling that something must be done; that if something must be done it should be done now, and in this Session; and that if there is anything unsatisfactory, it should be tidied up later. There will be less tragedy if the Bill is passed than if it is not passed or if it is amended out of existence.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I accept everything that he has just said about the urgency and seriousness of the matters with which he is grappling, but bad laws should never be passed. If, as some of my noble friends have suggested, there are aspects of the Bill which give cause for concern, it is our duty to examine them in detail.
The noble Lord told us that the Bill attracts wide support. If we send the Bill back after amendment, I cannot believe that it is beyond the competence of the Government's business managers, with the assistance of the Opposition's business managers, to find time to consider the wiser thoughts of this House as expressed in any amendments it may care to pass.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, if the noble Lord believes that this is a bad Bill—
Lord Howell: My Lords, no, I did not say that.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, the noble Lord should of course not support it.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I did not say the Bill is a bad Bill. I say that there are aspects of the Bill which apparently—I have listened to the arguments—produce bad law. Those parts of the Bill should be amended. I am not opposed to the Bill. I want to get it right. I hope that the noble Lord has the same ambition.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I fully appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and that must be taken into account. I am merely pointing out the practical aspects of the Bill's timetable. He must make a judgment about whether to put down any amendments and, if any amendment is put down, whether to support it, bearing in mind the legislative timetable. He will of course do as his judgment and conscience dictate. That is his duty and his right. However, I thought it only right to point out the situation in which we find ourselves. I feel that the Bill is satisfactory. In that, I believe that I have the support of my noble friend the Minister. I hope that it will pass into law. Of course, the noble Lord is fully entitled to take a different view.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we want to do all that we can to help. We have heard informed contributions from the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. They, of all the people here this evening, know what they are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said that there is overwhelming support for a measure of this sort. One has a duty to be careful. We want the gap filled appropriately. No fair-minded
1018
person could say that an irresponsible quibble had been raised this evening. Indeed, I do not believe that the noble Lord thinks that any of the questions are irresponsible. But it will not do—I believe that he must see this—merely to say, "This is not a marvellous Bill, but we have to get it through". Nor will it do, with great respect, for the Minister to say, "We will cobble up some rules". There is no rule-making power in the Bill.
I am aware of the noble Lord's commitment to the Bill. He has spoken about the ACPO and the Police Federation. I discussed these matters with them on numerous occasions last year. I respectfully suggest that what my noble friend Lord Mishcon proposed is the way forward for everyone; that is, that the noble Lord should have much more assistance from the Government in the drafting of a Bill which would be good and have unanimous support. We all support the principle. The noble Lord and his Bill are entitled to some assistance from the Government's expertise and draftsmanship.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may help your Lordships a little. If this were a Government Bill, it might contain different provisions. It might be larger and it might cover different areas. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary took the view that, because there was considerable support for it on both sides in another place, the Government should take the Bill seriously, and they did so.
The Bill originally contained a number of measures which were unacceptable to the Government, in particular, Clause 2. Those were changed. The Bill was looked at closely. The Government will use the rules of court and guidance to ensure that there are safeguards against any abuse of a right to appeal. Of course guidance cannot cover private prosecutions. It covers decisions made by the CPS.
I accept that your Lordships might be worried because the Bill has limited aspirations as it does not contain all the other matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. We are dealing with a Bill which the Government feel takes a step in the right direction. That is why the Government were prepared to support the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if it is a step in the right direction, why not complete the journey?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have to deal with the Bill as I find it. I cannot deal with a Bill that does not exist.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand that. I have stressed, I am sure far too often, that we all want the Bill in an improved form to have a safe passage. But the conscience about which my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, speak, and the practical experience that the noble Baroness adds, raise serious questions. The Government want the Bill through in an improved form. So do we, and so does everyone who has spoken. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of well thinking people to offer the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, some reasonable measure of expertise and time.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, if I may get a word in, I hasten to point out that if the Government were to make me such an offer, no one would be happier. I am committed to trying to achieve a Second Reading of the Bill this evening. I have done what I believe it to he my duty to do—to explain the Bill to your Lordships to the best of my ability and to point out the pitfalls that could befall it in a certain eventuality. The Government must make their own decision as to whether they think it appropriate to take over the Bill. I shall proceed, when I have the opportunity, to invite your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this may be the last interjection from anyone. It will be the last interjection from me. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams for having put the matter in the correct perspective. The policy is approved. Detail is very badly wanting in regard to the Bill. I suggest that the Bill has a Second Reading, because the policy behind it is approved by us all.
I turn to the Minister with a plea, and some degree of hope in my eyes as I do so. I hope that he will limit himself this evening to the observation that he will give serious consideration to what has been submitted in this debate as to the possible defects of the Bill with a view to seeing that they are removed by joint consultations. If the Minister merely gives the assurance that he will consider the matter in that light, we can all go home with the Second Reading passed, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, happy in the thought that he has succeeded at this stage.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to say that they will help the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, with some amendments based on what has been said, bring the Bill back quickly and hustle it through the other place?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have already said that I cannot speak for another place any more than they can speak for your Lordships. However, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the assurance that I always take very careful note of what he says.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I think that we have come to the end of the matter now, to some extent satisfactorily. I very much hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. As I pointed out, I should be only too pleased if the Front Bench were to take it out of my hands. I am sure that they would do a much better job than I could. I am merely doing my humble best.
I thank noble Lords for their participation in the debate and leave the question of a Second Reading to he decided.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sports Facilities
8.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have additional proposals to improve and increase public sports facilities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is some time since your Lordships' House debated sport. I believe that I initiated the debate on the previous occasion when we discussed the subject. I am sorry that the debate is taking place at this time of the night, after two very late sittings of the House, so that noble Lords are less inclined to stay for the debate. I should have thought that with all the difficulties facing sport at present the subject would have been worthy of a more substantial debate in order that all the representative points of view could be considered.
I shall not speak for long. I shall not speak about professional sport because I believe that that is well catered for by its own public relations staff who represent the individual sports. Little notice is taken of what is said about them because they are professional in name and in their activities. They run their own houses on a financial basis and control their own sports in their own way.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of being invited to the annual general meeting of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. Afterwards, at the walkabout lunch following the meeting, I had the opportunity to meet groups of people representing various sports such as girls' netball, crown green bowls, flat green bowls, ten-pin bowls and so on. In this debate I am concerned with the lower end of the sports pyramid.
One of the main factors is the lack or shortage of finance. I recognise that it is difficult to talk about increases in finance for sport at a time of serious recession and economic difficulty, but I should like to make one or two principal points.
In the not too distant future substantial sums of money will be available from the national lottery. Sport will be a recipient of some of that money. I am told that one of the bodies which presently distributes money to sport does so at a cost of only £2 for every £100 distributed. However, it is possible that another body will be brought into being and given the job of distributing money for sport and that the cost will be much higher. I hope that the Government will think twice before making any alteration that will increase the administrative costs of distributing that money.
One of the main detrimental factors affecting sport in this country at the level with which I am concerned is the burden of the new uniform business rate. My noble friend Lord Howell referred to this subject when he was in another place. I believe that thousands of voluntary clubs have gone out of existence because they could not afford to keep going.
I am told that there are an estimated 150,000 voluntary sports clubs affiliated to the national governing bodies of sport, many of which own their own premises but are non-profit distributing and are reliant on volunteers to run their affairs. Independent sources estimate that £40 million is paid by voluntary clubs to the Treasury. A recent survey carried out in 1992–93 by the Central Council of Physical Recreation showed that 241 per cent. of clubs were being refused relief on the uniform business rate by local authorities. It is not an arbitrary matter, it is left to the discretion of local authorities. In Scotland, the cost of relief to the regional councils is estimated at nearly £3 million

1021
and in Northern Ireland at £1.33 million. At present there is no accurate figure in relation to the position in England.
I should like to put this very important point to the Minister concerning VAT. I understand that there is a new EC directive. The total amount that the Treasury claims from VAT on voluntary sports clubs is not clear, but the European Commission's sixth directive published in January 1993 stated that member states should be exempting voluntary sports clubs and associations. Great Britain is the only country in Europe not to exempt those clubs. The Central Council of Physical Recreation is having discussions with the Treasury and Customs and Excise officials to try to find a solution. If the Government could follow the same road as our colleagues in Europe immediately pre-Maastricht that would be money well spent.
There is no question about the benefits derived from sport at an early age. I do not want to give detailed figures, but the Royal College of Physicians has carried out a survey which shows that 13 per cent. of boys and 10 per cent. of girls are overweight. The national fitness survey showed that 70 per cent. of men and 91 per cent. of women do little or no exercise. It has been established that if young people have the opportunity to participate in physical exercise or games as youngsters they will carry on with that into adult life. That makes for a healthier Britain. There is general agreement that if youngsters have something wholesome to do, such as participating in any type of sport, whether it is soccer, cricket or running, or even fell walking, that keeps them out of mischief.
My noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Donoughue may have figures but I shall not spend more time quoting figures. However, there has been a dramatic fall in the availability of facilities for children of school age as a result of the disposal of school playing fields, and other facilities such as swimming pools, because of government policy. I do not wish to make this a political issue but I do not want the Minister to say that that has not happened, because it has.
I am a Mancunian by birth and I still live just outside Manchester. I remember when swimmers in Manchester who were good enough to make the Olympic team—and there were quite a number of them—used to train at High Street baths in the centre of Manchester. Those baths are now either in danger of closure or the decision has been taken to close them. That has caused absolute outrage because the number of local authority places where children can swim has diminished. It may be that one of my colleagues will wish to make further comments on that.
In 1990–91 local authorities received nearly £65 million for the sale of school playing grounds and other facilities. It is estimated that 40,000 playing fields and 70,000 sports pitches have been disposed of. When we are trying to keep our children off the streets and away from the juvenile courts it is tragic that that kind of massacre of facilities is taking place. I hope that the Government will take that on board because I am sure that the provision of such facilities would
1022
save the Government a great deal of money by keeping children away from juvenile crime. Many people voluntarily devote their lives' work to aiding such children and that is an extremely worthwhile exercise.
I do not wish to speak at length and other noble Lords wish to contribute to the debate. Therefore, I shall be brief and conclude my remarks with a few comments about funding and finance. I understand that the Secretary of State in another place has given a clear undertaking on more than one occasion that any money from the national lottery going to sport will be new money. In other words, it will not be used to raid the existing grants which are received from the Government—it will be additional money. That extra money will enable the voluntary sporting bodies to develop much-needed sports facilities.
I should have liked to speak for longer and I have available a mass of detail but I have confined myself to making one or two important points of principle. I know that this matter will be dealt with thoroughly by my noble friend Lord Howell who has had more direct involvement in sport than I have and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Donoughue will also have an important contribution to make. I ask the Government to consider carefully the points which I have made and, when there is time available, perhaps we may return to this matter for a fuller discussion.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it is not often that as only the second speaker in the debate one can stand up and say in all honesty that most of the areas that one was going to cover have at least been touched upon by the first speaker; but that has happened today.
My first point concerns support for voluntary bodies. That is extremely important. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointed out, we tax our voluntary sporting bodies extremely heavily. That is all the more unfortunate because they are increasingly having to provide sports education. That is a result of the Government introducing the national curriculum which has much going for it, but there is increasing pressure on the amount of school time available for non-core subjects. Those subjects are being pushed to one side. It means that extra curricula activities are pushed aside; for example, team games. It takes a long time to organise and drill a team, especially in technical sports like cricket and rugby. Those will always be the first to go if there is pressure on teachers' time.
Having warmed myself up for tomorrow's debates on the Report stage of the Education Bill, I turn now to the voluntary clubs and why they need that extra relief from taxation. All clubs, even at a very basic level, will need to generate some income; for example, to pay for outfits. You cannot play in a football team or a rugby team if all the players are wearing different jerseys because you will pass the ball to the wrong player. It is that simple. Therefore, there is always a need for some income.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, even clubs at the bottom end of the scale want to be competitive. In most organised team games people benefit from being

1023
competitive on the sports field. To be competitive they will need to have training sessions, which means hiring facilities if they do not own them, or maintaining facilities if they do own them. The teams will need coaching and physiotherapy.
In my sport of rugby union we are amateurs up to an extremely high level. Therefore, we need to generate money in order to compete at that high level. Coaches, physiotherapists, trainers, pitches, facilities and sports medicine all require money. If that is to be clone, there must be a lowering of the tax burden, especially if those clubs begin to take on the burden of sports education. We must make sure that more money is made available, especially for technical British sports.
The first and easiest way in which the Government can do that is by lowering the taxation burden to something akin to charitable status. If that were done, the Government would not have to go through the rigmarole of handing out more funds but would merely have to stop themselves from removing quite so much from those non-profit-making organisations which are raising the funds.
In all those sectors the growth in junior coaching has been phenomenal over the past few years. That is taking on an extremely important role in education. Surely the Government should have some sympathy for that kind of activity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, said, as schools sports grounds and other communal local authority-owned land are being sold off, those clubs are under pressure to become more organised and to raise more funds because they must own their own facilities. For example, if training facilities are not available, they must be rented through the private sector. The Government really should address their mind to that issue.
Local government reorganisation is taking place. New councillors may have different priorities and sports facilities may suffer as a result. Therefore, it surely makes sense for the Government to relieve the voluntary clubs of that heavy tax burden.
Everybody agrees that if we encourage people to take part in sporting activities, they will benefit from a sense of achievement and it will also improve their health. For example, it has been said that a high percentage of the population is overweight. Most people who take part in sporting activities will lose weight. As has been pointed out to me even though a low-level activity may not do a great deal of good, if you are taking a gentle walk, at least you are not spending your time stuffing your face with chips. You must provide people with an incentive to take part in sporting activities. The Government must ensure that communal space is available and they must recognise the fact that basic sporting facilities need to be made available to the general public for most of the year.
I make no special plea for any particular type of activity because sport is as susceptible to fashion as are most other forms of activity. Aerobics have replaced jogging as the "in" way to keep fit. Walking has become increasingly popular. One person pointed out to me that once you have a car, a great variety of places can be reached from which to take a walk.
1024
However, an environmentalist pointed out that the atmosphere is then polluted by the car while it is travelling to the countryside and the countryside is ruined by people trampling across it. That is a debate which we could discuss for hours and in which we could involve dozens of elements of your Lordships' House.
We want a more cohesive approach from the Government and leadership from the centre. At present, we do not know where we are going. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the new national lottery funding must be seen to be extra funding. I say that because if it starts to replace anything, even very slowly, we shall be forced back into a very similar situation to the one in which we find ourselves at present. Indeed, we do not know how much money will he generated by the national lottery. That is another political decision. After all, the sureties and so on could change in the future. The in-fighting between the arts and sports lobbies may not be a pretty sight if both are forced to cut back on resources.
I hope that we can hear from the Government tonight what their attitude would be towards trying to introduce better tax incentives for those voluntary bodies which are taking on so much of the basic sports education and introduction in the country and offering people the opportunity to start and participate.
9 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick and to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for raising matters on this rare occasion of a sporting character. They both touched on areas with which I shall not necessarily deal in the hope of being effectively brief, although that may be difficult. Nevertheless, I can only hope that we shall have more such opportunities.
On the other hand, if we look at the attendance in the Chamber for the debate this evening and then look at the speakers' list to see the names of those who have indicated their wish to speak, it must be said that it will not-give much heart to British sport to know that there are four of us listening and two or three of us waiting to speak. But sport is much more important than this absence of speakers would indicate.
I begin by picking up the Prime Minister's statement that he is very depressed. He told the women Conservatives last week that he was depressed not about the state of the economy or about the finances of the nation; he said that he was depressed because England had lost 2-nil against Norway and that he was further depressed because we had lost three one-day cricket test matches and the First Test. I should like to tell the Prime Minister, very kindly, that the reason we are losing in sport is just as great a matter of concern to the Government as are their economic and financial policies. Indeed, part of the case that I shall make is that it is naturally and inevitably the fact that we shall do badly at international sport if we deny the grass roots of sport in our schools and in our local authorities the nurture that is absolutely essential. The one follows the other.

1025
In the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, there was a total obsession, not with the best interests of sport but with the Football Spectators Bill, which we spent many hours discussing in Committee, and so on, and which was supposed to deal with the problem of hooliganism. Following the recent match in Norway, we find that even the parts of the Bill that are still in place which deal with how to stop thugs going abroad have had no effect. Indeed, large numbers of people were arrested, thereby disgracing the name of our country, because, yet again, the Government failed to listen to what we told them.
It is no use the new Secretary of State at the Home Office saying that he wants the Norwegians to prosecute. That is a very old story. I called for that myself time and again in the World Cup and elsewhere. However, he is right: the rest of the world is fed up with the British so-called "supporters" that we import into their countries. They do not want to prosecute them; they want to get rid of them back to this country. The only way to deal with the matter is to stop such people travelling abroad once they have a record of any sort. We told the Government that the Bill would not deal with the problem; indeed, it has not done so. If the Government want to amend it, I would be most happy.
Incidentally, I should like to stress that I am not particularly encouraged by the fact that Mr. Robert Key was one of the few Ministers to be moved in the recent reshuffle. I should like to pay my tribute to him. In fact, he had made a considerable mark. He listened to people and put himself around to be talked to, and so on. Moreover, he was gaining confidence. Therefore, I think that it is rather sad that he was moved at this moment in time, although I wish his successor well.
The debate is about local authority contribution to sport and recreation. The essential point to be made about sport and recreation is that it is a social service. Unless it is treated as such—it involves people's leisure time and helping them to spend it constructively and develop their personalities by playing sports—we shall never get the matter right. On the whole local authorities are the great providers of sport. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about the voluntary sector. I endorse every word he said. On the question of concessions for rating and business relief and other such matters, I very much hope the Government will go as far as they can, although this is perhaps not a very good time. However, as I said before, it is essential to understand that sport is a social service.
I have only one quotation in my speech. It comes from a document of the Sports Council which I have with me. It reads:
"The decline of sport in schools—particularly team games —has been a matter of great concern to the Sports Council. In its submission to the Minister for Sport's Policy Review, school aged sport was identified as the Council's main current concern. Team sports have been hit particularly hard by the decline in the time available to teachers and pupils for extra-curricular activities. Local management of schools and financial pressures on local authorities present further challenges to the future of sport in schools".
1026
That is a very serious statement. The schools are the foundation of the whole of British sport—that is, of international and national sport as well as encouraging thousands of people to take up sports for the enjoyment and pleasure thereof. That is sport's true purpose: the joy and the happiness that it provides. It is the health of our communities that concerns us, as well as the future skills and performances of our national teams. Sport in the schools and the sports provision of local authorities are the bedrock upon which all that must be built. They are indissoluble. We should be concerned with sport in schools but particularly the provision for sport in primary schools. I go further and say that the drift away from proper sport provision in our schools originated in teacher training colleges. If we are having trouble in providing tennis players for Wimbledon, we are hardly likely to rectify that position until more tennis players are nurtured in schools, and that is not likely to occur until we provide the appropriate facilities and teachers who are trained in tennis coaching. Nothing I have seen in teacher training colleges comforts me in this regard.
Someone once said that there is not one qualified PE teacher in any primary school in this country. That may be a slight exaggeration but I believe it is near the truth. Teacher training colleges are now trying desperately to rectify that situation. However, they are hampered by inadequate funding. I come back to the Prime Minister's problems that I mentioned earlier. We should observe the performance of the England football team. We may find that a difficult thing to do but we may well do that at a later date and I wish them better luck on that occasion. Anyone who knows anything about football can see that the team lacks basic skills in football. Players are unable, even at this level, to trap the ball properly unless they have two or three yards to spare. One can see that on football pitches every Saturday afternoon. There is an inability to shoot straight or to pass the ball accurately. Those basic skills need to be taught to children in primary schools and certainly at an early stage in secondary schools.
Our England batsmen are often left in no-man's land during cricket matches. They do not know whether to go forward or back. They stay where they are and they are called out. Captains and bowlers do not know where bowlers should be bowling. That was very evident last week. When the captains decide where their bowlers are bowling, they do not know how to set the field for their bowlers. If they are bowling down the leg side, they put the fielders on the off side and vice versa. Those are elementary observations. I never thought I would have to point them out.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will reply, I am sure, with his usual aplomb, courtesy and concern. I beg of him to ask the Department for Education to stop talking absolute balderdash about the number of PE teachers in schools. We do not have enough PE teachers and it is no good saying there are enough to go round. I have been connected with Carnegie College for some years now. That is the oldest of our PE colleges. That college is trying to run a course for

1027
curriculum leaders but there is a shortage of funds. The staff at the college have informed me that the biggest problem they face is not being able to offer in-service training of primary school teachers as they do not have the funds to do so.
I now turn to the national curriculum. What we need is a strong statement from the Government on the philosophy and the purpose that they envisage for physical education within the school curriculum. We do not have such a philosophy and we suffer as a result. What do the Government perceive as the role of PE in schools and what do the Government perceive as the purpose of sport in schools?
A member of my family is a teacher and she has told me that in her school the ludicrous tests and the preparations for them which we have all heard about meant that all PE was abandoned during the period when the school was obsessed with preparing for the tests. The tests were not conducted but they nevertheless had to be prepared for. That shows that PE is not acknowledged as playing a central role in the development of the child. As I have reminded the House on a previous occasion, when Rab Butler's Act was passed physical education and religious education were the two compulsory subjects in the curriculum, as it was considered that they dealt with the spiritual and physical development of the child. Rab Butler got the matter right and we have been going downhill ever since we abandoned his principle.
As regards local government and schools, I believe the Government's policies are undermining their own purpose. Young people are being priced out of sports facilities as a result of Government policy and the cut-backs in local government spending. There can be no doubt at all about that. Playing fields are being sold off at a time when we have massive unemployment among young people, with delinquency, as my noble friend Lord Dean pointed out, and vandalism in our societies and communities. There is no proper maintenance of these sports facilities. I draw to your Lordships' attention that this is an inevitable result of the compulsory tendering regime. What is happening now in all our local authorities—I ask the Minister to take this point back—is that, if you say you are going to have compulsory tendering of management, maintenance, grass mowing and so on, then when people have to find savings all those areas in sports recreation will be denied to us, because they will often be put out to the private sector. I am not arguing that case at the moment: all I am saying is that the inevitable result is that spending in local government is very much restricted. Consequently, cuts fall on development work, coaching and the teaching of skills and on holiday courses and work for the disadvantaged such as we have been talking about, together with the unemployed, and so on.
I move rapidly on to the role of school sports associations, which I have talked about on many occasions, in this House and in the other place. The help of school sports associations is essential for all sports provision in the community and for our national teams. It is now almost an impossibility to find teachers who will turn out in their spare time on Saturday afternoons or evenings during the week
1028
because such a feeling of alienation has grown up between the Government and the teaching profession. It started, incidentally, with a decision of the Government that teachers have to clock in. I think they have to do a certain number of hours during the year—I believe 1,400 hours—and teachers are saying, "I have been giving my service to school sports on Saturday mornings and Saturday afternoons for years and I am now told that that is being discounted and I have to do 1,400 hours. I will do those hours, and I will not do any more." We have a chronic crisis in school sports associations. I would ask the Government to consider what they are going to do about this and how they are going to get the teachers back into running school sports and specialist team sports, athletics and so on.
I would like to say one word about the national lottery, of which I am a great supporter. The problems of local authorities now relate not to capital projects but to revenue considerations. We are told that most of the money from national lotteries will go on capital projects. As I have said on other occasions, every capital project has a revenue consequence, and you cannot depart from the revenue consequence. The biggest need for local authorities at the moment is to put right all the facilities that have been built since the war, which are crumbling. The facilities that are decaying can only be dealt with by revenue money. We do not need any more capital projects, or very few of them. We do not need many capital projects built for most of our local authorities. We need to employ coaches and to buy equipment. We need to have maintenance and we need to open up with the Sports Council rating relief; and we need to raise money in ways that have been suggested.
My final point is that we cannot avoid the cost of sport and recreational policy. When I was a Minister I had an exercise done—I think it was at Huyton, near Liverpool, which my noble friend will know well—on finding the cost to the community of dealing with all the damage, the delinquency and vandalism on that estate. It was necessary to find how that equated with the amount of money spent on sports and recreational facilities on that estate. The answer was outstanding: it was that we were spending money on repairing broken windows and all sorts of damage to facilities because we were not spending money in the first place to get people happily engaged in healthy sport, which is the way to terminate delinquency. We have to have more policemen on our forces, and on our beats. But how much better to have young people doing constructive tasks so that we do not need so many additional policemen on the beat.
There can be only one choice facing the country with regard to sports and recreation in the community. It is an absolutely essential service. There is only one way to deliver such a social service. It is through the local authorities. I again congratulate my noble friend for bringing that important point to the attention of the House.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I apologise that my name was erroneously omitted from the list of speakers. I am sorry that my intervention adds 25 per cent. to the list and takes us to a later hour. It is a cosy gathering. One feels that we might more conveniently and convivially have met in the bar. However, I am confident that the quality of speeches more than compensates for the absence of quantity.
First, like my predecessor, I thank my noble friend Lord Dean for giving us the opportunity to debate sport. I agreed with all that he said, especially his stress on the base of the pyramid. Sport, as we would all agree, is an issue which concerns a wide range of citizens from all walks of life. A healthy society, both physically, mentally, socially and even medically, is one which has a vibrant sporting life.
There are many aspects to sport and to this Question. A number have been well addressed by my noble friends Lord Dean and Lord Howell. My noble friend Lord Howell especially speaks with more knowledge and experience than anyone in either House of Parliament.
Of particular importance are the roles of sport in relation to the nation's health and as a way of improving the social behaviour of our youth. It is not even financially sensible to save money by cutting sports facilities and then to have to spend 10 times as much on juvenile vandalism. However, I wish to focus especially on the impact of central and local government on the nation's sporting landscape.
I was a member of the original Sports Council set up by my noble friend Lord Howell nearly 30 years ago. We were excited and inspired then by a new vision of expanding sports facilities and sport access to the whole nation. I give two examples. One was the drive to build multi-purpose sports halls; barely a dozen then existed. In the next two decades some 1,500 were built. We were also deeply concerned that local authorities should open facilities, in particular in schools, to wider dual use.
I fear that some of that momentum has been lost. The local authorities, always the engine-rooms of sports provision in this country, have been squeezed particularly hard in that area. Spending on sport has been cut by 25 per cent. from £600 million to £450 million between 1987–88 and 1991–92. Further cuts are expected. Overall sports and recreation budgets were 5.1 per cent. of expenditure in 1987–88 and by this year are down to 4.3 per cent.
According to a recent Sports Council analysis, the United Kingdom spends one-third less on sport than any other EC country except Portugal. That is a disgrace and a betrayal of British sport. Public money matters. When applied to sport it is an investment, not only in sport itself but in the activities which relate to sport—tourism, media technology, and so on. It also pays off for the national Treasury. The Sports Council estimates that the Treasury receives £3.5 billion annually in tax revenue on sport and sports-related activities. That is seven times what it spends on sport. Adequate grants to sport are an investment in the nation's health, leisure and its industry.
Sport is basically a vital part of our quality of life.
1030
Yet in simple health terms, as my noble friend Lord Dean pointed out, the White Paper The Health of the Nation found that 70 per cent. of men and 91 per cent. of women do not take sufficient exercise for a healthy lifestyle. As I think he pointed out, 13 per cent. of boys and 10 per cent. of girls—and, I imagine, a much larger percentage of the Government Front Bench—were classified as overweight. How much of that is due to the absence of convenient and accessible public sports facilities?
The situation in schools is particularly worrying and that was quite rightly stressed by my noble friend Lord Howell. The 1991 report of the National Association of Head Teachers established that 56 per cent. of all schools said that they had insufficient sports facilities to conduct the new PE curriculum. The 1990 report of the Secondary Heads Association shows that three-quarters of their children have less than two hours of sport and physical recreation a week. I personally know, from experience with my own children at an inner London comprehensive school, how unsatisfactory sports provision can be. And it is getting worse. The Secondary Heads Association report to which I referred stated that 70 per cent. of state schools had suffered a decrease in extra-curricular activities in recent years. One reason for that deterioration is the policy of selling off local authority playing fields, made easy by the Government's 1981 regulations.
The CCPR estimates—as my noble friend Lord Dean mentioned —that £100,000 worth of sports fields are being sold off a day by local authorities. As he said, they received £65 million for the sale of sports facilities in the last recorded year for which we have figures. How can this massacre of facilities, as he quite rightly said, be justified? It is reversing our policies of expanding sports provision carried out by governments of both parties in the previous quarter of a century.
This difficult and undesirable situation is made worse again by the new provisions that where schools have dual use facilities, the schools alone are deemed to control them. I think that is bound to deter local authority and community efforts to establish such dual use facilities. Once more, that reverses the important and often difficult progress made in the field over previous decades. Dual use is an integral part of the Sports Council's policy for Britain. I should like the Minister to say something tonight to give us reassurance on dual use in the future.
The whole nation is concerned at Britain's present sports performance at national level, as my noble friend Lord Howell mentioned. Our cricket is depressing, our tennis is virtually non-existent at Wimbledon level, our Olympic performance is mediocre, our soccer is embarrassing. Tonight we tremble at what will happen across the Atlantic; one wonders, will our national team revert to the ancient habit of actually passing to its own side? But captains and team managers get the blame.
A nation's sport flowers only if its roots are properly nurtured. If we neglect the grassroots of our sport which are basically in our schools and the local clubs, then we are certain to do badly at the top. That

1031
is why we must halt the neglect and decline of public provision for sport. That is why we must invest, not only in Manchester for the Olympic 2000—though we must certainly do that—but also in our youth who will be competing at the Olympics and on football and other sporting fields long after that. We must not focus only on the Olympian heights. The needs of ordinary, everyday sportsmen with no pretensions to such high levels are of equal importance in our society, as my noble friend stressed.
I might add, since the national lottery has been mentioned, that it would be quite wrong to assume —as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, in what I thought was an excellent speech—that the new national lottery will perform miracles in this field. In this House we shall have other opportunities to discuss that point. But I stress that the lottery is supposed to be new money, additional to normal sports expenditure. I look forward to the Minister's reply to the question of my noble friend Lord Howell regarding the stress on capital projects and the need for current assistance. I should also like to ask him, in relation to the Manchester Olympics, what happens to the money that we have been told has been set aside for Manchester's bid if that bid fails? Will it be used for other sports? We should like the Minister to give us some assurance on that point.
But we need not be all doom and gloom about sport. Millions of people up and down Britain derive great pleasure each week from participating in and watching sport of all kinds. I may say that my noble friend Lord Peston (I am told privately, and perhaps it is unfair to reveal it publicly) even derives pleasure from going to Highbury to watch the Arsenal.
I am deeply concerned that the great progress made in national sports provision over recent decades is being jeopardised by—if I may quote what Mr. Lamont said in another place today when he denounced it—this Government's short-termism. I look forward—I have to admit more with hope than expectation—to some reassurances from the Minister. Above all, I think that we would all welcome a clear statement of the Government's attitude to nurturing sport at the grass roots, and especially in the schools.
9.31 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, to set out what this Government are doing to improve and increase public sports facilities. As always, we have had an interesting debate. I was intrigued by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, until I looked him up in Dod's and saw that he was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science from 1964 to 1969. I then understood how he equated our success in the 1966 World Cup with an increase in Labour's majority in the election that followed. It is a good line and I enjoy it. But I have to deal with the present day in 1993.
I always thought that to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, sport was a day out at Towcester race course. So I was delighted to discover his interest in and knowledge of some of the other sports in which he and I are also interested.
1032
The Government are doing much in the area of sports facilities of which they can be justly proud. It would be wrong to concentrate solely on the provision of new facilities, as some noble Lords have said. Of perhaps greater importance is to make better use of what we have by attracting more customers. This means improving the sensitivity of management to customer demands and the quality of what is provided for any given price. Before the taxpayer is asked to pay more for additional facilities, or the private sector has the confidence to invest in partnership arrangements, they are entitled to see value for money demonstrated in what is already provided and in how it is managed.
I should like to pay tribute to what local authorities have provided in recent years in the leisure field. There has been a considerable increase in sports facilities over the past 10 years; in particular, increases in the number of sports halls and leisure centres. The number of public indoor swimming-pools in England has increased from 964 in 1981 to 1,050 in 1990. There are now over 1,500 sports halls and leisure centres in England compared with just 771 in 1981–82. There were only 30 artificial pitches in England in 1981, where now there are nearly 300. Of course, there have been unfortunate examples of out-of-date and expensive facilities being closed as part of a replacement and rationalisation programme, and in some cases as a result of poor management. But overall as these figures demonstrate, there has been a very substantial increase in the number of sports facilities open to the public.
It is sometimes alleged that playing fields are being sold off at an alarming rate to the detriment of both existing and future sports provision. There is no firm evidence to support such a view. My department granted the Sports Council some El million in 1991–92 to carry out for the first time a comprehensive survey of playing field provision to be up-dated on a continuing basis—a register. The results should be available later this month. Our policy remains firm that before playing fields are disposed of by local authorities, the local authorities should take account of long-term community needs. The Government and the Sports Council have been playing their part in improving the quality and competence of management, which is essential if the quality of provision is to be increased.
I would like briefly to refer to some of the incentives and measures available to leisure managers to increase efficiency and improve their services. One of the tools which managers can refer to is the Citizen's Charter. Its six key principles are: published standards of service; customer views to be taken into account in setting those standards; clear information about the range of services to be provided; courteous and efficient customer service; well-signposted avenues for complaint with independent review whenever possible; and independent validation of performance against standards and a clear commitment to improving value for money. We have had a very positive response to the Citizen's Charter guidelines.
A recent most important development was the introduction of national vocational qualifications launched last November in the sport and recreational

1033
field. The new qualification and occupational standards should provide a framework for the development and training of staff and volunteers in the sport and recreation industry on a par with opportunities in all other sectors of the economy.
This initiative has encouraged a new unity. In addition to the education and training consortium which has been set up by leading sports organisations to promote the implementation of NVQs, an important further step has been the development of the "Running Sport" initiative, planned jointly by the Sports Council, the British Olympic Association, the National Sports Development Centres and the British Association of National Sports Administrators.
Let me turn to competitive tendering, an issue raised, among others, by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Competitive tendering for the management of sports and leisure facilities is an example of where it is now increasingly accepted by the private sector that there will be circumstances in which the in-house team can do a better job that it could do. Conversely, there are examples of where the public sector has much to learn from the private sector. Initially there were fears on the one side that local government invariably kills initiative and on the other that the profit motive is incompatible with a high quality of service. Both those fears were exaggerated. Compulsory competitive tendering has succeeded in stimulating a positive review of local authority practices and improved efficiency in the sphere of leisure management, whether performed in-house or externally.
Despite the recent troubles in Oslo, the past two years represent a turning point for football in Britain. Prompted by the appalling tragedies at Bradford and Hillsborough, and the subsequent report into football by Lord Justice Taylor, the football authorities and clubs have recognised the need to put right the damage caused by years of neglect and to turn football stadiums into facilities which we as spectators can be proud of as we enter the next century. Earlier today I was in Bath, addressing the Institute of Building Control, which over the next few days will be looking at safety issues in football and in sport.
I should like to turn to resources and the resources available to local authorities and to other and new sources of provision. That is a point brought up by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Donoughue. Provisional indications are that gross capital expenditure by local authorities in England increased from £161 million in 1986–87 to £240 million in 1992–93.
Local authorities in England and Wales are entitled to spend nearly all—rather than a proportion—of the capital receipts they realise between 13th November 1992 and 31st December 1993. Authorities are not obliged to spend the receipts during that period and can spend them on any kind of capital expenditure. That measure represents a substantial increase in local authorities' spending power. On the assumption that authorities' receipts continue at about the levels they themselves forecast for 1992–93, the concession should add about £1.75 billion to local authority capital spending in England and Wales. I hope that they are
1034
finding ways of putting those receipts to good use, including for sport and recreation projects which represent such a good investment both for the individual citizen and the community at large.
An important theme of the Government's approach to the provision of sports facilities is that we should move away from the concepts of separate local authority sports facilities and separate private sector commercial leisure. The Government are keen to encourage partnerships and many have already been created successfully. Charitable trusts can also be used to assist such partnerships and keep entrance fees low. That has been suggested by the commercial leisure operators represented by Business in Sport and Leisure in its discussions with the Association of District Councils and others.
It may be helpful to quote a hypothetical example. A local authority needs a new swimming pool, but has a site that is attractive to the private sector that could take a well-designed ten-pin bowling alley and other commercial facilities. The private sector acquires the whole site for development. It could then set up a charitable trust for the swimming pool which would be used to teach children to swim and be open to the public at large. All sectors of the community could be represented on the trust. The trust would be exempt from at least 80 per cent. of uniform business rate and by taking advantage of gift aid and covenants to reduce building costs, entrance costs could be kept to a minimum. The swimming pool would be a true community facility.
Grass roots sport in Great Britain has benefited by almost £3.5 million following the launch of the Government's Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme for Sport or "Sportsmatch". Launched last November, the scheme aims to increase the amount of business sponsorship going into grass roots sport by offering pound for pound matching funding for new and extended sponsorships. In the difficult economic circumstances which companies were experiencing, even as we come out of recession, the Government were concerned at the impact on grass roots sponsorship of sport. Priority areas for the scheme are the. young, disabled people, ethnic minorities and deprived urban and rural areas. For Great Britain as a whole some £3.7 million a year is being put into the scheme of which £3 million is for England. After a small allowance for administrative expenses that should bring around £7 million per year of additional funding into grass roots sport.
I now deal with some of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked what the Government are doing to promote sport in the school curriculum. PE, which includes sport, is one of the 10 foundation subjects in the national curriculum. The attainment target and programmes of study for PE were introduced for pupils in Key Stages 1 to 3 from August 1992. The introduction of PE for pupils in Key Stage 4, which is 14 to 16, will begin from August 1995.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was also concerned about the training for teachers to teach national curriculum PE. We want to ensure that initial teacher training courses are more closely related to the needs

1035
of schools and their pupils by improving the focus on national curriculum requirements. Most secondary school PE teachers are trained through undergraduate courses, ensuring that sufficient time is available for thorough training. We also intend that some primary teachers should undergo training which prepares them to become subject specialists or curriculum leaders in PE.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked whether the Government intend to do anything to address the inconsistencies which exist between local authorities in the area of discretionary rate relief. I sympathise with some clubs' concerns, given the variation in practice which appears to exist between local authorities in this area. However, local authorities value their independence a great deal, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dean, realises far better than I do.
The Government's view is that the element of local discretion in the granting of rate relief is vital for ensuring that relief is targeted at more deserving cases, having regard to the interests of the local community. It is the Department of the Environment which has the responsibility for the current system of discretionary rate relief for voluntary clubs. In January this year, and at my department's instigation together with the Department of the Environment, Department of the Environment officials wrote to all charging authorities in England reminding them of the need to consider each case on its merits when granting discretionary rate relief and that failure to do so would leave them open to the risk of legal challenge. Furthermore, we reminded authorities of the advice in the guidance that they should consider notifying organisations of the reasons for refusal.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, also asked me about VAT and the European directive. I understand that Customs and Excise are currently considering the position of non-profit making sports clubs under EC VAT directives. I am fully aware of the case made by sport and my department has made its views known to Customs and Excise.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked why charitable status is not given to sport. The principle of charitable status for sport is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government's position is that it would be wrong to single out sport in this way when there are other equally worthy causes which do not enjoy this benefit. But partly at our instigation, the Sports Council, in partnership with Touche Ross, has published an information leaflet on the benefits of charitable status and how to obtain it. Any sports organisation obtaining charitable status would qualify for mandatory rate relief at 80 per cent. The leaflet, which was published in March, should prove very helpful to sports clubs in their efforts to obtain charitable status within the existing legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked me what would happen if Manchester does not win its bid for
1036
the Olympic Games. We are not talking about losing. We are optimistic about Manchester's bid. The Government have backed Manchester's bid with money. We hope that Manchester wins its bid to hold the Olympics. But regardless of the decision of the IOC—none of us can forecast what that decision may be—Manchester will still get a new indoor velodrome, a multipurpose arena and an excellent development site in east Manchester. We will fulfil our promise to legislate for the protection of the Olympic symbols, which will provide long-term benefit for British sport. There are a great many other key decisions to be made but I think that these decisions are more appropriate to be made after the IOC announcement in September.
Your Lordships have brought up the national lottery. Sport will be fortunate in having a major new source of funding from the national lottery when it becomes operational by the end of 1994. The Government have decided to utilise the expertise of the Sports Council and the proposed new UK Sports Commission as the distributing bodies for the sports element of the proceeds. I am happy to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that control of costs will be a very important factor. The lottery funds will be an additional source of funding. The Government have always made that clear. We will have ample opportunity next Thursday to discuss the National Lottery etc. Bill in Committee Sport is a key area for my department.
Lord Howell: My Lords, before the Minister comes to his peroration—and I appreciate his expert contribution—can he at least take back for consideration the point, fiat the lottery should not be pre-eminently for capital works but that revenue consequences and revenue considerations should be much more to the forefront? I do not expect the Minister to give me an assurance now—and we shall certainly come back to this matter next week—but I do think that the Government need to rethink this point so that they get the balance right.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I quite understand the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. At Second Reading I said that we were looking at capital funding together with endowments and various options that might be available. It is a slightly complex subject all on its own and I believe that it probably deserves our considered opinion next week. I give the noble Lord an assurance that it is something which we are looking into very carefully.
As I have said, sport is a key area for my department. I agree with your Lordships about its importance, for the many reasons which your Lordships have mentioned. My department and the Government will play our part in the future of sport in this country.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.