Lords Sitting of 23 January 1997

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Fishery Licences
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to discourage British fishermen from selling their fishery licences, directly or indirectly, to foreign individuals or companies and thereby adding to the numbers of quota-hoppers.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, fishing vessel licences are issued at the discretion of Ministers under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 to the owners of British registered fishing vessels. Under European Community law, Ministers cannot discriminate against nationals from other member states who are entitled to own British registered fishing vessels. In any event, the sale of licence entitlements is a matter for the parties concerned.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, which confirms my understanding of the position. Did he see the press reports that a prominent member of Save Britain's Fish campaign, the minority fishermen's movement stridently calling for withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, had himself sold quota to a Dutch boat owner while, in contrast, a leader of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which does not advocate withdrawal, has publicly called on fishermen to help the Government by not selling abroad?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I have seen those press reports, although I have no knowledge as to whether they are true. Doubtless, if there is truth in them the member of Save Britain's Fish must answer to his own committee. However, I do not see why he should have to answer to this House too as he was within his rights under the law.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the Government have stated in the past that they disagree with quota hopping. Why, at the Fisheries Council meeting on 20th December, did not the Government try to stop or curtail the practice? It was disturbing to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about our fishermen selling their licences, their livelihoods. In order to put the matter into proper perspective, may we be told the number of licences which have been sold, from which ports and the total cost of those licences?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot supply the detail for which the noble Lord asked, but I shall write to him. It amounts to about 20 per cent. of the British catch, which is now in the hands of foreign-owned vessels.
794
As regards the other points which the noble Lord raised, clearly, we did prosecute our campaign to end quota-hopping at the recent Fisheries Council meeting. We have made it clear that we will not contemplate any progress in MAGP 4, which is the latest round in reduction in fishing capacity, until the issue of quota-hopping is dealt with. However, we are quite clear that there is no capacity that we can find under existing EC law for quota-hopping to be dealt with. It requires a treaty amendment and we are committed to obtaining that at the conferences in the latter half of this year.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that had we not entered into the common fisheries policy, and by doing so sold our fishing birthright, the issue of quotas, quota-hopping, licences and therefore their sale would not have arisen?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I would not agree with that. However, I would agree with the noble Lord that had we retained total control over our fishing we might have found the issue easier to deal with.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the treaty changes to which he has referred would require the unanimity of all the members of the Community? Can he give your Lordships' House any idea of how hopeful he is of achieving that unanimity?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are clearly receiving some expressions of support from other members of the Community. We are not the only country which is suffering from quota-hopping. The latest figures I have show that France, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and Ireland all have foreign vessels on their register. Any change to the treaty requires unanimity, but there is nothing special about the one we are asking for.
Lord Carter: My Lords, according to the Minister's Answer, it appears that the Government agree with Mrs. Bonino, the European Fisheries Commissioner, when she says that many of the problems of quota-hopping are the direct result of the British policy and not of European policy. She claims that it was a British decision, not a European decision, to allow the sale of quota rights with the boats. Is that correct?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a depressing amount of misinformation has been coming out of the Commission on this issue. It is quite clear that there is every right in every country within the EC for foreigners to purchase fishing vessels and fishing licences. It has taken a little while for some countries to bring their laws up to the standard required by the EC. Many are doing so, which is why they are now experiencing quota-hopping. Ours were there first, so we experienced the problem first.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question I asked. The issue is not the sale to foreigners; it is the decision to allow the sale of the quota right with the boat. The Minister referred to the

795
Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, which embodied a British decision to allow the sale of the quota right with the boat. Is that correct?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is quite clear that under European law we are not allowed to have any system which will prevent a member of another country within the European Union purchasing the right to fish within British waters off British quota. It is not a question of the particular mechanism we adopted for distributing quota. Whatever method we had adopted, it would still have to allow the Spanish and others to purchase our fishing.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is it not right that, if British fishermen did not sell, foreigners could not buy and without the sales there would not be the hopping?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord is suggesting that it will be the party opposite's policy to prevent British fishermen from selling their assets and businesses, I am rather surprised.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the main problem that fish form a more valuable commodity in continental Europe than here and fetch higher prices there, so that bids for licences from foreigners are likely to be much more attractive, not only to owners and skippers but also to the third parties through whom those licences pass?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not think that that is a particular problem because British skippers have every right to land their catch in foreign ports if they wish to do so to take advantage of higher prices, and many do.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister's replies and I wonder whether he can help me. Was it a British Government decision that allowed British fishermen to sell quotas with the boats?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but that is a policy that we should have had to adopt and other countries in the European Union have been made to adopt it by the Commission because that is what is required by European law.

Hospitals: Single Sex Accommodation
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the pledge made in the Patient's Charter, how many hospitals are now able to offer patients the option of single sex accommodation without penalty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, this information is not available. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has
796
asked the chief executive of the National Health Service to take action to ensure that Patient's Charter standards on patient accommodation are being met.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply but I find it very disappointing. Is she aware that it is now two years since those Patient's Charter commitments were made and more than one year since my noble friend Lord Stoddart was assured that a survey on what was happening in individual hospitals would be available very shortly? Is she aware that those of us who visit hospitals regularly, as I do, continue to find a number of very distressed people being offered what one can only describe as Hobson's choice? They can make alternative arrangements for the single sex accommodation they want and wait for their operation or accept the offer of mixed-sex ward accommodation which they certainly do not want.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I appreciate very much what the noble Baroness says. There are many people who do not want mixed-sex accommodation. But that must be seen in the context of more than 9 million people admitted every year. The National Health Service chief executive is writing to health authorities. He will ensure that they send clear plans and a challenging timetable to enable mixed-sex wards to be phased out.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in circumstances where hospitals suddenly experience grave difficulties which are not necessarily of their making, would they receive complete assistance from the Minister's department when they need such help?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly we try to assist anyone in the health service who requires help from central sources. But in this context there are occasions when there are fires, floods or severe epidemics of 'flu when mixed-sex accommodation must be used because the accommodation has to be used as flexibly as possible in order to keep down waiting times.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that, on 18th January 1995 when we had a debate on Second Reading of my Bill, she said:
"I have no doubt that we shall fulfil the demands of the Bill even more quickly than the noble Lord expects".—[Official Report, 18/1/95; col. 745.]
The noble Lord mentioned there is myself. Will the noble Baroness take it from me that I had expected action much sooner than this? Will she accept also that promises made have not been kept. I have pursued the matter with the Minister, as she knows. But promises to publish the results of surveys have not been met.
Is the noble Baroness aware also that I nobbled the Secretary of State in the Tea Room of the House of Commons only last week and he is just as concerned and angry about this matter as I am? Are we not now in a position in which nurses, Secretaries of State, Ministers, the Opposition and the whole of Parliament want mixed-sex wards to be phased out but are being

797
frustrated by people on the ground who appear not to understand that patients want dignity and privacy when they are being treated in hospital?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course the Government, my right honourable friend and indeed myself share the anxiety and concern expressed by the noble Lord. We expected the review to be published much sooner than it has been. As the noble Lord will be aware, since he received a letter from my right honourable friend on 20th December, the results of the review will be published very soon indeed and will give us more information. In the meantime we are, and shall be, taking action. But there is a trade-off here in relation to clinical expertise. Clearly, there are some wards where the specialty is so esoteric that it is essential that we use clinical skills and equipment to the best advantage. That means that sometimes it will be necessary to have mixed-sex wards, as will be the case as regards emergency admissions and intensive care, where, clearly, accommodation must be used as effectively as possible.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most young men these days do not wear or own pyjamas? Do hospitals keep spare pyjamas?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness is suggesting that we carry out yet another survey but this time of a different nature. Indeed, I have been prompted to say that we should perhaps start with my noble friend Lord Swinton but I believe that to be an improper suggestion. I really do not know but, clearly, if clothing is needed in any context I am sure that the NHS does its best.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether there is anyone who does prefer mixed-sex wards?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, there are some people who like mixed sex wards, especially, I am told, adolescents, because they are gregarious people who sometimes find that it aids recovery when the opposite sex are in the same area.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not correct that the Government have cynically raised patients' expectations in this area? Is it not true that the majority of patients in beds in hospitals today are admitted as emergency patients and therefore have no rights about a choice of single sex accommodation? Are not the Government guilty of never having properly assessed what the difficulties would be for hospitals with old and ill-designed buildings operating at huge pressures of bed occupancy—as has been the case this winter—and of not actually delivering on the promises that were so rashly made?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I strongly refute the fact that this has been a cynical exercise. The noble Baroness will know that many of those wards are being
798
phased out. However, many trusts are putting considerable investment into refurbishing nightingale wards to divide them into two halves and put sanitary facilities at either end. I am sure that the noble Baroness is trying to do that in her own hospital. Indeed, as the chairman of a trust, she will know about patients' expectations.
However, there is also an issue here about old hospitals. We are replacing them at the most amazing rate. We have a huge capital building programme. It would be ridiculous to put huge investment into refurbishing old wards when they are going to be replaced by new accommodation, new buildings and, indeed, new hospitals.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Minister referred to the letter written by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Can the noble Baroness tell us what he meant when he referred to setting health authority chief executives challenging standards on this matter? Surely, that should have been done two years ago. What is the extra challenge now being suggested?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when the Patient's Charter was first published it was written in fairly general terms. I have told the House today that we share the disappointment that progress has not been made at a quicker rate. Therefore, the chief executive will be setting challenging standards which will be monitored in much greater detail than we initially thought necessary.

Road Safety: Minor Works
3.23 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision has been made in the 1997-98 local transport settlement for local authorities to fund minor works (such as bus priority schemes, cycle routes, pedestrian crossings, safe routes to schools and traffic calming) which are not package schemes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government allocated £60 million for 1997-98 to local authorities for minor works designed to improve road safety. That may be used for schemes both outside and within areas covered by transport packages. New or improved pedestrian crossings, safe routes to school and traffic calming may qualify for funding as road safety schemes if they are designed to deal with locations where there is a record of accidents.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. Can the noble Viscount confirm that the budget for minor works not included in packages, which in fact encompasses cycle routes, bus priorities, pedestrian crossings, safe routes to schools and traffic calming, has actually been reduced from £44 million last year to zero this year?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, some of the types of schemes which the noble Lord mentioned are classified as "safety schemes". If they come within that classification then money from the allocation of £60 million, which represents an increase of over 10 per cent. on the year before, can be used towards such schemes. It is a matter of deciding priorities. We have decided that safety should be such a priority.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when some of us were in another place we pressed the Government to have a senior civil servant in each region specifically responsible for cycling matters? I am glad to say that they agreed and that it has been very successful. Can the Minister say whether that still operates? Surely the case for cycling—for example, good exercise, non-polluting, and so on—is already made. Can the noble Viscount tell me whether the budgets are being cut and also what is happening in the northern region? If he cannot give specific information on the latter today, perhaps he will write to me in that respect.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall be delighted to write with any level of detail that the noble Lord requires. Fundamentally the noble Lord is quite right; the Government do take cycling seriously. Indeed, we now have a cycling strategy and there is a document on the subject, a copy of which I shall be pleased to send to the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister and I obviously disagree on the breakdown of the budget. I was referring to minor schemes only which are not packages. Will the Minister confirm that at the same time as the £44 million has been cut to zero the local authority budget for road schemes has been increased by £36 million? Further, can the noble Viscount say why the Government have allowed such a major increase for road schemes but have not allowed any increase for London Underground for the Jubilee Line which, after all, is a similar transport project?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is missing the fact that, as I said, there is a category for minor works concerned with safety. There is also a category for minor works within package bids which, again, we have discussed. The pressure came specifically from existing local authority commitments for major projects. That has reduced the amount available for minor works. Within that reduced total, we feel that safety projects, and those within package schemes with associated environmental benefits, should be the priority.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, from the answers that he has given so far this afternoon, can the Minister confirm that if one adds together the amount spent last year, notwithstanding the increase to which he referred within the £60 million, there is a real terms reduction of over £30 million on road safety schemes, taking packages and minor schemes together?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; I do not believe that that is the case. There is a reduction in the amount available for minor schemes but, as I have sought to explain, there is a specific allocation for road safety schemes. Indeed, that has been increased from £55 million to £60 million.

The Economy: Rise in Consumer Demand
3.26 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned that the continued rise in consumer demand and house prices could overheat the economy.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government do not believe that the rise in consumer demand and house prices will overheat the economy. However, we will continue to take no risks with inflation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that assurance. Can he say whether he read with care—I am sure he did—the speech which the Governor of the Bank of England gave in Edinburgh two days ago? Is he aware that the strength of sterling, which has been regarded as an anti-inflationary measure, has recently weakened and that the level of inflation is still above the level which the Government are aiming at—namely, 3 per cent. instead of 2.5 per cent.? In all those circumstances, do the Government feel that there ought to be early intervention to curb such developments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord wants me to say that we will increase interest rates. I am interested to hear that that may be the policy of his party. However, so far as concerns this Government, I should point out that inflation fell in December and, as the Budget forecast shows, is expected to fall back further during 1997. In addition, I do not actually believe that consumer demand—especially in the light of the December figures—illustrates the kind of pressures that necessitate us taking immediate steps to raise interest rates. All the figures that we have seen this week vindicate the view of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for the moment interest rates can safely remain where they are.
Baroness Piatt of Writtle: My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister seen press reports today detailing the creation of 2,500 jobs and the excellent news regarding the replacement of the Royal Yacht "Britannia"? What a marvellous boost that will give to the shipbuilding industry.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; I have seen those reports. Those figures are very important to set alongside all the other figures. I know that the party opposite does not like to hear about increasing

801
employment but today's newspapers show that Shorts in Belfast will be having an extra 600 Aerospace workers, that Parcelforce in Coventry will be creating an extra 700 jobs and that St. Merryn Meat in Merthyr Tydfil in Wales is looking towards another 663 jobs. Along with the excellent news that the successor to the Royal Yacht "Britannia" is to be built in a British shipyard, thus creating another 500 jobs, that makes 2,500 new jobs in a day, which is not bad going.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord concede the inference contained in the Question that an economy where there are over 3 million unemployed can become overheated? Is he aware that most certainly some hundreds of thousands of people in our country found it difficult during the recent cold snap to get proper heating?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord, as always, exaggerates the figures for unemployment. The latest figure of 6.7 per cent. is a good deal short of 3 million, and the number is falling. However, the noble Lord makes a valid point about the original Question. I do not believe the economy is overheating. We have steady and sustained economic growth thanks to the splendid policies of the Government.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, how many people have come out of negative equity? Is my noble friend aware how grateful these people are to see some movement in house prices to help mitigate their position?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have the figure for the number of people who have come out of negative equity, but clearly a fair number have because according to the Halifax Building Society house prices in December were still 4.9 per cent. below their peak in 1989; but the figures month on month for house prices show that for the whole of 1996 the price increase change on the previous year was 8.4 per cent. While there will still be some people in negative equity as we are not yet back at the peak of 1988, clearly many people will have come out of negative equity during the past year.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we used to have something called, I believe, the regulator, which enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day to raise or lower excise duties, petrol duty and purchase tax, as it then was, by up to 10 per cent. either way to control consumer demand in the short term? Did that not have a much less adverse effect upon manufacturing production and exports than raising interest rates?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the economic record of the days when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer used a regulator was particularly encouraging. I rather like to think that over the past four years the mechanisms used by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England have proved much more successful. As I said, we are seeing steady, sustained economic growth well instanced by the 2,500 jobs to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, following his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, will the Minister give us some figures regarding how many people were put into negative equity by government policy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, obviously I do not have those figures to hand. Of course a number of people were put into negative equity when the housing market overheated in the mid-1980s. However, thanks to the recovery I have mentioned, thanks to controlling inflation—which we have done—and controlling government spending, we have seen the position improve greatly. Mortgage rates—the cost of mortgages—are now at their lowest level for 30 years. That has to be set beside the problem of negative equity.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the economic policy of this Government has reduced the rate of inflation? Although there has been a slight rise in consumer demand, does he agree that the increase in the employment figures in this country—that is, the reduction in unemployment—must help the public sector borrowing requirement and public sector expenditure, and consequently shows that this Government can control inflation without any overheating?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Underlying inflation has been below 4 per cent. for over four years, which is the longest such period for over 50 years. A recent OECD Economic Outlook published on 16th December stated with regard to the United Kingdom:
"The prospects for achieving sustained output growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years".
That is a credible performance by Her Majesty's Government and by this country.
Lord Eat well: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has displayed the most extraordinary complacency in the face of what was a serious Question from the Liberal Democrat Benches? It is the Government's Red Book that tells us that consumption is expected to grow significantly faster than output as a whole over the next few years. Whenever that has happened in the medium term it has ended in disaster. That is what is happening now. What will the Government do to rebalance the economy?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought in the past eight minutes I had more than satisfactorily answered the questions put by the noble Lord. I am not complacent. I made it perfectly clear earlier that the Chancellor watches all these matters carefully. Indeed the figures vindicate his view that interest rates should remain where they are. I am equally surprised that the noble Lord did not notice what the OECD said. I shall repeat it for his benefit:
"The prospects for achieving sustained output growth and low inflation are the best in 30 years".

803
The highest independent forecast for 1997 for consumer growth is 4.5 per cent. We, and most commentators, perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, believe that that will not overheat our economy.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to read the OECD report on the British economy of 1989, where he will find that it said exactly the same at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was leading the economy into disaster?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we now know that the noble Lord does not listen to, or believe in, anything that the OECD says. That is interesting. I shall note the next time he quotes the OECD on his side of the argument. As I have stated with regard to the statistics, they all look reasonable. Inflation is low, and is falling, and we are keeping it under control. My right honourable friend the Chancellor put up interest rates just recently to prevent any overheating. We do not believe there is overheating. We are confident that our economic policies under this Government will continue their successful course for many years to come.

Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the insurance by police authorities and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District of persons providing voluntary assistance for police purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Charter Trustees Bill [H.L.]
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the creation in England of parishes in cities and towns where charter trustees have been constituted. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Sandys.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Home Energy Rating Surveys Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Pilot schemes]:
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert ("or
(c) services are provided which are not personal medical services or personal dental services but which may be provided under Part I of the National Health Service Act 1977 or (as the case may be) Part I of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 8 and 19 which are related. The purpose of these amendments, as stated at Committee stage, is to allow nurses to propose pilot schemes in their own right, to ensure that health authorities must prepare proposals put forward by nurses, and to allow nurses providing nursing services under pilot schemes to become health service bodies.
The key reasons for bringing these amendments again are that nurses are often best placed to provide certain primary healthcare services for patients and to bring pilot schemes in respect of them. Justice demands that nurses should receive equitable treatment with doctors. Failure to make the change could undermine the success of the legislation.
I do not wish to be tedious or to weary the House in bringing back a group of amendments considered in detail in Committee and, by leave, withdrawn. However, the amendments attracted a considerable amount of support from all parts of the Chamber. I was surprised that the Minister was unable to accept the arguments. Following her very full and generous reply, I indicated that I wished to consider carefully what she had said, to study the White Paper Delivering the Future which had been published that day, and to have the opportunity to return to the issue at another stage.
The interest shown by the Minister in nursing, and in particular in community nursing, over the years has been considerable. The review, Neighbourhood Nursing, for which she chaired the committee, made her a redoubtable champion of community nurses. It must be a cause for particular personal gratification that 10 years on from what the profession calls the Cumberlege Report, and five years after the Nurse Prescribing Act, the roll-out of nurse prescribing was announced in the White Paper Delivering the Future. Nurses everywhere applaud that and the tenacity of the Baroness in keeping the issue on the political agenda.
I am all the more regretful, therefore, to return to these amendments and to the reply given by the Minister at Committee stage. One concern expressed was that nurse-led pilots should not replace general medical services with personal medical services; and that nurses should not provide services in the place of general practitioner services. Nurses would agree with that and with the importance of it. They appreciate their role and do not wish to encroach on medical roles.
However, there are a number of areas of healthcare which are not covered by general practitioners where nurses are best placed to provide services. Examples include services for homeless people or for those not registered with general practitioners, family planning services, midwifery services, health promotion and public health services. A community based programme was devised by the nurses in one deprived area to help families on low incomes eat a healthy diet. In another area, nurse-led community action saw the introduction of traffic calming schemes resulting in a reduction in child mortality and morbidity from road traffic actions on an estate. In inner London an initiative was established to deliver healthcare to the homeless population by nurse practitioners assessing needs and delivering care in hostels and treating conditions such as asthma, chronic lung infection, leg ulcers and foot conditions.
One could continue with many examples. I was impressed with the words of the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing as she addressed the Conservative Medical Society on Monday this week. She said:
"'When the Government launched Delivering the Future, press reports talked of the birth of 'supernurse'. The white paper maps out the crucial role that nurses will play in the delivery of a primary health-led NHS but for most community nurses the supernurse of the newspaper reports already exists. For years community nurses—district nurses, community midwives and health visitors—have delivered the largest component of primary healthcare. But the roles that nurses have always taken on in the community, are now also part of general practice. The explosion in the number of practice nurses in the UK"—
from, I believe, 1,500 in 1977 to 18,000 now—
"has meant that nurse-led asthma and diabetes clinics, nurse-run outreach projects for the homeless people and well woman clinics run by nurses are commonplace in many GP practices".
The nurse's role in health education is well recognised and research shows the benefits of nursing inputs in reducing costs and saving waiting time for patients. I believe that because of all those factors it is right and proper that nurses should be able to instigate their own pilot schemes.
Principles of justice and equity are involved. In Committee, at col. 1413 of the Official Report of 17th December 1996, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said:
"I am very clear that nothing should stand in the way of nurses, midwives and health visitors playing a full part in using the flexibility provided in this legislation to develop not only their professional skills but to use opportunities".
But she argued that nurses could exploit those opportunities only through partnerships with general practitioners or through taking a more significant role in a trust.
At col. 1414, the noble Baroness said that the health authority receiving a proposal from a group of nurses would,
"have to be convinced that a pilot scheme which replaces general medical services with personal medical services would satisfactorily cover those areas of care which explicitly have to be provided by doctors".
However, no such requirement is made should a doctor propose a pilot scheme. The onus is simply on the health authority to consider any scheme submitted by a trust, doctor or dentist. Thus, if a nurse in partnership proposed to provide a 24-hour emergency mental health service for a locality and to employ a medical practitioner to undertake specific medical activities where necessary or appropriate, the scheme would not receive automatic consideration by the health authority. Yet if a doctor were to submit the proposal the health authority would be obliged to consider it even though the same services would be provided and the same questions would arise as to the nature of the areas of work covered.
If the crucial issue is that the health authority needs to satisfy itself that the pilot covers particular areas of care, then that should apply to any proposal regardless of its source. The question of equity is at stake. There is no question that nurses wish to usurp the role of doctors. They wish to work collaboratively and in a relationship of equality. However, without the changes embodied in the amendments the role that nurses could and should be playing in primary care—with the importance of the added expertise that their roles now have—will be limited because the widest range of innovative schemes will not be put forward.
It is argued that as the Bill stands, there is nothing that a nurse, midwife or health visitor could not put forward through a doctor or a trust. But there is a considerable difference between initiating a pilot scheme at first hand, directly, and having to do so at one remove. Of course, all pilots must be scrutinised with the needs of patients foremost. But to suggest that the paperwork would become intolerable is to suggest that nurses would be irresponsible in submitting schemes and that their schemes were less important than doctors' or dentists' schemes.
I have worked most of my life in a different setting, in a university. It would be unthinkable in that setting that any one discipline would be treated differently from another in putting forward research proposals or innovative schemes of any kind. It is hurtful to nurses to think that they would be treated differently.
As the Bill stands, it inhibits nurses, midwives and health visitors from being able to play a full part in submitting pilot schemes. In tabling these amendments again, I seek some reassurance that, at least at a later stage of the Bill, these important amendments relating to nurses will receive consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness in this group of amendments, to which my name is also attached. As she explained so fully, the Bill as it stands offers unnecessary restrictions which run counter to what we have understood to be the more widespread approach to

807
general practice and primary care in which the Bill seeks to engage and which we have generally supported from these Benches. As the noble Baroness said, it unnecessarily limits the potential for innovation.
In her reply in Committee (at col. 1415 of Hansard), the Minister said that some of these amendments seemed to suggest that the intention was to turn nurses into doctors. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, explained, that is clearly not the intention. She gave the House some vivid examples of the ways in which nurses already take a primary role in primary care. I shall mention just one example that is very well known to me, of a senior nurse running a local minor injuries unit who recently became a very successful chief executive of an acute trust. She would find very odd any suggestion that she was incapable of being the lead proposer or organiser of the type of pilot scheme that is proposed in the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said, the White Paper referred to the equally important role of nurses, although at Committee stage the Minister seemed to feel that that could be well achieved within the meaning of the Bill as it now stands. She seemed to develop the argument to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred that the sifting system of the health authority would enable good schemes by nurses possibly to be included in those forwarded to the Secretary of State.
The point was very well made. If we are to encourage the equal role of the nurse, midwife, health visitor or other professionals mentioned in the noble Baroness's amendments, some positive national lead needs to be given of the type that would be created were the amendments to be accepted. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said, the Minister has a very well-deserved reputation for supporting and improving the role of nurses within the profession and within community care. She could do a good deal to enhance that reputation if she were to accept these amendments. I support them.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wonder what doctors and the Royal College of General Practitioners think about these amendments. Could it mean that the doctors would opt out of some of their responsibilities?
As matters stand, understanding and training in relation to many disabilities and the attitude of many doctors to disabled patients should be improved. Doctors might try to pass that sort of work in relation to disability on to the nurses, as that would save them time. However, the nurse has different responsibilities and training. The doctors have longer training and should be better at dealing with some of the very complex matters. I should be very interested to know the doctors' opinion on these amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, first, for giving me notice of a number of the amendments tabled, and
808
also for her very generous and fulsome remarks. I am also grateful for the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
Any proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, have to be taken with the deepest seriousness. She is one of the country's most distinguished nurses. I believe that she was the first nurse ever to get a chair in nursing at a university.
I have no doubt whatever that nurses are often the very best people to provide primary care services for particular groups of patients. As the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane and Lady Jay, said, there are some excellent examples of innovative primary care services which are not only provided by nurses but were inspired by them. I, too, have seen many of them. I can think of specific schemes to help homeless people where nurse practitioners have been providing the service without a GP being involved; those people particularly did not want to see a doctor, but they would accept a nurse. Many other examples given this afternoon are pertinent and inspiring.
Indeed, many other initiatives are happening now. They all fall within Part I of the National Health Service Act 1977, which is the subject of one of the amendments. So there is nothing now to prevent nurses from putting forward proposals like this to their local health authority. Arrangements for the provision of services under Part I are very flexible. There is no need for this Bill to enable such ideas to be taken forward.
The pilots that we propose relate to services currently delivered under Part II of the Act; namely, general medical and dental services. These are the concerns of the Bill. Up to now, the provision of services has been very tightly regulated. That is why we need primary legislation to allow for new opportunities.
The pilots we propose will cover the delivery of general medical and dental services. Those services will need doctors or dentists. Only suitably experienced doctors can legally provide the medical services received in general practice. That point is reiterated in the Bill.
I continue to think it right that where a proposal is put forward not involving doctors, dentists or NHS trusts, the health authority should be able to consider whether it satisfactorily covers those areas of care that have to be provided by doctors or dentists before it is submitted to the Secretary of State. Where a GP is not involved in the proposal, it will need to be clearly set out how GP input will be provided. That seems to me to be an essential screen at local level.
That does not prevent nurses putting forward proposals. Indeed, I hope they will continue to do so. However, I must also emphasise that I certainly look forward to seeing nurses continue to develop their unique roles through pilots with practices and trusts and to seeing them taking forward the proposals that we set out in Primary Care: Delivering the Future.
I wish to make two further points about the amendment. First, in most cases the proposals will be put forward by nurses employed by a trust. Unless

809
those proposing a scheme wish to leave their current employment, it seems right that their proposals should have the support of their employer, who will have to hold the contract with the health authority should the proposal be accepted as a pilot. They are in a very different situation from that of general practitioners and dentists, who are independent contractors.
If a pilot receives such support it will have a direct route to the Secretary of State under the terms of the Bill, because it will be sponsored by the trust that employs the nurses. Secondly, if the nurses are part of an independent organisation then in line with other similar proposals it seems right that the health authority should decide whether or not it should proceed.
I have been through a number of examples given to me by the nursing profession. I have yet to find one that stands up in terms of those other two aspects. I share the aspirations of noble Lords. I wish to see nursing develop and become an even greater profession than it is. However, I really do not think that in the context of the Bill these amendments are pertinent.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I cannot tell her what the Royal College of Practitioners thinks about these particular amendments. However, I assure her that the medical profession very strongly supports the Bill and the concepts behind it. I do not believe that there is any intention that doctors should opt out of their current responsibilities.
I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Baroness MacFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, let me first thank the noble Baroness for her kindness to me personally in what she said. When there is such mutual respect it is all the harder to disagree. I know that her motives are of the highest and that she shows the greatest support for nurses. Nonetheless I believe that the Bill is discriminatory in the way it is drafted and that we should clear that discrimination from the face of the Bill.
At Committee stage there was considerable support from all sides of the House, including from many medical Lords. That encourages me to go forward with these amendments. In the intervening period between Committee and this stage I have sounded out views on the amendments with all the nurses whom I have met. With the exception of one, their view was unanimous that the amendments are necessary if nursing is to play its full role.
Because of the support at Committee stage and the importance of the amendments to the nursing profession, I feel that I should test the opinion of the House.
4.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Ashley of Stoke. L.

Kirkhill,L.

Berkeley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Butterfield, L.

McNally, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Methuen, L.

Carter, L.

Monkswell, L.

Chapple, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clancarty, E.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nelson, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nicol, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Palmer, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Paul, L.

David, B.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs,L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Exmouth, V.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. (Teller.)

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Tenby, V.

Halsbury, E.

Tope, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Haskel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hayman, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hayter, L.

Warnock, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Weatherill, L.

Hollis of Heigham,B.

Wharton, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Hylton-Fbster, B.

Wigoder, L.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Addison, V.

Brentford, V.

Ailsa, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookes, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Byford, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cadman, L.

Balfour, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Campbell of Croy. L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Birdwood, L.

Carnock, L.

Blake, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Blaker,L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Blyth, L.

Coleridge, L.

811

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cranbourne, V. (Lord Privy Seal)

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Denbigh, E

Miller of Hendon,B.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mottistone, L.

Downshire, M.

Mountevans, L.

Dundee, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Eccles, V.

Munster, E

Elibank,L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall, L.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Erne, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Flather, B.

Palumbo, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainford, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Pender, L.

Hacking, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Quinton, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Reay, L.

Hemphill, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Holderness, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Richardson, L.

Romney, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Saatchi, L.

Howe, E.

St. Davids, V.

Inglewood, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball,L.

Skelmersdale, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Strange, B.

Knollys, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McConnell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mckay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wilcox,B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the same as Amendment No. 3, which I moved at Committee stage. Before I explain what the amendment entails, I should like just to quote the last part of the noble Baroness's reply at Committee stage. She said:
"I can see that Members of the Committee are not satisfied with my reply. Therefore, I shall take the matter away and come back to it after further thought".—[Official Report, 17/12/96; col. 1419.]
The Government have not tabled an amendment
812
embodying those further thoughts and I had no alternative but to move the amendment again. It removes from the Bill the words:
"A pilot scheme may not combine arrangements for the provision of personal medical services with arrangements for the provision of personal dental services".
I said at Committee stage how I personally had benefited from working in a health centre where both dental practitioners and general medical practitioners working for the National Health Service collaborated very beneficially for both the professions and the patients concerned. It seemed to me strange that the two helping, clinical professions could not put forward a scheme together. But the noble Baroness said:
"General practice and dentistry are very distinct services … with very different financial and practical arrangements. The Bill maintains this distinction and avoids the complexities that could arise if the services were covered by the same contract".—[col. 1418.]
To that I replied a little later that although they would be paid from different sources, it would surely be easier to make the arrangements within a pilot scheme than to have two entirely separate pilot schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, expressed the same opinion as myself. That is why the Minister said that she would go away and think about the matter.
I gather that the British Medical Association is slightly more in agreement with the Minister than I am and sees the complexities that she mentioned as very important. Personally, I do not see the matter that way. But I should be grateful if she could say what deliberations she has had between Committee stage and now. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we discussed this matter at some length at Committee stage. I should like to reassure noble Lords that I support wholeheartedly the objective behind this amendment, that of encouraging better integration of services provided by the different professions. After all, that has been one of our aims in primary care for some time. It remains a priority.
I undertook to consider further the need for Clause 1(2) and to advise your Lordships at Report stage of the outcome. I have done so. But I remain convinced that the provision in the Bill which this amendment seeks to remove will not hinder further progress towards co-operation between the medical and dental professions. There will be nothing to stop doctors and dentists examining local health needs together and co-operating over the preparation of pilot proposals, perhaps sometimes involving joint premises, which was one of the examples given by the noble Lord at Committee stage. Those proposals would then go forward together but be presented as separate schemes.
The Bill certainly will not stand in their way. It simply requires separate contracts for what are already two distinct services with very different financial and practical arrangements. They will need separate consideration locally and probably different evaluation. It will help to ensure that funding for dentistry is spent on dentistry. Failing to maintain the distinction between the two services could produce confusion for little gain.

813
I know that the provision as currently drafted in the Bill has the full support of the General Dental Services Committee. I hope that your Lordships, having heard my explanation and reassurances, will not seek to press the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I understand the position of the noble Baroness a little better, though I still do not understand why that provision has to be on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that in drawing up pilot schemes, that would automatically have been sorted out. But it is an academic point. So long as the noble Baroness can assure me that there will be schemes in which the two professions can collaborate, I see no point in pressing the amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Proposals for pilot schemes]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 37, after ("scheme") insert—
("(aa) satisfy themselves that there is no diminution in the quality or range of services provided in an area which is covered by the pilot scheme.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my name is to the other amendments in this group. Perhaps I may speak to those and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, may wish to follow me. I should certainly like to move Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 which are in this group and to which my name is attached.
The purpose of all the amendments is to deal with the need to ensure that the quality of service is maintained in pilot schemes. That is the particular requirement of Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. Amendments Nos. 9 and 13, standing in my name, are proposals for pilot schemes and subsequently for judging whether those pilot schemes should become part of the permanent local services.
We raised those issues at Committee stage because we feel it is very important that consistent standards and services so far as possible should be offered by all primary care providers, whatever part of the country they are in or on whatever basis that provision is made, however widely the notion of the pilot experimental scheme is drawn. The House will be familiar with the great concern on these Benches that in the past few years what we describe as a fragmented health service is producing a system in what you get depends on where you live and not necessarily on what you need. We fear that the defects of the system may be exacerbated by the deregulation proposed in the Bill without a statutory requirement to establish national criteria for standards.
Therefore, the amendments propose that requirement to adhere to national standards of care and service which would be established by a nationally representative body. That would also avoid the suspicion that local health authorities might promote local schemes on the basis simply of cost and that cost saving might become
814
the determining criterion for successful applications in hard-pressed health authorities. We have used the expression "a nationally representative body" because at Committee stage the Minister and I agreed that it was extremely difficult to establish what one might colloquially call "gold standards" within primary care, or indeed any other part of healthcare for that matter. We also agreed that, particularly within the context of the development of evidence-based practice in the NHS, it was very important to strive to achieve it.
I was encouraged that at Committee stage the Minister said that the Department of Health was establishing "a nationally representative group"—the expression used in these two amendments—to take this matter forward and to discuss criteria governing the approval of pilot schemes. She developed those points in Committee (Hansard, col. 1445).
The noble Baroness also said that the criteria would be established and published before pilots were considered and indeed, of course, the proposals for long-term service change which might arise from those pilots. That is also welcome.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 simply seek to give force to those understandings which the Minister expressed at an earlier stage by establishing on the face of the Bill that the national representative group which she said was being established would have statutory authority to set criteria on which the Secretary of State will make decisions about the value of pilot schemes to the communities they are intended to serve. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, these amendments focus on the quality and standards in the pilot schemes. We share those objectives. We believe firmly that we will secure them through the Bill as it stands and through our approach to implementation.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 13 concern the setting up of statutory groups of interested parties to advise on quality and standards and on criteria for evaluation. We are already doing that. As the noble Baroness said, two such groups have already been set up—one for medical services and one for dentistry—with representatives from the professions, patients and other interested parties. They are to help identify the standards and criteria that should apply before pilots are approved and to advise on a framework for evaluation. The first meetings will be held next week. We see those groups as playing an important role but do not see the need to enshrine them in legislation.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will agree that, while we share her concerns, we have largely met them. We regard an open, consultative approach as the best and probably only way for our initiative to get off the ground and flourish. We see the groups as playing a leading role but do not see the need to enshrine them in legislation.
Since piloted schemes will vary enormously, it is important that the overall standards and values are clearly set out and that individual schemes have clearly defined aims and objectives against which health authorities and others can judge whether they have

815
achieved their initial aims. We will consult widely before the areas to be covered by the Secretary of State's directions to health authorities are drawn up. The kind of issues we will expect authorities to cover and on which we will seek views at the drafting stage will include the intended benefits to patients, how pilot proposals fit in with other local NHS services and ensuring that they are not detrimental to the wider NHS, and how any potential conflicts of interest will be satisfactorily resolved before the pilot scheme begins.
I hope that I have shown that we are committed to a broad national framework of standards and values within which pilots will operate and be evaluated. I hope that I have demonstrated also how serious we are about seeking the advice and views of those with an interest. I trust that the noble Baroness will agree that that meets many of the worries expressed in her amendment and that she will not therefore seek to pursue it.
The approach I outlined also satisfies the aims of Amendment No. 4. I made clear that we do not underestimate the importance of raising the standards and quality of services. It will be one of the key agenda items for our national representative groups. Our initiative is unequivocally about achieving improvements in services. I hope your Lordships will accept my assurances that any pilot proposal that does not set out how it will improve services will not be allowed to proceed and that your Lordships will not press the amendments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I can raise one matter before the noble Baroness sits down. As we do not know what the pilots are to be, is it not better to have the standards emphasised? I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is right in that we do not know the details of the pilots. But we are trying to achieve criteria which we believe are better drawn up with the professions and with lay representatives. That is what the groups will do. We will therefore have a broad framework against which we can test the pilot schemes. In view of what goes on elsewhere in the NHS and the fact that there are many other such groups whose role is not enshrined in legislation, it would be extraordinary, in regard to these small pilot schemes, to put these two groups on the face of the Bill. We work with many other important consultative bodies whose existence does not have to be enshrined in legislation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and pleased to hear that the national consultative groups have been convened and are meeting. We look forward to the outcome of some of those meetings, hopefully before the Bill leaves another place if not your Lordships' House.
I remain concerned in relation to the concept of good will in establishing the national criteria if they are solely dependent on those bodies which are convened by the National Health Service on this kind of voluntary basis. Many times over the past few years we have expressed
816
anxiety about establishing national criteria and national standards for services, whether in regard to discharge procedures from hospitals or the interface between the NHS and social services. We have often been told that the good will and assurances of the Department of Health are all that we need to rely on. Sometimes we have been very disappointed by the outcomes.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the debate we had recently in your Lordships' House at Question Time regarding the provision of single sex-wards. In that instance we were told that the Government had good aspirations and intentions; that instructions were being given to local health authorities to act in accordance with the Patient's Charter. Yet, as we also heard in your Lordships' House at Question Time, Ministers themselves are disappointed with the outcome of that voluntary attempt to achieve standards which they sought for the National Health Service.
It is important, therefore, when we embark on a widespread piloting scheme which will change the nature of primary care in this country if it succeeds in the way the Government suggest they want it to succeed, according to the White Papers that came with the legislation, that we are given firm guarantees of what the standards may be and a statutory means of carrying them out. Of course, we respect the good intentions of the Minister when she gives them, but this afternoon we had a vivid example of how good intentions, even at ministerial level, may not result in good practice. In those circumstances, I must seek the opinion of the House on Amendments Nos. 9 and 13. First, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("The matters mentioned in this subsection shall include provision for the transfer of employment rights, including pension rights.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the House will remember that during Committee stage on 17th December I moved a similar amendment to Amendment No. 5. It coincided with the day on which the Government's White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, was published. I had but an hour to scan through it on that day but was tremendously cheered when I read that the Government intended to alter the arrangements for nurses to enable them to have the same employment and pension rights if they were working in the community.
The reply that I received from the noble Baroness, the Minister, on that occasion was that it was necessary to discuss the matter with the profession's representatives; that it would be wrong to include the amendment on the face of the Bill without first having those discussions. Has the Minister now been able to discuss this proposition with the professions?
The General Medical Services Committee of the BMA supports the amendment, as does the Royal College of Nursing. They are concerned with one specific problem. They feel that it is necessary to put the amendment on the face of the Bill in order to

817
recognise the developing role of practice nurses in the NHS. However, the amendment is not primarily concerned with practice nurses and further clarification may be necessary. It should include all staff working with GPs or with GP practices.
It concerns me that the Government's current intention is that GPs will become employing authorities under the NHS pension scheme regulations and that they will be able to choose whether they wish their practice staff to become members of the scheme. It seems to me wrong to allow general practitioners to choose whether or not nurses receive pension rights, and it goes against the spirit of the White Paper Primary Care: Delivering the Future. It could create new anomalies when we have just begun to remove one of the anomalies relating to nurses. I wonder whether the Minister can assure me that the discussions she has had with the profession have convinced her that we can now put this amendment on the face of the Bill.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I remind the noble Baroness that by the time the Bill gets on to the statute book there may well have been a change of government. If this Government are anxious, as they state in the rather grandiosely entitled White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, that these rights should be granted, then, if they really mean that, these provisions should certainly be in the Bill and not simply in a White Paper for the guidance of the next government.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for bringing forward the amendment. It would only secure NHS pensions, of course, for those staff who already had them and who transferred their employment in the course of a pilot. But the Government in fact have gone much further. As the noble Baroness said, the White Paper, Delivering the Future, announced that the NHS pension scheme would be open to GP practice staff from 1st September 1997. We are now putting words into action. GPs will become employing authorities for the purpose of the NHS pension scheme regulations, and they will be able to choose whether they wish their practice staff to become members of the scheme. We aim to complete discussions of the details of the new arrangements by the end of February. Providing access to the scheme through this Bill we believe would serve no purpose. The changes are already in train and there is no question of our going back on them. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment. We feel that it is unnecessary.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am no more happy with that reply than I was with the one at Committee stage. I believe it is quite wrong that it should be in the hands of the GP. It should be as of right for the people who are working in the health service that they are able to make use of the NHS pensions right. It is incomprehensible that it should be governed, perhaps, by a general practitioner who may have a different view.
818
However, I am heartened by the fact that the commitment exists in the White Paper and I trust that the Government will fulfil the promises they have made. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that it is a shame that we do not put it on the face of the Bill so that we can make certain that whoever forms the government, even a Liberal Democrat government, would have to comply with it. For those reasons at this stage of the Bill I cannot press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("enactment)") to end of line 5 and insert—
("(a) consult and take account of the views of representatives of all relevant professions and of patient and consumer organisations (including community health councils) and of relevant local authorities which appear to them to be affected by the pilot scheme; and
(b) comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State about the extent and manner of such consultation.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 29 with which it is grouped return to the issue of consultation which we debated in Committee over a number of amendments, some of them quite complicated. We come down to these two amendments on two straightforward issues. One is consultation when pilot schemes are being proposed by health authorities; the other concerns the obligations which Amendment No. 29 would put on the Secretary of State to take into account public and professional views before making permanent arrangements after pilot schemes have been implemented.
When we debated these issues at an earlier stage there was general support for the fact that pilot schemes, personal schemes and permanent schemes that were innovative would be more successful if they were understood by, and welcomed by, those who would use them and those whose professional life would be affected by them. Indeed, the Minister said at col. 1424 of the Official Report of 17th December 1996 that she welcomed the objective behind the amendments.
What we seek in the amendments is to will the means as well as the ends of ensuring wide consultation on these issues. Amendment No. 6 puts a responsibility on health authorities to consult and take into account the views of representatives of relevant professions, of patients and of consumer organisations, and of relevant local authorities. That is a very important provision. Unless we provide proper collaboration between local authority services, primarily, but not exclusively, social services and health services, then patients and clients of local authorities will be the people who suffer. It is only sensible and prudent that those local authorities who may well be affected by pilot schemes should be consulted.
The objection raised to the amendments was not an objection in principle; the principle of consultation was accepted. The objection was that we were being over-prescriptive by putting on the face of the Bill the professional and other organisations, the public bodies

819
and the representatives we thought should be part of the consultation process. I do not demur from the original judgment that it is sensible to write those provisions into the Bill. The point made in our earlier debates was that in the vast majority of cases these were exactly the people whom prudent health authorities would, as a matter of course, consult.
I do not believe that the amendments we propose today are in any way over-prescriptive. They would allow good practice to take place. But they would also ensure that good practice takes place. These points were made by my noble friend Lady Jay earlier. The amendments would ensure that nationally we set some standards and some benchmarks for exactly what good practice would be. I believe that the Bill is under-prescriptive, not over-prescriptive, on the issue of consultation and that it is only prudent that all the people whose support is necessary for the schemes to flourish—all of us wish them to succeed—should be consulted and listened to in order to ensure success. The Royal College of Nursing, the representatives of doctors, dentists and pharmacists, the Community Health Council, the local authority associations and the consumer organisations have all expressed the view that they would feel more secure with the consultation written on to the face of the Bill. I do not see that the Government or health authorities have anything to lose in that process. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support the amendment very much indeed. It is a national health service. It is a service for the people and therefore they should have as much say in it as anyone else. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments. They will not cost anything. So why not accept them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may take up the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Even consultation costs time and energy, and, sometimes, money.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, we discussed this subject at length in Committee. The Government acknowledged then, as we do now, that changes in primary care matter deeply to local communities. We agree wholeheartedly that local people and others with an interest should be well informed and, where appropriate, consulted on changes. Consultation in the NHS is standard practice and there is no reason why, in considering pilot schemes, health authorities and boards will not continue with this well established approach. But we are also backing custom with statutory safeguards to ensure that patients have a voice.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State new powers to make directions setting out who is to be consulted. I can assure the House that he is committed to exercising these powers. Before he does so, he will take into account the advice of the professions, health service managers and others already involved with us in preparing for the implementation of the Bill. When he considers pilot proposals, the Secretary of State will be looking for clear evidence that consultation has been genuine and comprehensive.
820
We do not believe that the amendment would lead to more or better consultation. Instead, it would give us an inflexible set of rules which could be less than adequate for very major pilot proposals but excessive in the case of very minor ones. Rigid rules often produce a mechanistic exercise. None of us wants that, but we believe that it is what the amendment would create.
I hope I have shown that the arrangements are in place to ensure genuine consultation and that we have a strong and genuine commitment to it. I hope therefore that the House will not support the amendment.
Amendment No. 29 was also discussed in Committee. I wish to re-emphasise the safeguards surrounding the introduction of permanent arrangements which are already included in the legislation. First, the Bill requires the Secretary of State, in permitting permanent arrangements, to have regard to the reviews of pilot schemes which have been conducted and to be satisfied that such a step is in the interests of the health service. That is a clear defence against any attempt to introduce permanent arrangements where there is inadequate evidence that they will work. It could, if necessary, be tested in the courts.
Secondly, permanent schemes can only be set up once the Secretary of State has set out the rules under which they will operate in regulations under Clause 18 of the Bill. It is accepted practice to consult on draft regulations and I can confirm that the Secretary of State is committed to doing so in this case. Such consultation will not be mere form.
Finally, once regulations permit health authorities to set up permanent arrangements, the Secretary of State will also continue to have powers to require health authorities to undertake appropriate consultation on proposals.
I have tried very hard to demonstrate how the principle of consultation is inherent in the way we wish to proceed. The amendments would not add anything to the safeguards already in the Bill and the commitments I have given. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said. I would not in any way question her personal commitment in these areas—nor that of the Secretary of State—and the assurances she has given us. However, there is an issue of principle here. I do not believe that the amendments are either inflexible or over-rigid. They put the balance of power and responsibility on the face of the Bill rather than let it lie with the Secretary of State.
Over the past years one of the main problems with which the NHS has had to tussle has been the lack of public confidence in decision-making processes. There is a great deal of trust to rebuild in those areas as we change and develop the service for the future. A small measure towards rebuilding that public confidence would be to ensure that on the face of the Bill we set out the areas and the people with whom we believe consultation should take place. In view of that, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Berkeley, L.

McNair, L.

Borrie, L.

McNally, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Calverley, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chapple, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Palmer, L.

Donoughue, L.

Paul,L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Exmouth, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falkland, V.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Grenfell,L.

Sainsbury, L.

Grey, E.

Serota,B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon L.

Hanwotth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.

Tenby, V.

Hayman, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byford, B.

Addison, V.

Cadman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Campbell of Croy,L.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Carnock, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Astor of Hever, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Balfour, E.

Coleridge, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Courtown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Beloff, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seed.]

Bethell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Birdwood, L.

Davidson, V.

Blake, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bowness, L.

Denbigh, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denham, L.

Brookes, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Butterfield, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

822

Downshire, M.

Merrivale, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Milverton, L.

Elibank, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Erne, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Flather, B.

Norfolk, D.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hailsham of Saint Maiylebone, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Pender, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Pike, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Hemphill, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Quinton, L.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Reay, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Renwick, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

St. Davids, V.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Knollys, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Selsdon, L

Leigh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strange, B.

Long,V.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Swansea, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

McConnell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vivian, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wise, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, after ("lists)") insert ("and who is actively working in general practice as part of a primary health care team").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that pilot schemes involve general practitioners who are in active general practice. We believe that the Bill should clarify that only general practitioners currently on medical lists and who are active in the National Health Service should be involved in pilot schemes. The concern of the Royal College of General Practitioners, and of many others, is that doctors who are eligible to work in general practice, but who are not currently involved actively in it, may become involved in pilot schemes; for example, in a trust, or even a private company setting up some kind of pilot scheme which will deliver only parts of the full range of primary care. As the Bill stands, it seems that pilot schemes could be set up without reference to general practitioners. We are concerned that the present system,

823
which is the envy of other countries, should be helped to work better by these schemes and not be fragmented by them.
One of the key roles of general practitioners is to be the advocate of patients and their interests. It is particularly important to ensure that patients have appropriate, necessary and timely access to secondary care services. As an independent contractor within the NHS, a GP has a unique role through the referral system in obtaining access to secondary care for patients. We believe that that may be undermined by general practitioners who may be recruited from outside the present system. They may be salaried and they may have a conflict of interest between the commercial interests of their employers who are setting up the pilot scheme and those of their patients.
These are the anxieties that I have and which have been expressed to me by other general practitioners. I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness can either accept this amendment or give me some reassurance that the Government will follow at least the principles which it implies. I shall be very interested to hear her reply. Perhaps it will not be necessary to press this amendment if she can give us something to go on. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall do my best to reassure the noble Lord. This amendment aims to reinforce the emphasis on a team-based approach in primary care. That is an objective that the Government very strongly share. The White Paper Delivering the Future puts forward specific proposals to this end. We shall expect proposals for pilot schemes to reflect that approach. But putting conditions on GPs who have an automatic right to have their pilot proposals put forward will not necessarily help. On the contrary, it might even hamper desirable proposals from those who wish to use piloting to develop more collaborative ways of working, perhaps through a practice-based contract.
We would also see difficulties emerging over how,
"actively working in general practice as part of a primary health care team",
would be defined in practice. It would be unhelpful if a relatively simple application process were made more complex and subject to argument simply over status.
We believe that the principle of encouraging team-based family health care service teams is better served through the assessment of the quality and suitability of proposals in the approval process. I hope that that gives the noble Lord enough to go on, as he put it, and that he will not press this amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those words, which we shall read in detail. She certainly reassures me that it is her intention at least that these pilot schemes will improve primary care in this country. I am sure that she means what she says. But we have to look at what the Bill will allow. After we have scrutinised her words and had another look at the Bill, I give notice that we may yet return to this matter at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Approval of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may not approve proposals for a pilot scheme unless he is satisfied that the scheme will satisfy standards and criteria for the quality of services provided to patients determined by a national representative group established by the Secretary of State for this purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Longford, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Berkeley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borne, L.

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L

Masham of Ilton, B.

Calverley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Chapple, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clancarty, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Paul, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Eatwell, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grenfell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thurlow, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitty, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Addison, V.

Beloff, L.

Ailsa, M.

Bethell, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blake, L.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Blaker, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blatch, B.

Balfour, E.

Bowness, L.

825

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brookes, L.

Macleod of Borve,B.

Butterfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dark of Kempston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denbigh, E.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Demon of Wakefield,B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Downshire, M.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Eccles of Moulton,B.

Pender, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pike, B.

Elibank, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elles, B.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elton, L.

Quinton, L.

Flather, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Hacking, L.

Renwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hemphill, L.

Selsdon, L.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Holdemess, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strange, B.

Howe, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

King of Wartnaby, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Lindsay, E.

Swinfen, L.

Liverpool, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Long,V.

Tebbit,L.

Lucas, L.

Terrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("participants") and insert ("any participant other than the authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 23, 30, 32, 36, 39, 43, 45, 46, 65, 67, 76 and 78 to 84. These amendments tidy up the drafting of the Bill and aid interpretation by clarifying some of the provisions. Examples include Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 30 and 36 which ensure that, while providers of services such as GPs and dentists will be able to withdraw from taking part in the schemes if they
826
wish to, the health authorities taking part will not. That will protect the provider by ensuring that health authorities will not by themselves be able to decide to terminate a scheme.
Amendment No. 65 provides that where references are made in any legislation to Section 28C or Section 17C arrangements, that should be read as referring to both pilot and permanent schemes. That means that the clauses in the Bill such as those securing the right of patients to choose their doctor and dentist, and the consequential amendments to other legislation contained in Schedule 2, apply to all PMS and PDS schemes. In addition, we shall need to bring forward a number of consequential amendments at Third Reading to ensure that various relevant Acts of Parliament apply to the new system, as they do to the existing one.
We worked hard to table as many government amendments as possible at the end of last week and at the beginning of this week to give noble Lords the maximum time to consider them. We accept, however, that your Lordships may not have had adequate time to consider some of the amendments that were tabled later. We have therefore withdrawn many of those amendments and propose to return to the matters that they cover at Third Reading. Those matters are fundholding, principally providing a return ticket to those fundholders involved in the new arrangements, ensuring that NHS trusts can play their full role in the new arrangements, making a number of minor and consequential changes to the provisions in connection with the sale of medical practices, and making further minor or consequential amendments, including changes to other legislation. I hope that your Lordships will be content to consider those matters at Third Reading. The amendments in this group are technical but important and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for the length and breadth of her reply, she having listed a number of amendments proposed in this group. We are also grateful for her consideration of whether amendments have been tabled rather late in the day for appropriate consideration at this stage of the proceedings. I hope that it is agreeable to the House—as the Minister has proposed it, I am sure that it will be—to consider at Third Reading some matters which must necessarily, although not in accordance with the previous proceedings of the House as I understand them, raise issues that have not been considered before. But because there has been an understanding about the progress of business today, we on these Benches are happy to accept it.
I should like to raise one issue relating to Amendment No. 65 that has been drawn to my attention. It deals with cross-border pilots. Queries have been raised, particularly by the professional bodies concerned with the organisation of general practice, about who in a cross-border pilot will be the primary authority. For example, which Secretary of State will approve an application? Which health authority or Scottish board will process it? There are also questions about

827
dispensing where the systems in Scotland and England are different. Further, the complaints system which we discussed in connection with another piece of legislation in a previous debate in your Lordships' House is different north and south of the Border. Where in the geographical sense there are cross-border pilots that may be in the interests of the local population, questions may arise as to who is the authority with primary responsibility and whose legislation in some technical but important areas—for example, dispensing and complaints systems—will prevail: how will it be worked out between the two different systems should any conflict arise?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I imagine that for cross-border schemes the same principles will apply to pilots as to current services that are provided by GPs through general medical services. I do not have detailed information with me. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness about these matters, in particular the point about dispensing.
Lord Rea: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 change the word "provide" to "perform". That is exactly the opposite of what I proposed in amendments at Committee stage. I suggested that "performing" was not appropriate and "providing" was better. Far from taking my advice, the noble Baroness has gone one better and found two more "provides" and turned providing doctors into performing doctors. I understand that for technical reasons "perform" is the proper word. Although it sounds rather silly, at least the Bill is now consistent.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have tried to ensure that providers are the bodies that hold the contract and performers are the people who supply the service. We are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter to our attention. I am sure that in turn he is grateful that we have listened to his comments and tried to incorporate them wherever possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("they wish") and insert ("he wishes").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Reviews of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("not less than 18 months and not more than three years after the date on which the pilot scheme comes into operation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move an amendment that I also moved at Committee stage. It provides that the review process should be at least 18 months and not more than three years from the start of a pilot scheme. At Committee stage the noble Baroness replied that it was likely that the vast majority of pilot schemes would be evaluated within the
828
timescales specified in this amendment but that there might be exceptional cases where they would be inappropriate. She quoted one possibility: as one learnt from experience one should not have to go through the full panoply of a thorough evaluation with every single scheme if it followed the model of one that had already been successful. A pilot scheme that has been successful sets a precedent. I do not believe it is necessary to have the same evaluation as with a brand new scheme. That is only common sense. It does not prevent the majority of new schemes requiring 18 months in order to be thoroughly evaluated.
One further problem is that the Secretary of State may feel that some schemes should go on for longer than three years. But I believe that a three-year period provides adequate time for a scheme to be reviewed and for lessons to be learned. If it goes on for more than three years, the danger is that it will become almost an accepted part of the NHS and it cannot any longer be called a pilot scheme. To set a timescale for pilot schemes to be reviewed under NHS primary healthcare should allow greater emphasis on the speedy evaluation of schemes and the rapid dissemination of the results so that patients may quickly benefit from new and innovative practice. One cannot possibly call something that has gone on for five or six years a pilot scheme. It should be perfectly possible to reach a conclusion on whether a scheme has possibilities within a period of three years. I sincerely hope that the Minister will change her mind as to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the amendment. As I said at Committee stage, the imposition of time limits on pilot schemes acts as a stimulus and helps to concentrate the minds of those who carry out the evaluation. It means that they must think about it from the very start. They know when it is to finish and when they must have their report ready. This is a useful additional instruction to insert into the Bill.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, does the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, acknowledge that when a large number of pilot schemes are up and running, quite a few may fall into the same pattern and each may be able to learn from the other? If that is so, it may be possible to reach a decision before the 18 months are up. I am more attracted to her view that they should not last for longer than three years, but surely a shorter period than 18 months should remain an option.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I said that where a pilot scheme followed the pattern of one that had already been approved, the evaluation period should be reduced or done away with.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has said, this matter was discussed in Committee. Your Lordships are aware that we are committed to an open and thorough process of evaluation. We do not want to evaluate schemes

829
before they are established; nor do we want to run them as pilots for longer than is necessary in order to demonstrate their worth. It is difficult to decide the right timescales for pilot schemes. We do not yet know what those schemes will be. Although it is difficult to make a judgment, I suspect that for the majority of schemes the timescales proposed by the noble Baroness will be about right. However, we believe that there are dangers in setting them in stone.
For example, we should not rule out the possibility that there will be schemes which are only subtly different from current arrangements or draw on ways of working which are already well established in other areas of the health service. As my noble friend Lord Harmsworth said, such arrangements may not require 18 months before they are ready to be evaluated. As the noble Baroness said, it would be most unfortunate if the service benefits that they offer could not be made more widely available more quickly because of the rigid rules on timing as set out in the Bill.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we have every intention of ensuring that pilots run for an appropriate time before being evaluated. However, we believe that timescales in primary legislation would be counterproductive and I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I take on board some of the arguments about the period of 18 months in cases where there is little difference. However, I believe that a minimum time should be set. I am most upset that the Minister will not accept three years as the right timescale for evaluating schemes. I am deeply concerned that if there is no set time period many schemes will run for years and will become an accepted part of the NHS without having been properly evaluated.
I shall not press the amendment at this stage, but I shall consider coming back on Third Reading about the three-year period—
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer that point because I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about schemes which run on after three years. We do not know the details of schemes and we suspect that as they are running some will change and some will evolve. Therefore, it will be difficult to say exactly whether the evolving scheme is the same as the initial pilot scheme. To set a timescale will be difficult, but I understand what the noble Baroness said and will certainly think about it further.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as regards an evolving scheme, that can be subject to three years, but there is no reason why another 18 months cannot be added for further evaluation of a scheme that has been slightly changed. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT
(". The Secretary of State shall report annually to Parliament with a general survey of developments during the preceding twelve months on the pilot schemes, including references to—

(a) decisions for approval taken under section 3;

(b) the findings of reviews of pilot schemes carried out under section 5; and

(c) decisions taken to terminate pilot schemes under section 6.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment returns to an issue which we discussed in Committee regarding an annual report to Parliament on pilot schemes. I hope that I have taken on board some of the criticisms which were made of the amendment tabled in Committee and that this is a better version. I say that optimistically because I fully admit that its wording is plagiarised. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, brought forward a similar amendment to the Gas Bill in response to similar arguments from my noble friend Lord Peston about the interests of Parliament and the public in having an annual report and overview of developments under these provisions.
The provisions, if successful, will allow a range of interesting and innovative experiments in primary care. There will be lessons to be learnt from those which are successful and those which are not and are withdrawn or which the Secretary of State does not wish to continue. It is important for confidence building that there is an annual report to Parliament and a report giving an overview that is available to the public.
It was suggested that the report which was delineated in the previous amendment would be in the nature of an encyclopaedia—perhaps in these technological days I should say a whole CD-Rom. This report is a more overarching overview of developments. It will be less onerous on the Secretary of State but it will perform the functions which the National Consumer Council and the Consumer Association are keen to see in spreading public and parliamentary information about developments under what will be the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we discussed accountability to Parliament at the Committee stage. I appreciate that there is much interest in this Bill and that noble Lords will wish to keep in touch with the progress of our initiative. However, I believe that a system of annual reports to Parliament would be out of proportion to other scrutiny arrangements. It would be inappropriate and probably unjustified.
The NHS is constantly undergoing service developments in a range of fields. Some are of significant national importance, others of local interest. Piloting will be similar, with some pilots involving major changes in the way primary care is provided, others less so. Yet, in no other area of NHS development are annual reports to Parliament required. I suggest that it would be anomalous to single out this initiative.

831
We have no intention of shying away from giving information about the pilot schemes. We are committed to an open, consultative approach. But there are better, existing ways of ensuring that appropriate information is made available to Parliament.
The information the amendment calls for may well in future be called for by a Select Committee. It can certainly also be called for—in a variety of ways and to varying degrees of detail—in Parliamentary Questions which can target the point specifically of interest. The initiative is also likely to feature in health debates in your Lordships' House and another place. Surely, these established mechanisms are the right way for such information to be put before the House, rather than through an annual report whose format may not satisfy particular needs anyway.
Although we agree with the noble Baroness in the philosophy she is portraying, we believe that it is not practical in these circumstances.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. Perhaps her argument can be interpreted as being that Parliament should have several annual reports on several issues connected with the NHS and not that it should have none.
Developments such as primary care are key areas. The Director General of Ofgas can report on the development of competition policy in gas annually to Parliament; I am not sure that this is a less important area. However, we must consider what has been said and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Preferential treatment on transferring to medical lists]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 34, leave out from first ("the") to ("must") in line 35 and insert ("Secretary of State approves a pilot scheme, he").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 31, 34, 38, 41 and 71. I set out the provisions of Clause 11 on the last occasion that this Bill was before the House. These amendments are improvements which will allow the arrangements for preferential return to apply more widely, underlining the voluntary nature to the arrangements.
Clause 11(1), as set out, requires the Secretary of State to determine, before a pilot scheme is implemented, whether a GP who participates in a pilot will be given preferential treatment on applying to transfer to the medical list. Amendment No. 15 will require the Secretary of State to decide whether a particular GP has a preferential right of transfer to the medical list before he approves the pilot scheme, rather than before the pilot scheme is implemented, which might be any time from approval to when the scheme "goes live". This amendment will strengthen Clause 11 by making sure that before a pilot begins
832
to be implemented, the GPs taking part know whether they have been given a preferential right of transfer.
Amendment No. 16 will require the Secretary of State to make a determination in relation to GPs after the scheme has been approved. This means that where a GP joins a pilot scheme once it is up and running he may also be eligible for a preferential right of transfer back to a medical list. Thus, when one partner retires and a new one takes his place and takes on the commitments that go with partnership, he will know what his position will be should the pilot arrangements end. The provision will also allow changes of status to be taken into account in the Secretary of State's determination; for example, when a salaried GP already in the practice, previously refused a right of transfer, takes over the responsibilities of an outgoing partner.
Amendment No. 17 also makes clear that once the Secretary of State has reached a decision on these matter, he must make it known to the health authority and the GP concerned.
The amendments to Clause 18 refine and clarify the detail as to how the broad regulatory powers within the clause may be carried forward in regulations. They also make more explicit the fact that medical practitioners who perform personal medical services in permanent arrangements should not also provide general medical services except in laid down circumstances—exactly as is the case for pilot schemes.
Finally, Amendment No. 71 is about the NHS Tribunal's power to direct (if it thinks fit) not only that the GP's name be not included in any medical list in England and Wales kept under the 1977 Act, but also that it be not included in any list in Scotland kept under the 1978 Act. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17: Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(1A) Before a pilot scheme is varied so as to permit a new medical practitioner to perform personal medical services under the scheme, the Secretary of State must make a determination under this section in relation to the new practitioner.
(1B) The Secretary of State may at any time make a determination under this section varying a determination about a medical practitioner if he is asked to do so by the practitioner concerned.").
Page 6, line 1, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State must notify the authority and the medical practitioner or practitioners concerned in writing of any determination made by him under this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [NHS contracts]:
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, I must advise your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 19 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) In the case of a pilot scheme entered into, or to be entered into, by an authority with a single individual or body corporate, that individual or body may make an application under this section to become a health service body.
(1A) In the case of any other pilot scheme, all of those entering into, or proposing to enter into, arrangements with the authority to provide personal medical services or personal dental services under the scheme may together make an application under this section to become a single health service body.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. In doing so I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 20 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26 also. These amendments deal with outstanding points concerning the way in which NHS contracts will work in piloted arrangements. Their aim is to ensure that the benefits of NHS contracts—simplicity and dispute-resolution by the Secretary of State—can play a full part in the new arrangements.
Our original thinking had been that the provisions in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 which allowed pre-contractual arbitration by the Secretary of State before an NHS contract is drawn up might not always be applicable in the context of the Bill. We therefore reserved the regulatory power to exclude these provisions in prescribed circumstances. Following discussion with representatives of the General Medical Services Committee, we are persuaded that it will provide an important element of reassurance for health service bodies in pilot schemes to be able to seek the Secretary of State's arbitration if difficulties arise over a proposed contract. We believe that such arbitration will arise only exceptionally. But we agree that it should be available, and Amendment No. 24 puts that beyond doubt.
These amendments also clarify who may make an application to become a health service body. Individual GPs or GDPs can already do so under the Bill as it stands. These amendments also make it clearer that applications can be made by various groupings—for example, partnerships of GPs—and ensure that such groupings can comprise a single health service body and share the same NHS contract. They also provide for partnerships to retain their health service body status when individual partners change; for example, on retirement. The provision fits in well with the flexibility in the provision of services which the Bill aims to permit. It will give appropriate groupings of providers access to the full benefits of health service body status. I commend them to the House.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help us with some explanation of the terminology in Amendment No. 18 with regard to the phrase "or body corporate" which refers to the type of body which could become a health service body for the purposes of application for a pilot scheme.
Your Lordships will remember that in Committee we raised concerns which were expressed in an amendment that we attempted to make to Clause 1
834
dealing with the fact that we were unhappy with the idea that organisations which distributed dividends—that is, were within the common sense meaning of the words "body corporate"—should be excluded from the possibility of being pilot proposers.
This is something which is giving rise to concern within the British Medical Association, which has now formally expressed its opposition to corporate bodies, in the general meaning of the word, becoming involved in pilot schemes. I believe that on a first reading Amendment No. 18 suggests that the Government are giving formal credibility to that understanding. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that suspicion is correct or whether in the context of Amendment No. 18 "body corporate" has a meaning other than that which it might generally and colloquially seem to mean.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand it, there has been some discussion with the General Medical Services Committee about that. I thought that it was satisfied with the interpretation that we have put on the word "corporate". Perhaps before Third Reading it may be helpful if I write to the noble Baroness giving her further details about that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, before Third Reading, perhaps the noble Baroness will also have another conversation with representatives of the BMA and the GMSC, because my conversation with the leader of that group of the BMA this morning suggested that it is still unhappy with that wording.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall certainly undertake to do that.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in giving examples of what could constitute a health service body and in illustrating how Amendment No. 18 would work, if I heard the noble Baroness aright, she mentioned doctors who are already providing general medical service and dentists already providing general dental services in the same way as we hoped would be put into the Bill in my Amendment No. 7.
However, reading the new words, it seems to me that quite a wide variety of people could qualify to become health service bodies. Again, my anxiety level is raised a little by that. The Minister reassured me in replying to Amendment No. 7. Perhaps she will say whether my anxiety is justified in this case.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am well aware that your Lordships are unhappy about Amendment No. 18 and, with the agreement of the House, I shall withdraw it and bring it back on Third Reading. However, I do wish to move the other amendments in the group.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 26:
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("the applicant is") and insert ("—

(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1), the applicant is, and

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (1A), the applicants together are," ).

Page 7, line 4, leave out from ("to") to end of line 8 and insert ("such a health service body ("a pilot scheme health service body"), acting as acquire, as if the functions referred to in subsection (1) of those sections were the provision of piloted services.").
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("() Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a pilot scheme health service body resulting from an application under subsection (1A) is to be treated, at any time, as consisting of those with whom, at that time, the authority have arrangements under the scheme.").
Page 7, line 9, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("() A direction as to payment made under section 4(7) of the Act of 1990 or section 17A(8) of the 1978 Act against, or in favour of, a pilot scheme health service body is enforceable—

(a) in England and Wales, in a county court (if the court so orders) as if it were a judgment or order of that court; and

(b) in Scotland, by the sheriff as if it were a judgment or order of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have made such a judgment or order.").

Page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("person who is a health service body by virtue of this section") and insert ("pilot scheme health service body").
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("those who are health service bodies by virtue of this section") and insert ("pilot scheme health service bodies").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment
No. 27:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
THE DENTAL PRACTICE BOARDS
(".—(1) Regulations may confer such powers or impose such duties on the Board, in relation to pilot schemes under which personal dental services are provided, as may be prescribed.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make any of the following kinds of provision.
(3) They may authorise or require the Board—

(a) to perform on behalf of an authority functions of a prescribed description (including functions relating to remuneration) which have been delegated to the Board by the authority in accordance with a power conferred by the regulations;

(b) to conduct or commission surveys or other research;

(c) to carry on such other activities as may be prescribed.

(4) They may provide that functions conferred by the regulations are only to be exercised by the Board in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State.
(5) They may enable the Board to direct a dental practitioner to submit to the Board, in relation to treatment or a description of treatment that he has carried out or contemplates carrying out, such information (including estimates, radiographs, models and other items) as may be prescribed.
(6) In this section "the Board" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Dental Practice Board; and

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Dental Practice Board.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33, 35, 40 and 42. The amendments in this group give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to give the Dental Practice Board functions in relation to personal dental services. In practice, this will enable the Secretary of State to extend the role of the DPB so that it can provide a range of support services in respect of dental services provided under pilot and permanent schemes in a similar way to those it currently provides for the general dental service. That will ensure that the skills and experience of the DPB can be used to best effect in the new system.
Among other things, it will allow the extensive experience of the DPB in operating dental payment systems to be applied to the personal dental services. It will also enable us to make use of the DPB's expertise in monitoring treatment provided under the new system and carrying out quality checks through the Dental Reference Service. The aim of these amendments is to provide for cost-effective and high quality support for the new arrangements in dentistry. I very much hope that noble Lords will support them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment
No. 28:
Before Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
APPROVAL OF THE MEDICAL PRACTICES COMMITTEE
("All agreements made under this Act for the provision of personal medical services shall be submitted by the Health Authority concerned to the Medical Practices Committee, and shall be subject to the approval of the Committee, as if they were applications to provide general medical services under sections 29 and 30 of the 1977 Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, while moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49. The two amendments are intended to ensure that the important role of the Medical Practices Committee, which, as your Lordships know, now provides a strategic approach to the organisation of primary care, is maintained. We on these Benches feel that this is in the interest of equity in the NHS, about which we are very keenly concerned. I introduced a series of amendments to that effect in Committee. In response the Minister said:
"The Government are committed to fairness in the distribution of services".
but went on to say:
"It would be wrong and potentially damaging to sensible development to pre-empt these discussions"—
that is to say, discussions with the Medical Practices Committee—
"in the way the amendments seek to do".—[Official Report, 17/12/96; col. 1435.]
I am reintroducing these amendments because I understand in conversations with the chairman of the MPC, the most recent of which took place this morning, that at present it sees no movement in the Government's position about its concerns. The MPC still feels that it is being rather politely sidelined as the Bill proceeds.
Perhaps I may briefly reiterate the points that I made in Committee about the necessity of involving the MPC in the pilot schemes proposed by the Bill. I would remind the House that the MPC has the duty (which it has had since the NHS was established in 1948) to assess whether a health authority area is served by an adequate number of general practitioners. It does this by the "negative" power of refusing a GP the opportunity to practice in an area which in its very authoritative view is already adequately covered.
I know that there has been some recent discussion about whether the MPC is adequately fulfilling that task. As noble Lords on these Benches will know and as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, we are concerned about overall equity within the NHS at present. But I am convinced that the MPC is working appropriately to try to ensure a proper distribution of general practitioners across the country. Mary Leigh, the chairman of the MPC, said in a letter to the Health Service Journal which is published today:
"When the current criteria [for establishing the right number of GPs across the country] were introduced in May 1981, there were 400 under-doctored areas out of 1,500 in England and Wales. At 1 January 1997 there were only 15 such areas. The percentage of patients in under-doctored areas, in terms of average list size, has gone down from about 26 per cent. to 1 per cent. in 17 years"—
a record which I believe speaks for itself.
If the MPC is excluded from playing a role in assessing and authorising pilot schemes under the legislation as it now stands, it seems to me that that improvement will almost certainly be reversed. Your Lordships discussed earlier today and in Committee the fears that we on these Benches, and, indeed, the professional bodies led by the BMA, have about the rather unrestrained influence of commercial organisations if the Bill becomes law unamended.
It seems to me that removing the powers of the MPC in approving pilot schemes lends additional credence to those fears. It seems more and more clear that commercial companies will seek to operate primary care pilots. Indeed, your Lordships might have seen recent reports that the PPP (the well-known private insurance firm) has mentioned in public print its intention to become involved. It says that its pilots,
"would be modelled on South Africa's 'medi-clinics' where private hospitals offer on-site primary care, including investigative facilities".
If primary care of that kind falls without the remit of the MPC as it exists at present, it seems to me that those commercial interests will become prominent and that all of our fears about the influence that that may have will come to fruition.
It is also clear, as I said in Committee when speaking to another amendment, that these commercial companies are almost bound to want to work in prosperous areas where they will make a profit. Otherwise, why would they want to do it? If there is no manpower distribution screening on an objective basis as the MPC carries out at present, there is every possibility that there will be a cluster of privately organised primary care services in the better parts of town at the expense of improved services in the more deprived communities.
In response to our amendments on the subject in Committee, the Government said that they felt that they could rely on the health authorities to sift and screen applications which were inappropriate before they went to the Secretary of Sate. But I believe that it is obvious that health authorities must only have the perspective of their own areas to consider as a primary concern and that they do not have the national, overall picture in mind when they make references upward to the Secretary of State. They also do not have the experience for scrutiny of general practitioners and the recommendations to practice which 50 years of the MPC has afforded.
The MPC continues to feel very strongly that its concerns are not being listened to by the Department of Health; that its overall role is essential; and that it cannot be excluded without serious damage to the distribution of general practitioners. The MPC has certainly convinced me of the importance of its role. I hope that the Government will reconsider and at least enter into proper dialogue with the MPC about an appropriate focus that it can have if the Bill goes into statute. I beg to move.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may make a few remarks in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her well argued case that the MPC should not, so to speak, be swept aside in all the present developments. I hope that the Minister will excuse me standing up for the MPC, but it has been among my "arbiting" arbiters since the NHS began. All of us who had young colleagues who went into general practice have been most impressed by the work that the MPC has performed over the years.
I know that the MPC tends to be thought of as a rather small, and, therefore, uninfluential organisation. It has a budget of about £400,000 plus a year, but, after all, it covers over 104 areas and maintains careful watch over the proper distribution of general practices in those areas. In my view, it is not a very expensive operation to make sure that someone is keeping a careful eye on the distribution of general practitioners in our country. Professor Jarman at St. Mary's thinks highly of the performance of the Medical Practices Committee over the years. We should look at it as the defender of an even distribution of practitioners. I refer to compensation, where necessary, for practices in areas where the local population is deprived, or where people cannot speak English and may need to be provided with a general practitioner who can speak their language.
We should compare the wonderful distribution of practitioners under the NHS with the sad distribution, for example, in the United States of America, where perhaps 35 to 37 million people have not been properly provided for. As I say, I hope this committee will not, so to speak, be swept aside. It has done a wonderful job. We should try to retain its guidance to ensure we maintain a good distribution of general practitioners. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to comment on wider issues as well as on the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, always tries to

839
be of help to the House, but I think it right to make one or two observations on this and other amendments. We are now coming to the last few weeks of this Parliament. There is no prospect whatever of this Bill going through the House of Commons unless it is agreed. We are talking about a dissolution possibly at the end of March and the early part of April when we shall reach the statutory end of this Parliament. I do not want to waste time discussing what the result of the general election will be, but the reality is that in this period, when an announcement is made, a large number of Bills will die almost immediately. Unless this Bill is agreed in the House of Commons, it will almost certainly die. The department has to recognise the reality of that situation. I hope that when we discuss this Bill this week and next week the Government will recognise that unless they go to some trouble to try to meet the anxieties expressed by the Opposition, the prospects of its ever reaching the statute book in this Parliament are negligible.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before I discuss the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has just dealt with, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that my understanding is—I think it is the understanding of noble Lords in this House who have been through the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill—that amendments have been tabled by noble Lords who have sought in some way to improve the Bill. I think that has the general acceptance of everyone. Therefore it is not necessary to go into further detail as regards the noble Lord's comments. He has his opinion but we do not agree with it.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to ensure that any agreements for personal medical services are submitted to the Medical Practices Committee for approval before such arrangements are put in place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, the Medical Practices Committee is concerned with the distribution of general medical practitioners throughout England and Wales. Pilots, and any permanent arrangements likely to flow from them, will not necessarily have medical manpower implications. Rather, they are concerned with providing services in different and innovative ways to meet the health needs of the local population. In many cases pilots will have no impact on the number and distribution of medical practitioners in the area. Where they do so, the Medical Practices Committee will be informed to ensure that, in carrying out its function in relation to general medical services, full account can be taken of the numbers of all medical practitioners delivering services within that area. In considering the contractual arrangements to be entered into for the provision of personal medical services, health authorities are best placed to judge local service needs. We find it difficult to see how the Medical Practices Committee—a small committee of some nine people in central London—could effectively second guess judgments taken locally by health authorities about such service issues and effectively have the power of veto over such decisions. Nevertheless, we understand the concerns which the Medical Practices Committee and the profession—and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and
840
my noble friend Lord Butterfield—have expressed over the implications of pilots and any future arrangements for the even distribution of doctors. We continue to discuss this matter with the profession. I know your Lordships will be pleased to know that the chairman of the Medical Practices Committee and our officials will be taking these discussions forward at a meeting arranged for 28th January. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was hopeful that that would happen. We shall continue to take a close interest and will let noble Lords know the outcome and the decisions we have made at Third Reading of the Bill.
Our aim in this Bill is to streamline the general practitioner appointment process. Amendment No. 49 put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, instead re-introduces bureaucracy but adds no substance to the clause. We intend that in all cases the Medical Practices Committee will decide whether or not a vacancy exists, but once that decision is made either the health authority or partners within a practice should select a candidate. As now, the health authority will check the qualifications of that candidate. This is all that is necessary and further involvement of the Medical Practices Committee would add nothing but delay to the process. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to proceed with these amendments.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am also grateful for the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Butterfield and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have some sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have felt at certain stages of this Bill, particularly as regards the provisions relating to pilot schemes, which may, if the legislation is completed, come into force in April 1998, that we are dealing in the realms of what I have now come to call "virtual" legislation. I also understand that the timetable of the Bill is such that it will not reach Second Reading in another place until the second week in February. Given the length of our deliberations and the number of government amendments that have been tabled at this late stage, I suspect it will be several weeks in Committee in another place. Therefore I reiterate my view that this is "virtual" legislation.
However, let us proceed on the basis that we are speaking in the realms of reality. I found the point that the noble Baroness made that local needs were more readily met by local health authorities difficult to understand. I, of course, appreciate that that view may be most easily judged on the local patch, as it were, but the whole point of the Medical Practices Committee is that it takes a wider and broader overview of needs and the manpower situation in general practice. If the Government feel, as the noble Baroness suggested, that some eight people (as she described in a slightly pejorative way) sitting in London are inadequate to take an overview, I am surprised the Government have not introduced earlier legislation to abolish that organisation, rather than simply ignoring it in relation to the new development in primary care which we are debating today.

841
As regards her response to Amendment No. 49, we have had our usual discussion, which I believe my noble friend Lady Hayman has already dealt with this afternoon, about whether we are speaking of bureaucracy or, as we would describe it, of safeguards. Once again, we fall heavily into the school of those who felt that safeguards were what we were seeking to achieve. To dress it up in some pejorative way as bureaucracy does not take us much further. I was, of course, pleased to hear the noble Baroness say that the department will meet the Medical Practices Committee again next week. I hope that that will result in the Government laying amendments after that meeting. However, I understand the meeting will take place on Tuesday and therefore we may once again be faced with rather late government amendments. However, if government amendments were to be laid, that would be acceptable. If there are no government amendments, I shall return to this subject at Third Reading. But, at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Provision of personal medical or dental services]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 18 [Supplementary regulations]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 11, line 41, after ("participants") insert ("other than Health Authorities").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 36:
Page 12, line 12, at end insert—
("(ee) prevent (except in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed) a medical practitioner who performs personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements from providing general medical services;").
Page 12. line 21, leave out from ("for") to end of line 26 and insert ("directions, as to payments, made under section 4(7) of the Act of 1990 (as it has effect as a result of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (g)) to be enforceable in a county court (if the court so orders) as if they were judgments or orders of that court;").
Page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("(hh) confer powers or impose duties on the Dental Practice Board in relation to agreements made by virtue of section 28C(1) under which personal dental services are provided;").
Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
("() Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(f) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) requiring (except in prescribed circumstances) Health Authorities to remove from their medical lists persons who are performing personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements;

(b) conferring a right to transfer to a medical list on persons who have ceased to perform such services;

(c) that any provision in relation to medical lists made by or under any enactment is not to apply;

(d) as to conditions to be attached to entries in medical lists;

842

(e) conferring powers of disqualification on the Tribunal constituted under section 46.").

Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
("() The power to make provision under this section of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(hh) includes power—

(a) to authorise or require the Dental Practice Board to perform on behalf of a Health Authority functions of a prescribed description (including functions relating to remuneration) which have been delegated to the Board by the Health Authority in accordance with a power conferred by the regulations;

(b) to provide that functions conferred by the regulations are only to be exercised by the Board in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State;

(c) to require information for the purpose of performing any functions conferred or imposed on the Board under this section.").

Page 12, line 43, after ("participants") insert ("other than Health Boards").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 49, at end insert—
"(c) include the provision of a complaints system for patients which is equivalent to that required of general medical and general dental practitioners").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment provides for the complaints system available for patients receiving personal medical services or personal dental services under pilot schemes or schemes made permanent under the provisions of the Bill.
The arrangements for complaints are not clear on the face of the Bill. The lines of accountability for doctors, dentists, nurses or others providing services under this legislation are in some doubt. At present there are clear lines of complaint and procedures for complaint either against individual general practitioners, general dental practitioners or health service trusts. It is not certain whether the bodies providing personal medical services or personal dental services under pilot schemes under the legislation would be subject to exactly the same procedures.
The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that patients who receive services under these schemes should have access to complaints procedures that are at least equivalent to those available to patients under conventional schemes.
The amendment is straightforward. The Minister may be able to reassure us that those processes are already in place. However, a simple reading of the Bill does not give that reassurance. The Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council are most anxious that it should be made explicit that people should not be disadvantaged by being patients of doctors or dentists under these schemes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was right to say that we have attempted to improve this Bill as it proceeds through the House; it is generally welcomed. However, there is a major issue of contention as regards private companies providing those medical

843
services. We shall return to that issue next week in this House. If it is not resolved happily here, it will undoubtedly be dealt with at length and with passion by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place. The passage in another place may not be straightforward given the circumstances that exist. Were personal medical services to be provided by commercial organisations, patients would wish to know whether they should refer complaints to a National Health Service system of procedure or whether they should go to the same person to whom they complained that their chicken was past its sell-by date. It is important to reassure patients that the standard and quality of the complaints procedure available at present will be available under the scheme.
Having had some experience of dealing with complaints, I do not put forward this argument because I wish to encourage a confrontational attitude between patients and providers, but from the knowledge—I know that it is shared by the Minister—that if one deals properly, sensitively and speedily with complaints one avoids litigation and expense for the National Health Service and distress for patients and complainants. It is an important issue. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in recent years there have been many changes in the various complaints procedures. Therefore I agree that one needs great clarification.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we agree with the noble Baroness that when a patient wishes to complain the procedures must be broadly the same regardless of whether the patient has been treated by, say, a general practitioner working in a pilot scheme or a GP working within the existing system. Patients should feel that they are fully part of the NHS regardless of whether they are treated under the existing or new arrangements.
We intend that the Secretary of State will require standard NHS complaints procedures to be part of the terms of the contracts drawn up between health authorities and boards and providers of services. That way each provider of service, be it general practitioner, general dental practitioner, NHS trust or other body, will have explicitly signed up to the standard complaints arrangements. There may be minor modifications, taking account of the circumstances of each pilot, but overall the arrangements will be on all fours with those which apply now to the family health services and trusts.
Existing NHS complaints procedures do not appear in primary legislation, and nor do we feel that they should do so for pilot arrangements. We are convinced that individual contracts are the appropriate place for stipulating complaints arrangements. We will build on the framework set out by the Bill in discussion with our national consultative groups and, where appropriate, set out more detail in secondary
844
legislation. I hope that I have been able to reassure both noble Baronesses and that the amendment will not need to be pursued.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Her response appears to cover many of our concerns. I wish to study what she said in detail. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 38 to 43:
Page 13, line 13, at end insert—
("(ee) prevent (except in such circumstances and to such extent as may be prescribed) a medical practitioner who performs personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements from providing general medical services;").
Page 13, line 21, leave out from ("for") to end of line 25 and insert ("directions, as to payments, made under section 17A(8) (as it has effect as a result of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (g)) to be enforceable by the sheriff as if they were judgments or orders of the sheriff and whether or not the sheriff could himself have made such judgments or orders;").
Page 13, line 25, at end insert—
("(hh) confer powers or impose duties on the Dental Practice Board in relation to agreements made by virtue of section 17C(1) under which personal dental services are provided;").
Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("() Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(f) may, in particular, include provision—

(a) requiring (except in prescribed circumstances) Health Boards to remove from their medical lists persons who are performing personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements;

(b) conferring a right to transfer to a medical list on persons who have ceased to perform such services;

(c) that any provision in relation to medical lists made by or under any enactment is not to apply;

(d) as to conditions to be attached to entries in medical lists;

(e) conferring powers of disqualification on the Tribunal constituted under section 29.").

Page 13, line 33, at end insert—
("() The power to make provision under this section of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(hh) includes power—

(a) to authorise or require the Dental Practice Board to perform on behalf of a Health Board functions of a prescribed description (including functions relating to remuneration) which have been delegated to the Dental Practice Board by the Health Board in accordance with a power conferred by the regulations;

(b) to provide that functions conferred by the regulations are only to be exercised by the Dental Practice Board in accordance with directions of the Secretary of State;

(c) to require information for the purpose of performing any functions conferred or imposed on the Dental Practice Board under this section.").

Page 13, line 34, leave out first ("section") and insert ("Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Right to choose medical practitioner]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment
No. 44:
Page 13, line 39, leave out ("choose") and insert ("be registered with").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is similar to that moved by my noble friend Lady Hayman regarding complaints. It reflects our concerns about whether the right to choose a general practitioner is the same within the meaning of this legislation as the right to be registered with the general practitioner.
Two aspects need to be more specific on the face of the Bill than at present. The first is the patient's right to know, for example, the type of general practice with which he or she is registered. Secondly, will the GP practising under Part I pilot arrangements have a personal list, or will there be a practice list? There are obvious reasons why it is important for patients to know what type of contractual arrangement the GP has. For example, it would affect the hours of availability. A salaried GP might have an agreement under his pilot scheme to work for certain hours. That would be of obvious relevance to a patient who was concerned to make contact with him or her. It affects the nature of the services offered. After all, a GP may also be an independent contractor or employed by a trust.
Originally we and the professional bodies who look after these issues on behalf of the medical profession had understood that patients would continue to register in a pilot scheme with an individual general practitioner regardless of the type of contractual arrangement which was being undertaken by him in that pilot scheme. We understand from the Minister that there would be practice lists. We need to clarify the implications of a practice list before we move to another stage of the Bill.
The questions that arise come under various headings. For the purposes of this debate I merely list them in this order. Is, for example, the right of a patient to choose a GP the same as the right to be registered with an individual GP; or is it a right to be registered with a practice and to choose a GP in that practice without registering with that GP? If it is with a practice, what happens to patients if the GP in a Part I pilot, or indeed a permanent arrangement that may come out of a pilot, wishes to leave the partnership and return to Part II arrangements in the same area? Earlier government amendments were designed to facilitate that on behalf of the general practitioner. But will there be equal safeguards to allow the patient the right to choose whether to remain with the Part I practice in the pilot scheme or to move with his or her original GP who may be leaving the partnership?
When general practitioners in Part IT arrangements move to Part I, do they have a right to continue to have their own practice list, or will there be a mechanism that
846
will require a practice to register the GPs? I refer to the expression used by the Minister, "a practice list". Is that what "a practice list" will mean? What then happens if general practitioners want to return to being Part II doctors? Do they automatically take their lists back with them?
Those are all significant questions. Earlier we examined government amendments designed to facilitate the rights of GPs to move in and out of pilot schemes. It is extremely important that we have equal clarity in respect of the rights of patients.
There are all kinds of practical arguments and questions. For example, if practice lists are to be created, who would be responsible for patient cover out of surgery hours; and how would patients be made aware of those arrangements? Additional questions were raised in another context by my noble friend Lady Hayman about the responsibility for complaints. In a practice list, who will take the ultimate responsibility for any complaint that is made, however it is administered? These are very important issues on which we need to have clarity. This amendment seeks to put them on the face of the Bill unless the Minister can help us by providing that clarity in her explanation of what lies behind the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the problem is principally one of language. I believe our intentions are absolutely at one. We believe that the direct relationship between a doctor and a patient on his list is one of the cornerstones of general practice. We certainly do not seek to change that in any way in the Bill.
Clause 19 secures a patient's right to choose a GP and extends the effects of the existing law to cover personal medical services. We believe that the present wording of the clause in the Bill is the best way to confirm a patient's right, subject to GP consent and any limitation on list size, to that personal relationship.
I shall try to answer some of the questions put by the noble Baroness. I believe she asked: is the right of a patient to choose a GP the same as the right to be registered with an individual GP, or is it a right to be registered with a practice and to choose a GP in that practice without registering with that GP? The patient will continue to have the right to choose to be on an individual GP's list and be registered with that GP, subject to the existing provisions about GP consent and list size. The practice could also choose to run a practice list system. The patient may also choose not be registered with an individual GP but with the practice as a whole. It would therefore be possible to have each doctor in a practice with an individual list of patients and a separate list of patients shared between the practice as a whole depending on the choices that patients made.
The noble Baroness also asked what happens if a practice list is in operation and a partner chooses to move out of the practice. What happens then to the patients—do they stay with the practice or do they move with the GP? Where that is a difficulty, a practice may operate a practice list system. When one or more of the partners decides to leave, both the patients on any individual list of the leaving doctors and those on the

847
practice list have to be notified of the change. They will then have the opportunity to decide either to go with the leaving doctor or stay with the practice.
The noble Baroness asked a whole range of other questions. I am very happy to answer them now; however, I am aware that time is going on and there is other business. Especially in the light of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am extremely anxious to be conciliatory. Perhaps the noble Lord was not in the Chamber when I withdrew one of the government amendments in just the spirit that he indicated. In addition, I succeeded in speaking with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, last night, when I gave her an explanation of some of the amendments that we were putting forward, as I did with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I was indeed here when the noble Baroness withdrew that amendment and rejoiced at the time that she had done so. I very much hope that, so far as the remaining stages of the Bill are concerned, the Government will adopt the same position. Without being, as she terms it, conciliatory, the prospect of this legislation getting on to the statute book in this Parliament would be seriously jeopardised.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. As she says, this may be a question of language. However, it is obviously not as clear as many people, including professional organisations, are concerned to have it.
I take the Minister's point about not replying in detail to the questions I raised. However, they were put to me by those with a professional concern about this matter, both from the point of view of the patient and that of the profession. This may be another amendment which it would be sensible for her to discuss further with the department and perhaps even with the British Medical Association, as she intends to do with Amendment No. 18, simply in order not to prolong discussion this evening but to be sure that those understandings about language, if it is simply a question of language, are appreciated and agreed upon by all sides.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I would be very happy to do that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("provides") and insert ("performs").
Page 14, line 45, leave out ("provides") and insert ("performs").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant moved Amendment No. 47:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES: ADDITIONAL PROVISION BY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
("In the 1977 Act, at the end of section 29(2) insert—
"(h) for the circumstances in which a medical practitioner who is not suitably experienced within the meaning of section 31 or who does not have an acquired right prescribed or otherwise provided for by regulations may provide general medical services.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I must express the hope that my voice will last out. I suspect that I may shortly be seeking primary care. The objective of the amendment is perfectly straightforward, but the practical implications are a little more complex. The 1977 Act to which the amendment refers is the one that required a statutory period of vocational training for all individuals wishing to enter general practice before they could become principals in general practice in the National Health Service.
The amendment would permit the Secretary of State to introduce regulations enabling doctors from outside the European Economic Area—that is not just the European Union, but also doctors from Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein—who are fully qualified in their own countries, to be involved in international exchanges, visiting the UK for short periods to leam from the experiences of working in general practice and possibly contributing to the education of UK undergraduates.
Many doctors from across the world have come to this country; some junior, seeking postgraduate training and experience, but some of them senior—professors and distinguished consultants—spending periods of sabbatical leave learning about medical practice in the United Kingdom and becoming involved in teaching the programmes. Since vocational training was introduced here in 1977 the quality of general practice and the nature of that training have become greatly admired overseas, not least in the United States, which is far behind us in the development of training programmes in primary care.
The General Medical Services Committee has been talking to the Department of Health on this topic. Many of us had thought that the department would be anxious to resolve the issue to enable doctors from overseas to obtain experience in general practice in this country. We believe that this amendment will provide a useful opportunity to give the Secretary of State power to introduce regulations to facilitate international exchange.
The purpose is that doctors from outside the EEA could be issued with time-limited certificates to enable them to work as supervised deputies in a named practice, assisting with the provision of general medical services. Overseas doctors, including professors of primary care and long-established general practitioners from other countries, should be able to visit the UK for that purpose.
Educational visits to general practices in the UK by GPs from abroad had proved of value but ceased in January 1995 following the implementation of Title IV of EC Directive 93/16, which facilitates the free

849
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualification. Each member state is now required to institute vocational training in general medical practice. I look back to the years I spent on the Advisory Committee on Medical Training in Europe in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when it took a great deal of time and effort to persuade the other countries in the European Community, as it then was, that such a period of training was needed.
The Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice in this country does not issue UK certificates to non-EEA doctors unless the individual concerned has completed a period of training in the UK, but my understanding is that that provision applies to individuals who might wish to become principals in general practice. I am subject to correction by the Minister but I do not believe that that should, or indeed could, preclude the issue of time-limited certificates to doctors from overseas wishing to work in a supervised capacity in a named practice.
One hopes that the passage of this amendment will enable regulations to be introduced requiring that a visiting doctor would work under the supervision of a principal on a medical list who had been approved as a supervisor; secondly, that the GP supervising the visitor would be responsible for any breach of terms of service occasioned by the visiting doctor; and, thirdly, that a time-limited visiting certificate could be issued which would not carry with it any right to make application for inclusion on a health authority's medical list and which would require that the doctor could only practice in a named practice or practices. My understanding is that recent draft proposals relating to immigration and employment would allow such doctors to be attached to practices in the UK.
I believe that the problems of registration with the General Medical Council could be overcome. After all, for many years temporary full registration has been offered to visiting professors coming to this country from abroad. There was even a situation some years ago when Japanese doctors coming to look after Japanese nationals working in the UK were allowed to have temporary full registration to enable them to work in that capacity.
The amendment covers only England and Wales. If, as I hope, it is acceptable to the Government, a similar amendment would be necessary to amend the 1978 National Health Service (Scotland) Act. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on this amendment. The case has been eloquently made by him. It is clearly to everybody's benefit that these doctors from overseas should play a temporary role and have their education enhanced by visiting this country.
Sometimes we on these Benches are accused of undermining the NHS by the concerns which we express about it; let me say that I believe it would be of
850
enormous benefit to any overseas doctor trying to establish or conduct a proper primary care service in his or her own country to observe how well it is done here.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that international exchanges of the nature described by the noble Lord are of enormous value. Indeed the Joint Committee for Postgraduate Training in General Practice already has the power to issue certificates allowing overseas doctors to enter general practice in this country as a principal, but only where it considers their experience to be equivalent to that required of domestic GPs.
We do not believe that it would be in the interests of patients to allow exchange doctors entry on the strength of a lesser requirement. That would undermine the single standard of entry to UK and EC general practice necessary to maintain the quality of service to patients. Permanent supervision of the doctors concerned could not be guaranteed, with the result that patients could find themselves being treated by a GP whose qualifications did not meet the required standards.
I can assure the noble Lord that we have put forward to the professions proposals which would enable exchanges to take place within existing primary legislation and which would not fall foul of the principle I have just set out. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I would only say that there have been occasions in the past when the Joint Committee for Postgraduate Training in General Practice has refused to offer certificates of equivalence or appropriate certificates to doctors of great distinction with extensive experience of general practice overseas solely on the grounds that those individuals have no experience of working in this country within the National Health Service. If the Minister can give me the assurance that discussions with that body and the profession have overcome that difficulty and that it will be possible for such doctors to come here on exchanges and work in general practice, providing the concerns that their experience and qualifications are of an appropriate standard are satisfied, I believe that that should be sufficient reassurance and I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Medical lists and vacancies: England and Wales.]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23, line 21, after ("relates") insert ("(whether wholly or in part)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48 and with it I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 70, 72, 77 and 88. This group of amendments is concerned with some matters of detail relating to our proposals on GP appointments contained in Clauses 27 and 28. Amendment No. 50 will enable a health authority to

851
make a reference to the Medical Practices Committee concerning a possible future practice vacancy, where, for example, it is known that a general practitioner is to retire at some future date. At the moment references can only be made where a vacancy actually exists. This will aid an authority's forward planning. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 deal with technical matters concerning cross-border vacancies between England and Scotland, and Amendment No. 54 makes it clear that a reference to a health board in this Bill has the same meaning as in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Amendment No. 70 ensures that medical practitioners with preferential rights to return to an authority's medical list can do so in relation to a vacancy which covers only part of that authority's area. Amendments Nos. 72 and 77 are drafting amendments.
I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 24, line 4, after ("is") insert (", or will be,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment
No. 51:
Page 24, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 24.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with another concern about the independence of the Medical Practices Committee. Its purpose is to delete the increased power which the Secretary of State seems to be giving to himself to vary or revoke decisions which at the moment are made within the law by the Medical Practices Committee. As we discussed on earlier amendments, we understand that the Government will meet next week with the Medical Practices Committee on this and other concerns.
With that in mind, given the reply that I expect to hear from the noble Baroness—I hope this will be the subject of those discussions—at this point I would simply like to register our concern on this additional matter about the Medical Practices Committee, to which we may have to return at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Amendment No. 51 is concerned with the appeals process as it relates to the filling of vacancies. We find it rather baffling. Our intention in Clause 27(3)(b) is to provide a regulatory power for decisions taken by health authorities on filling vacancies to be reconsidered by the Secretary of State through an agreed appeals process. The amendment as tabled removes this power and effectively would mean that there would be no right of appeal to the Secretary of State over non-selection by a health authority to a medical
852
practitioner vacancy. We do not think that would be a very fair way to proceed. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment this afternoon, on the understanding that I had when I moved it. This subject obviously lacks some clarity—certainly, views have been given to me expressing concern about the nature of the wording of this particular part of the Bill and its effect on the independence of the Medical Practices Committee. As I said in moving the amendment, I trust that it will be subject to the discussions which we understand will take place next Tuesday. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 54:
Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("vacancies") to end of line 26 and insert ("relating to the area of one Health Authority which also relate to the area of another Health Authority or a Health Board,").
Page 24, line 28, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations which make provision about vacancies which relate partly to the area of a Health Board may, in particular, provide that section 29A(2)(b) is to have effect in prescribed circumstances as if the reference to regulations under this section were a reference to regulations under section 19B of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").
Page 24, line 37, at end insert—
(""Health Board" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Medical lists and vacancies: Scotland]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 59:
Page 25, line 16, after ("relates") insert ("whether wholly or in part)").
Page 25, line 46, after ("is") insert (", or will be,").
Page 26, line 20, leave out from ("vacancies") to end of line 21 and insert ("relating to the area of one Health Board which also relate to the area of another Health Board or a Health Authority,").
Page 26, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations which make provision about vacancies which relate partly to the area of a Health Authority may, in particular, provide that section 19A(2)(b) is to have effect in prescribed circumstances as if the reference to regulations under this section were a reference to regulations under section 29B of the National Health Service Act 1977.").
Page 26, line 32, at end insert—
(""Health Authority" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 1977;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 29 [Sale of medical practices]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 27, line 11, at beginning insert ("provided or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 62, 63 and 89. Since the inception of the National Health Service it has been unlawful to sell the goodwill of a medical practice. The Bill extends the prohibition to all those involved in providing and delivering personal medical services. Our aim is simply to ensure that the extension of the prohibition is done in a fair and even-handed way.
Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 62, 63 and 89 that we placed before the House are minor and consequential and are intended to ensure that our aim to extend the goodwill prohibition fairly to those who provide and deliver personal medical services is fully met. I very much hope that your Lordships will support the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, two of the amendments are in my name. They relate to a question which the noble Baroness has not addressed; namely, the difference in this legislation between the sale of goodwill, to which we understand the provisions are addressed, and the previous legislation in which the words "partial goodwill" were also used. There is some concern that in a sense this may disguise an area about partial sale of assets within a general practice or within any kind of practice set up under the pilot schemes. The words "any part of goodwill" as opposed to "goodwill" in general, would make it more comfortable for those who are concerned about the implications of removing that provision. Perhaps the Minister can help me with that point.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not think the amendment will have the intention that the noble Baroness supposed. But we shall take it back and look at it with our officials.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 27, line 23, leave out from ("Authority") to end of line 25 and insert ("by arrangement with whom a person has at any time—

(a) provided general medical services, or

(b) provided or performed personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, means the area, district or locality of that Council, Committee or Authority (at that time).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 27, line 36, at beginning insert ("provided or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 28, line 2, leave out from ("Board") to end of line 3 and insert ("by arrangement with whom a person has at any time—

(a) provided general medical services, or

(b) provided or performed personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, means the area of that Council or Board (at that time).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
EXPENDITURE OF HEALTH BOARDS
(".—(1) In section 85 of the 1978 Act (expenses of certain bodies), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1AA) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the amount allotted by the Secretary of State to a Health Board under subsection (1) shall include provision for expenditure of that Board which is attributable to—

(a) remuneration which is paid to persons providing additional pharmaceutical services (in accordance with directions under section 27A), in respect of such of those services as are designated; or

(b) remuneration which is—

(i) paid to persons providing general medical services under Part II;

(ii) determined by the Health Board concerned; and

(iii) of a designated description.

(1AB) In subsection (1AA), "designated" means designated in writing by the Secretary of State for the purposes of that subsection and in relation to the allotment in question.".
(2) In subsection (2) at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1AA),".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause permits health boards to make payments from cash limited funds to GPs with whom they agree to develop specific areas of general medical services locally and to persons who undertake to provide certain additional pharmaceutical services. The clause is the Scottish equivalent of the English provisions contained in Clause 30(3A)(c) and (d) of the Bill. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Interpretation]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 29, line 40, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
("(3) Except in sections 28C and 28D of the 1977 Act and sections 17C and 17D of the 1978 Act—

(a) references in any enactment (or in any instrument made under any enactment) to arrangements made under section 28C of the 1977 Act or section 17C of the 1978 Act are to be read, except where the context otherwise requires, as including references to pilot schemes; and

(b) references in any enactment (or in any instrument made under any enactment) to services under section 28C of the 1977 Act or section 17C of the 1978 Act, or to services provided in accordance with arrangements made under either of those sections, are to be read, except where the context otherwise requires, as including references to piloted services.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 30, line 11, after ("Primary") insert ("Health").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to introduce the word "Health" into the Short Title of the Bill between the words "Primary" and "Care", so that it becomes the National Health Service (Primary Health Care) Act.
The reason is twofold. First and most important is to emphasise that primary care is a highly appropriate place to offer preventive as well as curative health services. For many years preventive services have been provided by the best primary healthcare teams. They include, for example, ante-natal and post-natal care, immunisation and child health surveillance. More recently, health promotion and preventive care, including screening, have been made available to a wide section of the population through the best primary healthcare teams, aiming to reduce the incidence and severity of many serious disabling conditions, such as asthma, raised blood pressure and obesity, among physical conditions, as well as counselling and care for patients with drug, alcohol and some mental health problems. Including the word "Health" in the Title of the Bill will remind those who are approving pilot schemes of the wider role of primary healthcare.
In the second place, "primary health care"—often now shortened to the initials PHC—is the term by which it is known internationally, especially by the World Health Organization. It is accepted as the description for the wide range in care that is appropriate in frontline community settings. It was the term used at the pioneering international conference in 1978 at Alma-Ata, which gave such a worldwide boost to primary health care as a concept. I do not suggest that "Primary Health Care" should be substituted throughout the Bill but that we should have it in the Title to show the type of activity we hope will be covered by the many schemes the Bill will allow. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the objective behind the amendment is one that we can subscribe to wholeheartedly. Indeed, the recognition that healthcare provision needs the team effort of a range of health and social care professionals has been an important theme in recent years. In the family health services, the idea that everything centres around the general practitioner in his surgery has increasingly given way to a team approach.
We want the new arrangements that the Bill will allow to continue and build on that approach. One significant development is that contracts for personal medical services will not have to be held exclusively by GPs; partnerships made up of, say, nurses, GPs and perhaps other professionals will be able to put forward proposals to provide services. We will also want to continue to encourage an approach to service provision which takes proper account of social factors. The White Paper, Delivering the Future, published on 17th December explicitly encourages that.
The fact that the Short Title of the Bill refers to primary care and not primary health care will not affect that in the least. The Short Title is primarily an indexing tool. It will helpfully identify the services that the Bill deals with as those which people can access directly rather than via a
856
referral. The Short Title will in no way restrict the way such services can develop in future. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore not press the amendment.
Lord Rea: My Lords, naturally I shall not press the amendment, particularly at this stage. However, I am a little disappointed that my advocacy has not had the desired effect. The amendment may well crop up again—not at Third Reading in this House but perhaps in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 30, line 26, at end insert—
("() Orders under subsections (3) and (7) must be made by statutory instrument.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 30, line 27, at beginning insert ("Part I of).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 85 and 90. The amendments in this group make minor technical changes to clarify ambiguities, tidy up the drafting and remove obsolete provisions in NHS legislation in preparation for a consolidation Bill. These will ensure that the statute book is easier to follow and remove the need to repeat inaccuracies in the consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 30, line 27, at end insert—
("() Part II of Schedule 2 makes amendments to facilitate, or which are otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of certain enactments relating to the health service.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Preferential Treatment on Transferring to Medical Lists]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 70 and 71:
Page 31, line 19, after ("relates") insert ("(whether wholly or in part)").
Page 32, line 12, at end insert ("(whether kept under the 1977 Act or the 1978 Act)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 en bloc. I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 33, line 30, leave out ("as to whether there is a vacancy").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 85:
Page 36, line 11, at end insert—
(" In Schedule 12, in paragraph 1 (1)(b), after "drug or medicine" insert "(otherwise than in accordance with section 28C arrangements)".").
Page 36, line 25, leave out ("as to whether there is a vacancy").
Page 36, line 37, at end insert—
("In section 28(2)(b), after "that" insert "(i)", and after "arrangements" insert ", and
(ii) all additional pharmaceutical services provided in accordance with a direction under section 27 A,".").
Page 37, line 13, leave out from ("body"") to end of line 14 and insert ("means a person or body within the meaning of section 17A(2);";").
Page 37, line 18, leave out ("means arrangements made under section 17C"") and insert ("has the same meaning as in section 17D(4)"").
Page 39, line 5, at end insert—
("In Schedule 11, in paragraph 1 (1)(b), after "drug or medicine" insert "(otherwise than in accordance with section 17C arrangements)".").
Page 39, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert ("or (iii)").
Page 39, line 20, leave out from first ("section") to ("at") in line 21 and insert ("17,").
Page 39, line 24, at end insert ("or section 27A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978"").
Page 39, line 28, at end insert—
("PART II PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS
The National Health Service Act 1966 (c. 8)
34.—(1) Section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), omit "Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977 or" and "section 56 of the said Act of 1977 or".
(3) In subsection (2), omit "the Minister or, as the case may be,".
(4) Omit subsection (3).
The National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49)
35. The 1977 Act is amended in accordance with paragraphs 36 to 43.
36.—(1) Section 29 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
(3) In subsection (2)(a), for "of lists" substitute "by each Health Authority of a list" and after "services" insert "for persons in the Health Authority's area".
(4) Subsection (4) continues to have effect as originally enacted.
37. In section 35(1), after "regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
38. In section 36(1)(a), for "of lists" substitute "by each Health Authority of a list" and after "services" insert "for persons in the Health Authority's area".
39. In section 38(1), after "with regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
40. In section 39(a), for "of lists of medical practitioners, and ophthalmic opticians, respectively," substitute "by each Health Authority of a list of medical practitioners and a list of ophthalmic opticians" and after "services" insert "for persons in the Health Authority's area".
41. In section 41, after "with regulations" insert "which shall be made for the purpose".
42. Omit section 43A(3).
43. Omit paragraph 37 of Schedule 15.
Transitional provisions for amendments to 1977 Act
44.—(1) This paragraph applies where an amendment made by this Part of this Schedule to section 29(1), 35(1), 38(1) or 41 of the 1977 Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations for certain purposes.
(2) If immediately before the amendment comes into force—
(a) regulations made for the same purposes are in force under the provision concerned or a related provision; and
(b) the regulations would have wholly, or to any extent, discharged the duty if it had been operative when they were made, the regulations shall be deemed to discharge that duty, wholly or (as the case may be) to that extent.
(3) Nothing in this Part of this Schedule shall affect the validity of the regulations mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c.19)
45. In section 14(6)(g), for "health board" substitute "Health Board".
The Health and Medicines Act 1988 (c. 49)
46. In section 17(1) of the Health and Medicines Act 1988, for "36, 39 or 42" substitute "35, 36, 38, 39, 41 or 42".
The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c. 46)
47. In section 6(5) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 for "36,39 or 42" substitute "35, 36,38, 39,41 or 42".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 76 to 85 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals and Revocations]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 90:
Page 40, line 38, column 3, leave out (", (3), (4), (6) and (7)") and insert ("to (8)").
Page 40, line 41, column 3, leave out from ("1") to end of line 43 and insert ("paragraphs 19,22(a) and (c) to (g) and 36").
Page 40, line 43, at end insert—
("PART II PRE-CONSOLIDATION REPEALS

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1966 c. 8.

The National Health Service Act 1966.

In section 10, in subsection (1) the words "Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977 or" and "section 56 of the said Act of 1977 or", in subsection (2) the words "the Minister or, as the case may be," and subsection (3).

1977 c. 49.

The National Health Service Act 1977.

Section 43A(3). In Schedule 15, paragraph 37.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 88 to 90 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [H.L.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL HIGH RISK AREAS
("—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as appropriate in relation to—

(a) the identification of marine environmental high risk areas in the territorial seas and pollution zone of the United Kingdom; and

(b) the introduction of necessary measures to safeguard—

(i) maritime safety, and

(ii) the environment of marine environmental high risk areas from pollution by matter from ships, offshore installations or submarine pipelines,

whilst respecting rights of transit passage in international straits and freedom of navigation.

(2) In making the regulations and subsequent identification of marine environmental high risk areas, the Secretary of State shall inform the International Maritime Organisation of—

(a) the identity of such sites;

(b) the significance of such sites for recognised ecological, sociological or scientific reasons and the vulnerability to damage by shipping activities; and

(c) the necessary measures to safeguard safety and the environment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, although we have traversed this ground before, there are one or two additional points on which I seek the Minister's response. The new clause deals with the identification of marine environmental high risk areas and the introduction of measures to minimise threats to those areas from shipping.
At Report stage the Minister said that,
"we already have powers to implement the definition of MEHRAs which was proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson".—[Official Report, 13/1/97; col. 23.]
While that is true, would it not be better and more desirable to see active measures to reduce shipping risks within particularly sensitive sites? If, for example, an oil terminal is located within or near to a MEHRA, tug escorts could be identified as being required at the site. If there was a lack of co-operation on the part of terminal operators to co-operate on a voluntary basis, would not the Minister agree that some regulations—perhaps some enabling power in primary legislation—may be required? And if changes in primary legislation were to be required, surely now would be the best time to consider them.
There are a number of other measures that could be considered for MEHRAs on a site-by-site basis. There is the risk that if we let this opportunity pass by or the Minister says that he will give the matter further consideration when the Bill reaches another place, the Minister could be delimiting the range of options that he has to protect those special areas.
The Minister was right when he said, on the same day at col. 25, that measures may only be taken which are consistent with international law or which have been agreed by the IMO in relation to the UK's pollution zone. But that surely does not apply within our own territorial waters where we would be able to utilise tug escorts for laden tankers entering terminals inside MEHRAs without the consent of the IMO.
The Minister referred to PSS As—particularly sensitive sea areas—a concept developed within the IMO. It is a concept he supported, and I support it also on behalf of the Opposition. But it is virtually unused. The only PSSA of which I am aware—he can correct me if I am wrong—is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. The concept, while self-evidently a good one, has not been particularly well received by other states at the IMO, certainly as far as practical application is concerned. Everybody is always prepared to accept the principle; it is however the practical application that matters.
The Minister said that the amendment we were then considering was premature, and he raised all sorts of arguments relating it to the PSSA, of course, and also to developments within Europe. However, the PSSA concept, while it does exist, is in fact hardly one which has been adopted, as I have already indicated, with any alacrity by anyone. Therefore, to rely on that is to some degree misleading. Indeed, a MEHRA once established could be submitted to the IMO as a candidate for the PSSA. I believe that I am right in saying that. Why should the two concepts be mutually exclusive?
The IMO is unable to endorse any PSSAs until they have been submitted by individual states. The Minister acknowledged that the European Union, as I have already said, has been considering a somewhat similar concept: MESAs—Marine Environmentally Sensitive Areas—but I see no reason why MEHRAs could not be submitted to the European Union, because concrete proposals on MESAs have not yet been produced. If the Minister is concerned at being rapidly overtaken, or quickly overtaken, as he put it, by international measures, perhaps this could be avoided by the United Kingdom taking the lead in the designation and protection of such sites. There is a case for amendment here, and I am sure that if the Minister rejects that view at this stage it will be a point taken by my honourable friends in another place.
I wish to ask the Minister about the discussions that have taken place regarding PSSAs, and I believe that the last major discussions took place at the IMO in July of last year. Can he give some resume of the intervention that was made on behalf of the United Kingdom in the course of those discussions? Can he also state what proposals he is able to put forward to ensure that progress is made with PSSAs at the IMO and also, on a similar basis, what particular proposals he has regarding the introduction and implementation of MESAs through the European Union?
The Minister referred to the radar surveys of various routeing measures in United Kingdom waters. Of course, ship routeing is one of a number of active measures which could be undertaken inside a MEHRA, but it would be helpful if we were able to see a copy of the radar survey results. Some of the surveys were, as I understand it, undertaken something like three years ago. They included Skomer, the Isles of Scilly, Shetland and Fair Isle. Since the results are reputedly representing good news, perhaps the Minister can indicate whether he will put a copy of those results and an interpretation of them into the Library of the House.
I end on this note, that I believe the Minister has certainly made good progress in this field. My ambition is to assist him, not to make a difficulty for him. The purpose of this debate is to discover not only responses to the points I have made but also to give the Minister an opportunity to indicate to the House what progress has been made in relation to the other matters which I have raised. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned in his opening remarks, we have had a full debate on this issue at earlier stages. That was very helpful in highlighting the areas of concern and giving the House information about this important subject.
At earlier stages of the Bill, I emphasised our support for the sentiment behind this amendment and the similar ones that were moved at earlier stages. I wish to re-emphasise that support today. However, I did at those stages state that there were specific reasons why the Government could not support the amendment at that stage and, indeed, those hold good for why we cannot support the amendment today. However, the noble Lord has asked me some interesting questions, and there are some additional details that I could provide to him.
First, as I have mentioned previously, we already have the powers to do much of what is proposed in the amendment. In general, our powers are the maximum that we are entitled to under international law. When we are considering the subject, it is of course vital that we keep well in mind our international obligations. This amendment would go beyond those powers and therefore could lead to inconsistency with international law. The amendment is also premature, as work on protecting environmentally sensitive areas is being carried forward both within the Government and internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, probed further on the subject of prematurity, and it is worth emphasising the work that is going on within government. I will come on to that in a moment.
Without repeating all the details of the speech that I gave at an earlier stage, I would like to clarify a possible misconception about what a MEHRA is. The term was coined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in his report Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. He proposed that MEHRAs should be,
"comparatively limited areas of high sensitivity which are also at risk from shipping".
The noble and learned Lord also recommended that, in the first instance, we should protect MEHRAs through publicity. He stated:
862
"Providing owners, Masters, shippers and insurers with information on the existence, significance and location of MEHRAs is the vital first step".
If publicity did not achieve sufficient results, the noble and learned Lord proposed that MEHRAs should be protected through a variety of protective routeing measures. These could include protected headlands, protected areas, compulsory areas to be avoided and compulsory routes.
The actual recommendations made in the report for MEHRAs do not require new primary legislation. That is an important point in our consideration of this issue. The agreement of the International Maritime Organisation would be required for mandatory routeing measures. But there is no need for additional provisions in this Bill to implement such routeing measures once IMO agreement has been obtained.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, inquired further about what the Government are doing to take forward the recommendation on the subject. As recommended in the report, we are holding a series of meetings with other government departments and indeed with outside organisations on the criteria that may be applied to define such an area. At the Government's request, the joint nature conservancy councils have been working on possible criteria, following meetings that were held some time ago. I am confident that this is the most appropriate and effective way to take forward this important work.
As I explained at Report, this is a matter on which considerable care is needed because hastily defined MEHRAs could cause more harm than good to the marine environment and other marine interests, especially if the designation does not earn the respect of mariners. The report said that:
"Identifying the key sensitive areas is extraordinarily difficult".
The noble and learned Lord also said:
"The more numerous and the larger the areas highlighted as particularly sensitive, the greater the risk of assumptions that the remainder is of no environmental significance—which cannot be true".
The Government certainly agree with this sentiment. All of our coastline is important. We are therefore seeking to make as rapid progress as possible, taking account of the dangers of acting too hastily.
The amendment would give quite wide powers, which could go beyond the concept of MEHRAs as proposed by the noble and learned Lord. It would give us powers to introduce "necessary measures" to safeguard maritime safety and the environment. The measures allowed under this amendment are undefined and give a very wide scope on the type of the measures which could be introduced. I would like to say a word or two further about that in the light of the speech of the noble Lord.
Following my earlier remarks, the House will be aware that coastal states do not have unlimited discretion on the controls which can be imposed on foreign ships. The wide powers envisaged by the amendment would apply within the territorial sea and within the United Kingdom's pollution zone. However, under the Law of the Sea Convention, measures may

863
only be taken in the pollution zone which are consistent with existing international law or which have been agreed by the International Maritime Organisation. Again, it would not be sufficient just to inform them.
I have already explained that we have powers to implement the concept of MEHRAs as proposed, but there are in addition a number of other measures which can be taken to protect individual sea areas. For example, we are already taking steps to designate special areas around the UK coast under the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. These areas would severely restrict the substances which may be discharged from ships into the sea. Again, we do not need additional primary legislation to implement these special areas. We already have powers under Section 128 of the 1995 Act to implement these areas through secondary legislation.
Those arguments address the specific points contained in the amendment. However, the noble Lord went slightly wider in his speech and perhaps I may say a few words about those points. He suggested various other measures which might be taken in a MEHRA or very close to a MEHRA with regard to, for example, an oil institution. He mentioned in particular the question of tug escort. Tug escort into an oil terminal in a MEHRA can be made a condition of port entry under harbour by-laws and regulations. No primary legislation is needed. However, we need to define the criteria for the MEHRA: first, the environmental criteria and also the risk criteria. Harking back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, actually proposed as the definition of MEHRAs, the use of compulsory tug escorts outside the vicinity of a port could go beyond what is permissible under our international agreement. That is an important point and one on which the noble Lord touched.
The noble Lord referred to particularly sensitive sea areas. I can tell him that proposals for other PSSAs are currently before the IMO. Indeed, one of them may have regard to Cuba.
I hope that the points which the noble Lord raised take our argument on MEHRAs further forward. He raised one additional point concerning the radar surveys. The noble Lord is right. A good deal of good news came out of those in terms of the degree to which merchant shipping was abiding by the routes which we had set. I understand that work is going on to bring together the results of those surveys in a suitable form for publication. When that work is done I shall ensure that copies are placed in the Library of the House.
The amendment is not needed to implement MEHRAs. We are working positively to take forward this concept. The amendment seeks to give wider powers which are in part already provided by international law and in part inconsistent with international law. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I am very glad that once the radar surveys have been reduced to a position in which they can be made readily available the department will ensure that they will be. I say the "department" advisedly. That is encouraging news. I do not know what timespan the Minister has in mind but I am sure that it will be done as rapidly as possible.
I am glad about the proposal for the PSSA around Cuba. I was thinking of something nearer home than Cuba, but it is important that this concept should be implemented with much greater rapidity than has been the case so far. I garnered from what the Minister said that he shares that view. He did not indicate what specific initiative the United Kingdom Government have taken. However, I shall not press him on that now because it does not arise directly out of what we have been saying. He may wish to drop me a line about that in due course.
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say about prematurity and about having too many MEHRAs. I shared that view and said so at Second Reading. One could find the situation becoming very confusing if we had a proliferation of MEHRAs. That is therefore something to be avoided. However, I am not looking for that. I am looking for some progress in relation to them. I think the Minister has been characteristically helpful in defining the Government's position. I am not entirely sure about the legalities, but that is a matter which no doubt my honourable friends in another place will want to consider.
I close by saying that the Minister has been very open indeed about these matters. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Powers of intervention where shipping accident threatens pollution]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2: Page 4, line 11, leave out ("imminent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the definition of an accident does not lead to a delay in intervention by being unduly restrictive. I said last time that I took the view that the word "imminent" could be unduly restrictive and that that in consequence could undermine or at least constrain at least the intervention powers which would be available to the Secretary of State when the Bill is enacted.
Perhaps I may give an example of what I mean. If a tanker were to lose its engine power offshore and winds threatened to blow it ashore within a relatively short period of time—say, 36 hours—the master might feel that he was placed under a good deal of pressure to argue that the situation did not constitute an imminent threat of material damage to the ship or to its cargo. This amendment would avoid that possible anomaly because the Secretary of State could avoid situations

865
where masters delayed requests for help in order to avoid being held responsible by the shipowner for incurring rescue costs.
I know the Minister will say that what he is doing is to follow the wording that has been agreed internationally. However, would the word "imminent" undermine the position that already obtains under such agreements? I do not think it would. It would lead to a better definition of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State could intervene. That clarity would be of enormous help. I hope the Minister will feel that my point is worthy of further consideration. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is deploying. I see what he is driving at. I believe that I can reassure him. I have looked at the matter again between the various stages of the Bill and I have taken legal advice.
Clearly, in many respects it is in the UK's interest for the intervention powers to be as wide as possible. However, we need to take account—as the noble Lord read my mind—of existing international law. Both the Intervention Convention 1969 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 allow states to intervene when there is an imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo. The amendment would remove the word "imminent" and so make UK legislation inconsistent with international law.
The notion of an imminent threat of damage is also used in the international conventions on compensation for pollution damage caused by ships. Compensation is only available for reasonable measures taken to prevent an imminent threat of damage. The retention of the word "imminent" will therefore strengthen our case when arguing that the cost of our response to an incident should be compensated because the action taken was reasonable in the circumstances.
There is an important argument that we should keep the language of our domestic legislation as close as possible to international law in this area for the reasons I have outlined. The only reason for not doing so would be if we felt that our powers were unduly constrained because of not doing so. I am confident that retaining the word "imminent" would not unduly restrict our powers to intervene at the appropriate moment if we thought it necessary. For those reasons—I do not expect that the noble Lord will totally agree with me—I do not believe that we are being unduly restricted by the word "imminent". I have looked at the matter carefully. Therefore, on consideration, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I readily agree that the argument for maintaining total consistency with international legislation, which is relevant to this issue, is a powerful one. Perhaps the noble Viscount, with the leave of the House, will respond to this point. Obviously, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I ask the department to maintain a careful watch on the situation to see whether circumstances do arise similar to those which I referred to earlier and where the
866
word "imminent" might operate as a difficult fetter as far as the intervention powers of the Secretary of State are concerned.
I ask the noble Viscount to indicate whether it is his view that it would be an advantage, after appropriate consideration of the implementation of the scheme, to ascertain within, say, a year, or two years at the outside, whether there would be a case for reconsidering the position. If the Minister is right and no constraints are seen to be operating, that will be very comforting. However, if doubts begin to develop it might be appropriate for the matter to be held under close review.
If I am right in the example I have quoted—and there may be others—then serious damage could arise where a delay on the part of a master to make a request for assistance occurred. I cannot ask the Minister to go further than that at the moment. I recognise that it is important because negotiations have taken place, the package has emerged, and it is important to give it a chance to operate. I hope that the debates that we have had will highlight a potential difficulty that may arise. I am sure that the Minister will feel that the debates have been of advantage.
Perhaps he will also indicate whether, if a difficulty were to arise, the Government would feel it appropriate to raise the issue once again in the International Maritime Organisation and the other fora to which he alluded. I recognise that this is speculative. I ask the Minister to intervene once again to answer the specific point as to whether he believes that the department should hold the issue under review to see whether my anxieties were becoming very real in practice. I believe that that is a reasonable request to make, and I hope that the Minister will answer in the affirmative before I withdraw the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be helpful if I respond to the specific point that the noble Lord raised. The fact that the word "imminent" occurs in the Bill should be taken in the context that we are already familiar with its terminology in intervention matters. The word "imminent" is known and understood. I am sure that if there had been any feeling within my department or the Coastguard Agency that people are, or would be, unnecessarily fettered by that word it would have been brought to my attention. I have inquired further and that is very definitely the case—that is to say, there is not a feeling that we are unduly fettered by having the word "imminent" in our legislation.
Our policy is to take action and move equipment when it is clear that a threat exists. That is one of the lessons of the "Braer". When we have taken action, for example, escorting the super tanker "Mimosa", with which the noble Lord is familiar, we have passed the test imposed even with the word "imminent" being present. We would not want to have causes for delay. I would certainly like to draw the matter to a conclusion.
I am reluctant to say that all these matters will be kept under review, but I can say this to the noble Lord. During the passage of time and with the experience

867
which I hope we will not have of incidents which require intervention, if we felt that we were unnecessarily hampered with the word "imminent" I would certainly want to take action to ensure that the wording was changed. However, I reinforce the fact that I do not believe that that is likely. I believe that the legislation stands up well and gives us the right powers to intervene quickly in circumstances where danger exists.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, once again I appreciate the Minister's intervention, with the leave of the House. I believe the assertion that he has made about the department maintaining a careful watch on the situation and ensuring that, if my apprehensions were to be fulfilled in any way, then action would be considered. I do not believe that I can ask for anything more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("137(1)") and insert ("137").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at the same time. They are all minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on earlier amendments to Clause 2 made in your Lordships' House. It broadens subsection (6)(b) of Clause 2 so that it refers to the whole of Section 137 rather than Section 137(1) alone. Subsection (1) is no longer the only subsection amended in Clause 2.
Amendment No. 10 corrects a drafting error in Clause 25. As currently drafted, there is a reference to a section where there should be a reference to a subsection. In order to avoid ambiguity, the amendment will substitute the correct reference.
Amendment No. 11 is a simple correction to the commencement provisions of the Bill. It adds Clause 29, which deals with the extent and application of the Bill, to the clauses which come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Waste reception facilities at harbours]:
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("The master of a ship shall—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 16.
We have covered many of the issues raised in these amendments at earlier stages, but it is perhaps worth pointing out that Amendment No. 4 seeks to give a departmental officer the power, on the face of the Bill, to require the discharge of waste from ships in ports where that officer has reasonable cause to consider it necessary. Currently, the Bill includes that only as an enabling power.
To some extent, the amendment reflects what the Minister said on Report when considering a similar amendment. The noble Viscount said:
"The powers could be a useful addition to existing powers to enforce pollution regulations … a power to require waste to be discharged would provide only part of the answer".—[Official Report, 13/1/97; col. 46.]
Perhaps I may turn that round the other way and say that the power therefore provides part of the answer. The amendment does not aim to put a universal requirement for mandatory discharge on the face of the Bill because we acknowledge that much more thought and consultation is required before such regulations may be drafted. However—this comment applies to all the amendments to which I am speaking—we are concerned about the exceptional cases. An exceptional case could be that of a vessel which has made an illegal discharge in the past and which is proposing to leave a port with a full waste tank.
In conclusion on Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5, which is consequential upon it, perhaps I should point out that the provisions are also in line with a statement made by the Minister in a recent letter to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in which the noble Viscount stated:
"As regards a failure to comply with the requirement to discharge waste, the best deterrent for ship operators is the threat that the ship could be detained in port, and therefore prevented from trading, until the waste has been discharged".
I turn now to Amendment No. 6, which seeks to delete the reference to arbitration and compensation. That would be replaced by making the power subject to Section 261 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes provision for the detention of the ship by the serving of a prohibition notice, as well as including provisions for arbitration and compensation. Again, I believe that the amendment incorporates comments made by the Minister on Report, particularly on the question of arbitration. The addition of new Section 130C(2) to Schedule 6 makes it explicit that the arbitration and compensation procedures which already apply to other improvement and prohibition notices under Section 261 would also apply to this additional power. It could be argued that that has already been achieved by the Minister's amendment to Schedule 6, adding new Section 130A, but I believe that the specific mention of Section 130C(2) eliminates any uncertainty.
The Minister and others have commented on the desirability of achieving the use of waste reception facilities through persuasion and consultation. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that that is a desirable objective when dealing with the whole industry, but we must accept that it is unrealistic when dealing with the small number of operators who repeatedly and deliberately commit offences. It is the behaviour of unscrupulous operators—who will probably not be influenced by waste management plans or the introduction of the inclusive fee systems—which we shall be discussing in a moment, on which we must concentrate.
We share the concern that any unilateral increase in pollution control powers which would make British ports less competitive would be undesirable. However,

869
I do not believe that measures such as this would deter responsible ship owners from entering UK ports. I repeat that the provisions are targeted at those whose operations threaten the UK coastline and waters and add to the costs of those such as local authorities who have to deal with the clean-up. I hope that I have summarised the provisions of the amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the package of amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has just spoken has the same intention as a number of amendments which were tabled at Report and on Committee. They would seek to remove the flexibility in the Bill to make regulations on the discharge of waste from ships.
As I explained at Report stage, it is vitally important that we do not act too hastily on this issue. If we impose requirements on ships which are too onerous, there is a danger that some shipowners may be tempted to discharge their waste into the sea in order to avoid disproportionate costs, as the noble Lord acknowledged in his introduction. None of us wants to see that. The Bill therefore provides enabling powers which could be used following full consultation with all interested bodies. The noble Lord quoted back at me my own remarks at an earlier stage—that is always a powerful tool to use—when I said that that was only part of the answer. Yes, it is a part—and it is a part that we can use through the enabling powers. The crucial question is whether it should be an enabling power or whether the flexibility should be removed.
It is important that the provisions on discharge of wastes from ships are considered as elements of an overall strategy. We should not impose any one measure without considering the effect it will have on the others. In particular, we should be careful not to require shipowners to discharge wastes into port reception facilities until we are sure that those facilities are adequate. That is why we intend to take action first on waste management plans. We have had very good debates on that subject at earlier stages.
The concept of requiring ships to discharge wastes is a relatively new one. Although claims have been made about the effectiveness of such a strategy, it is unproven and risks greater damage to the environment. We are determined to proceed prudently and with the benefit of consultation and the experience gained from waste management planning.
The amendments would also remove a number of safeguards which Clause 5 provides for the regulations. For example, Clause 5 currently requires that there should be full consultation with interested parties and that the regulations would need to be approved by both Houses. It also stipulates the offences for non-compliance with the regulations. The noble Lord's amendments would have the effect of exempting mandatory discharge from these provisions.
The noble Lord has proposed that we should delete lines 18 to 25. That would have the effect of removing provisions relating to arbitration and the payment of compensation by the Secretary of State if the arbitrator finds that a direction was unreasonable. While I do not
870
anticipate that there will be many cases which will be referred to arbitration, it is essential for the sake of the shipping industry as a whole that such a system should exist. There would seem to be elements of natural justice in that.
Again, as with so many of our discussions on this Bill, I do not believe that the noble Lord and I are far apart. It is a question of flexibility. If we are to introduce such regulations, I would prefer to do so after we have pursued full consultation and with the additional safeguards that are built into the Bill as it stands. I do not believe that the noble Lord strongly disagrees with those arguments. Although it is a great presumption to anticipate the noble Lord's words, I anticipate that his desire is more a determination to take the measure forward. Our determinations are shown by the Bill as a whole. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I share his view that we have had an interesting debate. We have made progress in discussing the end objectives which I suspect that we are all seeking and the different means by which we might achieve them. As the Minister said, I am not far from him on any of them.
I hope that the various regulations will be brought forward as quickly as possible following full consultation and that that will not happen too late in view of anything that might happen in the future. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 29, after ("of) insert ("direct").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. I shall not detain the House long. The amendment concerns the comparatively small matter of the provision of waste reception facilities and charging for them. During Report stage the Minister said that the Bill allowed for regulations to prevent direct charges from being levied for the use of waste reception facilities. But subsection (4)(a) makes reference to prohibiting charges and not direct charges. This may be a small and irrelevant point, but it is a matter of slight concern that the regulations may prevent any charges being made at all. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Minister. Completely free waste facilities were not one of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I am sure that the Minister will provide an explanation that puts my mind at rest.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that this amendment is unnecessary and in one way may be counter-productive. It would reduce the flexibility provided by Clause 5. New Section 130C(l) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 provides that regulations may enable harbour authorities to recover the costs of providing waste reception facilities through port dues.

871
New Section 130C(4) allows the regulations to prohibit the imposition of charges at the time that the waste is deposited. This is consistent with the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
As Clause 5 is currently drafted, we would be able to outlaw any charging mechanism which acted as a disincentive to the use of port waste reception facilities. On the one hand, we would be able to outlaw direct charging because "direct" comes within the larger set of charges. However, the amendment of the noble Lord could create a loophole. It could mean that we would be unable to prevent a harbour authority from imposing indirect charges which discouraged the responsible use of port waste reception facilities. I suggest that that would be undesirable.
In conclusion, I do not accept that the noble Lord's qualification of the word "charge" is necessary. There could be circumstances in which a wider definition would be helpful and I believe that I have described those circumstances. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I believe that I understood most of it. But I am not sure that he has fully explained whether the regulations could prevent any charges being made at all. However, I shall not detain the House any longer. I shall study this matter carefully. If I still have concerns I shall pass them on to colleagues in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Increased penalty for causing pollution, etc.]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) In section 131(3) of the 1995 Act (fine on summary conviction of offence of discharging oil into certain United Kingdom waters), for "person" there is substituted "master".
(1A) After section 131(3) of the 1995 Act (fine on summary conviction of offence of discharging oil into certain United Kingdom waters) there is inserted—
"(3A) An owner guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £250,000; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I return to the issue of differential maximum penalties, which apply only in courts of summary jurisdiction. I do so unashamedly. In no way do I give up hope that I may still at this last moment, at least in this House, persuade the Minister to reflect further on the matter, and even to change his view.
The Minister has extended considerable courtesy to me and other Members of the House in dealing with amendments. I had a meeting with him on this issue. He has written to me. I shall refer to that letter and to the points that he raises in it seriatim in dealing with matters that I believe to be extremely important. Having said that, I disagree with the Minister on a number of issues
872
to which he makes reference in his letter. There are however points on which we are able to agree. Clearly, acts of oil pollution are serious. Where a case is established against a defendant it must be dealt with severely, but the severity must be proportionate. There is no doubt that very serious matters should be referred to the Crown Court, and there is a point of agreement in that regard.
There is also common ground in the following area. I am delighted that the Minister regards some of the penalties imposed thus far in the magistrates' courts as inadequate. I agree with him in that respect. I understand that the Minister's letter was placed in the Library.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the letter was certainly copied to all noble Lords who spoke at any stage of the debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that any noble Lord who is interested in this issue will have the letter before him.
The inadequacy of penalty that both he and I believe has occurred is not a matter in respect of which he can take very firm action. But the Minister has indicated to me that he proposes to write an article in the Magistrate about the Government's campaign on the illegal discharge of waste from ships, presumably once this Bill has been enacted. I welcome that, too. That is the most that the Minister can do. Although I am not very optimistic, I hope that magistrates will treat the situation as seriously as he and I do.
Further common ground is represented by the Minister's assertion on the second page of his letter—this is the second point that he makes under this head—that the Government's general policy is to seek to impose penalties on owners rather than masters. He says that a master will be prosecuted only in certain circumstances, such as where the negligent or deliberate actions of the crew result in an illegal discharge, despite the owner taking all reasonable steps to prevent it. However, action against the master would not mean that a parallel prosecution could not be brought against the owner. So far so good.
In the next paragraph the Minister states correctly that courts have to take account of a defendant's means in determining the fine to be imposed, and that they can distinguish between the responsibilities of owners and masters in fixing the appropriate fine. All of that is fine. But the point of difference lies in the Minister's refusal to offer any differential between the master's responsibility and that of the owner in terms of the maximum fine that can be available in the magistrates' court. I stress that here reference is being made to the magistrates' court. In other cases the Crown Court has much wider discretion as to penalty by way of fine and the possibility of imprisonment.
The Minister goes on to argue the case for giving courts flexibility in imposing effective penalties under Clause 7. I wish to examine that main element of the Minister's case and state why I believe that his reasoning is wrong. He argues that he has some statutory precedent for not enabling any differential to be

873
recognised in the law. He cites the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. He says that there is no precedent for a two-tier system. The mere fact that those Acts have not established a precedent does not mean to say that a precedent cannot be established now. In believe that the law requires to be taken seriously. The law has to be realistic and maximum fines have to be realistic too.
It must be remembered—and I know that the Minister concedes the point—that when we were dealing with those particular enactments we were looking at much smaller fines. Now we are considering a maximum fine in the magistrates' court of £250,000, which is a very different animal indeed.
I concede immediately and have never disputed the fact that it is right to increase the maximum fine against the owner. I believe that masters must take their responsibilities seriously and I am sure that the overwhelming number of them do so. But fines even described as maxima must bear some relationship to what is practicable and the Minister's argument here collides with a rock of reality.
If he argues that in a very high profile case, where the consequences of the master's acts were so grave that the courts should consider a far more draconian penalty and therefore there should be the flexibility of increasing that penalty to £250,000 in the magistrates' court, I would submit that the reality is that the prosecution would not seek to have the case tried in the magistrates' court but would elect trial in the Crown Court. Clearly, that would be the preferable course and I do not believe that the Minister's argument stands up.
Perhaps we may take an example of a situation comparable to that of the "Exxon Valdez", a case which the Minister raised with me in our discussions. I shall disclose nothing further about those discussions. Is it conceivable in a case of such high profile the prosecution will say, "We are happy to deal with this in the magistrates' court"? Of course not. Therefore that argument is not sustainable.
Past practical experience of cases in which the maximum fine has been much lower is that the magistrates' courts have nowhere near approached the available maximum penalty of £50,000 in dealing with an aberrant master. Even if the magistrates' courts concur in some way in the suggestion of higher fines, it is remote in the extreme, if not entirely impossible, to conceive of a maximum fine coming close to £50,000. We must look at what has happened in the courts. Even if courts were to be encouraged by the superlative article—as I am sure it will be—in the Magistrate to change their direction hitherto, it will not change the real facts of the situation as regards this issue.
It is not altogether inconceivable that a master's responsibility might be deemed to justify a fine substantially in excess of, say, £10,000. However, I see nothing likely to occur which will change the situation all that materially. A totally different situation pertains to the owner, who is likely to be a person of substance. Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate to increase the penalty to £250,000. I argued previously, and I stand by it, that the unscrupulous owner might put the master
874
under such intense pressure that the owner virtually instructs the master to commit the relevant offence. I believe that that is a material factor which must be taken into account.
In the second paragraph of the final page of the Minister's letter he states in regard to security:
"A further factor which must be borne in mind is the relationship between Sections 131 and 144 of the 1995 Act. Section 144 provides for the detention of a ship on suspicion of an offence under section 131. Subsection (4) provides for the release of the ship on payment of a security. The amount of security is related to the size of the fine which may be imposed on summary conviction under section 131. Any amendment to section 131 could therefore create difficulties as regards the application of section 144(4)".
I do not believe that the argument adduced is sufficiently substantial to defeat the points that I am seeking to make. I understand what the Minister is saying: that the amount of the security is related to the size of the fine when addressing the issue of the release of a ship detained under this section. However, we are dealing with a case which is dealt with summarily. I believe that it is a purely academic point and unreal as regards actual practice. I wish to ask the Minister whether any difficulties have arisen in the past under this provision. Has the question of security been undermined by the fact that we have had a fine of only £50,000? In any event, does it really relate to the responsibility of the master, or is it not the responsibility of the owner?
I do not believe that the Minister's point undermines my arguments. I believe that there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for a differential approach between the master and the owner. I do not believe that anything in the law prohibits that approach. I should be very surprised if it were unknown to the law at the present time. I believe that it is wrong that signals should be given to the magistrates' courts which are misleading. The magistrates should be guided in the direction of recognising the major difference of responsibilities which are appropriate to a convicted master and to a convicted owner. The availability of a fine following summary trial must bear some relation to reality. I believe that the Bill as drawn does not achieve that very important goal. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, at the Report stage I undertook to reconsider this issue. At that stage and again today the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke with great feeling about what he considers to be a problem with the maximum level of fines that we have established in this new Bill. I am not persuaded by the noble Lord's argument. I have gone into considerable detail and carried out research in consultation with other government departments and, indeed, as the noble Lord said, I have had a meeting with him again to see whether we could find more common ground on this issue.
We have no difference at all as regards the fact that we both desire to send out strong signals that the UK is tough on pollution and that we have levels of fines which are appropriate to the severity of the offence. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton Davis, referred to a letter which I wrote to him and copied to other noble Lords.

875
If it is not already there, it should be put in the Library of the House for the benefit of future historians who perhaps may seek to follow our debates and who may be puzzled without sight of that carefully worded document.
Indeed I said both on 19th December in this House and in correspondence that our policy is to seek to impose penalties on owners rather than masters and that we should prosecute masters only in certain circumstances. I gave the example of where negligent or deliberate actions of the crew result in an illegal discharge despite the owner taking all reasonable steps to prevent that.
I went on to refer—and the noble Lord recognised that—to Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which places a duty on the courts to take account of the means of the defendant when seeking to impose any fines. That is very important indeed if we are concerned about the two strands of the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, puts forward. The first is the question of potential of unfair or unreasonable fines, if that is the correct terms, on masters. The second thrust of his argument, on which I felt he dwelt more, was the question of the law; that it should appear reasonable; and that we should not wish to do anything to bring the law into disrepute by imposing unreasonable penalties.
That is why we should bear in mind very closely what Section 18 of the 1981 Act says. Therefore, for a comparable offence, we should expect that the courts would generally impose a lower fine on a master than on an owner. Of course, it is for the court to decide on the differential, taking into account the individual details of each case.
The key point here is that we believe that it is important to maintain the flexibility to impose effective penalties for as wide a range of circumstances as is practicable. The current drafting of Clause 7 achieves that.
Perhaps I may raise another point in passing. I should not wish to create a situation where it was in the shipowner's interests to see the master prosecuted in order to reduce the overall exposure to fines. I mean that the master is prosecuted rather than the owner and not that they are both prosecuted.
The noble Lord said that I had raised the question of precedent. There are two points in that regard. First, I have not been able to identify any precedent for a two-tier system, and certainly not in merchant shipping legislation. The second is as regards any precedent which mirrors the approach that we are taking in this Bill. I gave the examples of Sections 3, 5, 98 and 163 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and Section 11 of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967. Again, we could not find a precedent for such a two-tier system. The sections that I described were for lower total maximum fines than those we are considering in this case.
The noble Lord rehearsed also the argument which I advanced with regard to security. That is not an argument which we can dismiss lightly. It is important and we must bear it in mind closely when considering
876
the question of making sure that we are able and in a position to impose the relevant penalties when the time comes.
For those reasons, I believe that it is important that we impose the same high maximum level of fines for masters and owners. In the course of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was concerned that we might send misleading signals to magistrates. I certainly do not wish to do that and, as the House knows already, I intend to produce an article which the noble Lord is confident will be one of supreme clarity. We shall endeavour to provide satisfaction on that point. That article will provide information to magistrates. Of course, it is for them to take a decision in the final analysis. It will provide also information with regard to the situation where there is an illegal discharge of waste from ships.
The noble Lord's argument is primarily that we should not wish to set an unrealistic level of fines. I have responded by saying that I could envisage circumstances in which this level of fines would be suitable. There is no precedent for such a two-tier system. We are able to cover the perceived down-side which the noble Lord suggests as regards signals to the industry and security.
Having discussed those points and the arguments with the noble Lord previously, I know that he takes a different view. It may well be that we shall have to agree to disagree on this point. But we have covered this ground very thoroughly indeed. I have had consultation with other government departments which have considerable experience as regards the question of fines in the magistrates' courts. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full expose of his case. I am sorry that we are not able to agree. I noted that some of the documents, the letters that have been written, may well go to the archivist at the request of the Registrar General, who will not be able to keep them under Clause 22. I noted too that the Minister said that the United Kingdom had to be tough on pollution. He forgot the last part of the phrase and that is, "and the causes of pollution".
I hope that nothing that I have said will encourage the Home Secretary, who does not need much encouragement in that respect, to misconstrue my arguments so that he thinks that I am not being tough on crime for electoral purposes in the weeks ahead. I just think that one must be realistic about such matters.
I do not wish to see a master being used as a shield by an unscrupulous owner to protect that owner from prosecution. I just do not believe that that situation is one which would justify the very large fine that can be imposed upon the master, because there is no certainty that the owner will indemnify the master. Is that unscrupulous boat owner going to fork out some £250,000 or some other very large fine? Again, I think that the Minister is not being entirely realistic.

877
As to the question of the precedents which have been established, if a case can be made for change, then change should be made and one should not dwell in the land of saying that it is an unprecedented situation. During our last debate on this matter I had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I say as a lawyer that I believe that there is nothing to avoid that course being taken if a case for it is made out.
The Minister did not deal with the point I have made on a number of occasions in previous debates and today about the distinction between cases of very high profile, of international besides national significance. I do not know why he did not deal with that point, but he did not. In such instances and where the consequences of the negligent or deliberate action which led to prosecution are so serious, almost inevitably the prosecution would say that because of its seriousness, such a case would have to go for trial. As the Minister himself said, on conviction, the penalties available to the Crown Court are more draconian. Consequently, that is a much more realistic way of looking at the matter.
Your Lordships will be happy to know that I shall not seek to divide the House tonight. Indeed, we have had our victories this week and we must not overdo such things. Nevertheless, I know that I would carry all noble Lords with me, apart from the Minister and the Whip—
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington: Noble Baroness!
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am sorry, my Lords; I should have referred to the noble Baroness. I still cannot get out of the practice that I followed in another place.
Having said that, I am sure that my honourable friends will want to return to the point and press it. I do not know what will happen to the Bill in the course of the next few weeks. Much, of course, depends on the timing of the election. But it is perhaps one of those issues about which the Minister will, perforce, have to think again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Clause 12 [Preparation of plans under International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 14, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("include") in line 21 and insert ("An order under subsection (1) above in pursuance of paragraph (d) of that subsection may").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this amendment would improve the drafting of Clause 12. On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that the phrase,
"without prejudice to the generality of"
was unnecessary. On further consideration, I now share that view. The amendment would, therefore, remove those superfluous words from the Bill.
For good measure, and in keeping with the objective of the noble and learned Lord of keeping unnecessary words out of the statute book, the amendment would also delete a further three superfluous words; namely, the phrase "also in particular". I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount and particularly to the draftsperson because, undoubtedly, this is one of those statutory phrases which has got into the draftsman's office computer, and anything that gets into that computer becomes like tablets of stone brought down from the holy mountain of the Medes and the Persians. Great openness of mind and flexibility has been shown in consenting to reconsider the matter.
I have written to the noble Viscount putting the matter on a rather broader basis because my conclusion on looking further was that in only one very remote circumstance were those words necessary in order to preserve the generality when a particular was mentioned. I certainly hope to have the views of the draftsperson on this in due course. In the meantime, I express my gratitude.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall certainly be responding in due course to the point that the noble and learned Lord raised in correspondence. I am grateful for his kind words with regard to the change that we have proposed as a result of his earlier intervention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Piracy]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Short title, interpretation and commencement]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, line 21, leave out ("and 27") and insert ("27 and 29").
On Question, amendment agreed to. Schedule 2 [Funding of maritime services]:
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 28, line 37, leave out ("so incurred") and insert ("required to be so recovered").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. We have had considerable discussions on Schedule 2 resulting in extensive amendment to paragraphs 3 and 12 of Schedule 2. The amendments have clarified the circumstances where the operation of the General Lighthouse Fund might be changed and how those changes would operate. The general lighthouse authorities, represented by Trinity House, have written to the department to indicate that they are,
"largely content with the GLF provisions of Schedule 2".
However, the consideration of two additional minor points has been requested. We have agreed in discussion that further minor improvements are possible.
Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that the amounts within paragraph 3 relate only to costs which must be transferred out of the scope of the General Lighthouse Fund as a result of an international agreement. It cannot be used to transfer more than is strictly necessary to fund the transferred services. I have already given assurances to that effect in a response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on Report.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 ensure that any collecting authority under the schedule has the power to seek information. Amendments at Report stage made provision at paragraph 9(2) and paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 for the GLAs to collect additional charges. These amendments to paragraph 7 will ensure that, for example, in the event of the GLAs collecting additional charges, they would be empowered to seek any necessary information.
I am very pleased that the amendments I have tabled today—if accepted by the House—together with the earlier amendments that I brought forward on Report, have allowed us to reach agreement with the GLAs on this important schedule. With those words, I beg to move.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I can only express my thanks to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. The noble Viscount has gone a long way towards allaying the fears that the GLAs had regarding certain parts of the Bill. The amendments that the Minister brought forward at the last stage of the Bill went a very long way towards allaying those fears. The fact that he is still bringing forward amendments at this late stage to tidy up those last little niggling fears is a matter of both delight and gratitude. I am most grateful to him.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15:
Page 30, line 13, leave out from ("provide") to ("with") in line 14 and insert ("any collecting authority").
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("he") and insert ("the collecting authority").
Page 30, line 16, after ("paragraph") insert—(""collecting authority" means—

(a) the Secretary of State,

(b) a Departmental officer, and

(c) a general lighthouse authority;").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move the privilege amendment:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, during the course of the Bill I have objected to two small statutory phrases as being unnecessary. One has been conceded; the other is reference to "the consent of the Treasury". I hope that all your Lordships who are much younger than I will live to see that phrase disappear too. This privilege amendment really falls into the same class as being a drafting nonsense. What it says is quite untrue. It says—I summarise—that nothing in the Bill infringes the prerogative of financial privilege of the other place. There are, of course, frequent provisions in the Bill which do precisely that. We have just dealt with Schedule 2, about which my noble friend Lord Greenway spoke and about which my noble friend Lord Cooke was about to speak, which dealt very much with matters of finance. What is said in this amendment is quite untrue. However, this Bill is not peculiar in that respect because the privilege amendment is only moved in circumstances where what it states is untrue.
I do not expect the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment on my ipse dixit but I raise the matter in the hope that the Procedure Committee will look to see whether there is not some more economical way of deferring to the privileges of the other place. There is, of course, a message procedure. During the course of this evening a number of messages have gone from the Clerks' Table to the other place. That would be a much more economical way than moving an amendment, printing it in Hansard, printing it in the Third Reading report, putting a black line against it, the other place then taking the amendment out and removing the black line. Is that not a waste of money? I do not ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment. I ask your Lordships to recognise and take note of its absurdity.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for not asking me to withdraw the amendment pending further consideration. I do not feel I am in a position at the moment to offer a comment on the noble and learned Lord's argument but merely to suggest that his "hit" rate has been alarmingly high during the course of the Bill.
On Question, amendment (privilege) agreed to.
8.12 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill now pass. The Bill reinforces our longstanding commitment to the highest standards of maritime safety and vigilance to prevent the pollution of our waters and coast and to increase the safety of life at sea.
As the House is aware, the Bill has presented an opportunity to put in place a number of important measures which reduce the risk of pollution. It implements those recommendations in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, entitled Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas which required legislative change.

881
We have also taken the opportunity to make a number of other significant changes to merchant shipping legislation. We are taking power to implement a number of international agreements. The Bill also provides the necessary legal framework to implement the package of anti-pollution measures which I announced last year.
One important element of the Bill is the provision in Schedule 2 to implement a user pays policy in the maritime sector. The user pays principle has widespread support but concerns have been expressed about the implications of such a policy if implemented in the UK alone. I wish to take this opportunity briefly to restate our assurances on that point. The Government accept that if user charges were introduced unilaterally this could have adverse implications for the competitiveness not only of UK ports and shipowners but also for our exporters and importers. We take these issues seriously as I stressed at Second Reading and at other stages. I assure the House that the Government would not introduce charges unilaterally without first carrying out a full evaluation of compliance costs for business and of adverse effects on competitiveness. Our preferred approach remains to achieve international agreement, and we are making every effort to achieve that. It is my intention to consult with the industry on services which may be charged for in preparation for international discussions. The Government have said that they do not envisage charging for search and rescue services and I am happy to repeat that assurance now.
The Bill has attracted support from all sides in this House, and indeed outside from the shipping and ports industries, from environmental organisations, unions and others, which reflects a general desire to see these measures put into practice at the earliest opportunity. I am grateful for the support of those organisations and for their contributions to the consultation process.
I suggest that the Bill was an ideal candidate for the Moses Room procedure at Committee stage. A less formal procedure worked well for this uncontroversial Bill. I thank the Opposition in the form of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Berkeley, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for agreeing to that procedure, for welcoming the Bill and for their constructive and helpful interventions on a wide range of issues. The Bill is undoubtedly better for the changes made in Committee and during the subsequent stages. The level of agreement and co-operation from the Opposition Benches and from all sides of the House is appreciated by the Government.
One issue which caused considerable debate concerned the provisions relating to the General Lighthouse Fund in the event of an international agreement. At Second Reading I stated my regret that lack of consultation had caused unnecessary alarm for the general lighthouse authorities. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and indeed to my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for elucidating their concerns and for their help in determining the satisfactory and agreed solution which we now have in the Bill.
882
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for his helpful interventions, particularly in the field of drafting and constitutional matters. I must also thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for his help and support during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. I know that he is not able to attend the debate this evening but his knowledge and experience have proved invaluable in our debates. I reserve a special word of thanks for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, not only for his contribution to the passage of the Bill in this House, but also for the outstanding work which resulted in the publication of his report, Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas. I know that those sentiments are echoed on all sides of your Lordships' House.
I also wish to thank my team of officials who have worked long and hard on the implementation of the Donaldson recommendations and on the Bill from its inception. In bringing forward the Bill we have taken another significant step towards the implementation of the report's well-founded recommendations. Finally, as the Bill leaves your Lordships' House, I am sure the whole House will join me in hoping that it makes speedy progress in another place and reaches the statute book as soon as possible.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join in many of the comments the Minister made. This has been an important and a fascinating Bill. It is vitally important in terms of merchant shipping and the protection of life and the maritime environment. As the Minister rightly said, the House and on a wider sphere—nationally and internationally—all of us should be enormously indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and his committee, on whose recommendations this Bill is so largely based.
It has not been a politically contentious Bill although we have had interesting arguments about certain technical matters. Undoubtedly, the Minister is right in saying that the procedural experiment, as it were—although it was not quite an experiment, it was as regards transport issues—of considering the matter in Committee in the Moses Room was interesting. Of course the Bill was not changed there, but I think the deliberations we had there caused the Minister to introduce some important amendments. While we may have disagreed about some of the solutions to the problems raised, virtually all the issues identified common concern. There was no division between us as to the objectives of the Bill. However, one thing is clear: we shall no doubt go on learning from experience. We must not be complacent. There must be an ability to keep the situation under close review and to introduce changes wherever the necessity for a change is established.
I believe that the scrutiny of the Bill in this House has been useful. It has been impressive. In another place other issues may well arise. I gather that an amendment may be introduced by one of my honourable friends from the Back Benches enabling an injured person or those representing the interests of a deceased person to call for a public inquiry. That follows the case of the

883
"Marchioness". Perhaps I should have deployed that issue in this Chamber; I would not have pursued it to a Division. However, it is a matter that will no doubt come before the Minister.
The Bill has attracted widespread interest on both sides of the shipping industry and from environmental concerns. The Minister has behaved almost impeccably. He would have behaved impeccably if he had accepted Amendment No. 8. However, before and during our debates he showed himself to be flexible. He introduced amendments where he was convinced that the Bill would be improved. We owe him a great debt of appreciation. I have said that before. I have been very impressed indeed—I have quite a lot of experience in this field—by the way that the noble Viscount has handled the Bill. I would not have said that had he been standing for election—it might have been quoted!
Apart from thanking the Minister, I wish, too, to thank a number of people who have given me and my noble friend Lord Berkeley a great deal of assistance. It is invidious to name people, but I shall do so because they deserve special mention. Mr. Adrian Hughes of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea gave us valuable legal help. Mr. Edmund Brookes of the Chamber of Shipping, Mr. Graham Hicks of NUMAST, Daniel Owen and Mary Painter of the RSPB, and Gordon Johnson of the United Kingdom Major Ports Group were all readily available to help us; and there is the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, whom I thank for his constructive assistance. They were able to attend meetings with us and to give us the benefit of their expert opinions. That was invaluable in the course of our debates.
In particular, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley who has performed with exceptional ability in the short time that he has taken on the role of assisting me in transport affairs. He performed extremely well on this occasion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, also gave me the benefit of his help and support, which, I fear, came to nothing in respect of my amendment that we debated today. But I thank him, too. The noble and learned Lord was able to gain useful concessions as well. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, always takes an interest in these matters and long may he continue to do so. I am sure that I have left out certain people. However, before I conclude it would be remiss of me indeed if I were to forget the research office of the Opposition, and Mr. Robert McGeachy in particular, who worked incredibly hard in the course of the Bill.
I look forward to the Bill being enacted as rapidly as possible. It is a good Bill. It is a Bill which enables Britain to exercise, I believe, an important influence in the counsels of world shipping. We are doing something practical to implement the promises on the part of those operating in the counsels of world shipping. That, I believe, is very important.
884
I join with the Minister in everything he said. I hope that the Bill will receive a speedy passage in another place.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cooke of Islandreagh unfortunately had to rush to catch an aeroplane. However, he asked to be associated with the brief words that I shall say.
I join entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in thanking the Minister for the courtesy he has shown throughout our proceedings on the Bill, the flexibility that he has shown, and the hard work that both he and his department have undertaken in helping to satisfy the initial concerns of the general lighthouse authorities, to almost everyone's satisfaction.
We all wish to see the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. I wish it a speedy passage through another place.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken for their kind words, and in particular the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, with regard to the general lighthouse authorities. That gives me an opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the work that they undertook towards the agreement that we now have.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his kind words, in particular in view of the fact that he had previous responsibilities for this area of policy. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Broadcasting (Sign Language) Order 1996
8.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order which we are debating today honours the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill in the other place on 1st July last year to introduce a 5 per cent. target for the provision of sign language in digital programme services. This target is to be achieved by every service within 10 years of its commencement.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 makes particular reference to subtitling audio description and sign language in the interests of those with sensory impairments. It sets out on the face of the Act specific minimum targets for subtitling and audio description provision in digital programme services for the benefit of those with sensory impairments.
The statutory targets are that by the 10th anniversary of the introduction of any digital programme service, not less than 50 per cent. of non-exempt programme hours broadcast in any programme service should be subtitled to such technical standards as are specified by

885
the ITC and not less than 10 per cent. of non-exempt programme hours broadcast should be presented with audio description. These percentages can be amended by order. The Act also provides for the ITC to set interim targets.
In view of the early stage of development of the technology associated with on-screen sign language, the Government decided that it would not be appropriate to set a percentage target for signing in the Act itself but that the Act should contain a provision for the Secretary of State to set such a target by order. That is what we are considering this evening and is, as I have already mentioned, representing the commitment given by the Secretary of State in another place that it would be 5 per cent.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 also provides for the ITC, after consultation with those representing interested parties and the broadcasters, to draw up and review from time to time a code on promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons with sight or hearing impairment. The code will apply to all digital services, including the simulcast services of the existing analogue broadcasters, which at present are subject only to subtitling requirements. It has to include the targets set out in the Act and in any statutory order, which obviously includes that which is contained in the order that we are considering now.
On 29th October last year the ITC published for public consultation its draft code on subtitling, audio description and signing, inviting comments by 17th December. The draft code sets interim targets for non-excluded programmes and for subtitling and audio description in excluded programmes. The commission has received a number of detailed responses from bodies representing those with sensory impairments. I know that it is now considering very carefully the points raised before publishing its final code.
I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th December be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome this order on sign language and I am delighted that it is part of the Bill. I want to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Donoughue for his support on this order and on all measures affecting deaf, and indeed all disabled, people. I valued his support during our debates on the Bill.
Unfortunately, I cannot extend the same compliment to the Minister. He opposed all our efforts to bring in the 5 per cent. target for signing. It is not a personal matter; he did it on behalf of the Government. However, he did oppose our attempts to introduce targets for signing and subtitling. That did not reflect very well on the Government during the debates in this House. Fortunately, a change made in the other place means that we now have the 5 per cent. signing provision.
886
Although the noble Lord mentioned subtitling and audio description, this order relates only to signing. I therefore propose to confine my remarks to signing. The order makes a modest start. However, if the ITC does not change its attitude it will be a disastrous start.
As the noble Lord said, Parliament trusted the ITC to ensure that 5 per cent. of digital programmes are signed. It gave the ITC power to decide which programmes are to be excluded and to decide on the interim targets.
However, in its draft code the ITC has shown that it may betray that trust. Incredibly, the draft code specifies that everything should be excluded except news and factual programmes. So the 5 per cent. target relates to a very small proportion of programmes—thanks to the ITC's fatuous interpretation of its draft code.
Was it the will of Parliament that the provision on signing should apply to only 5 per cent. of a tiny proportion of programmes? I refer the House to an exchange in the other place during debate on the Broadcasting Bill. The Secretary of State was asked to elucidate on the 5 per cent. figure. Virginia Bottomley said:
"As I have explained, there is room for exemptions for all the numerical targets, but they will be a minority. Programmers will be set the 5 per cent. target, but they may be allowed some exemptions. As the letter to Sir George Russell makes clear, however, those exemptions must be a minority and dealt with exceptionally".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/96; col. 575.]
That is not the language of excluding everything and simply allowing the percentage to apply to news and factual programmes. The Secretary of State referred to, "a minority".
When the Secretary of State was pressed on that figure, she said:
"It is 5 per cent. when the excluded ones have been taken out, but the key is that there must be the strictest interpretation of the exclusions".—[col. 575.]
When pressed again, she said:
"What I made clear was that I expect the exemptions to be an absolute minimum, so I expect broadcasters to achieve their targets as set out on the face of the Bill".—[col. 575.]
That could not be more specific and categorical. The Secretary of State was reflecting the will of Parliament. She was speaking for the Government, and was supported by Members on both sides in the other place. Members on both sides in this House have supported that 5 per cent.
The question now for the noble Lord is this. Does he support the views of the Secretary of State as expressed in another place which I have made clear to him? Because he does his homework as well as any Minister, I am sure that he will have read the remarks himself. Does he accept and support the views of the Secretary of State that the exemptions should be an absolute minimum and the strictest interpretation of the exclusions? If so, I suggest that the noble Lord should make urgent representations to the ITC. The code is so far only in draft. When the ITC publishes the substantive code it will be a scandal if it is allowed to go ahead with only 5 per cent. of a tiny fraction of programmes. It would be an insult to deaf people.

887
The ITC has failed to appreciate the importance of signing to profoundly deaf people who rely on sign language. It has exaggerated the difficulties. The noble Lord spoke a moment ago about the difficulties involved, the problems as regards new technology and all the rest of it. But there is no real problem in relation to signing programmes. There is great exaggeration on the part of the ITC. It is conforming to the letter of the law but denying the spirit of the law. It will make deaf people feel cheated and will incur the opposition, even hostility, of some of us in both Houses of Parliament. I hope that it will reconsider.
On the question of phasing in, the draft code merely provides that 1 per cent. should be signed by the fourth year. Fancy that! It will take four years to sign 1 per cent. of only news and factual programmes. That is incredible. I could not believe it when I read it. That organisation should be renamed the Independent Tortoise Commission. That would be a fair reflection of the way it is behaving in relation to these provisions for deaf people.
Some signing is needed from day one, and there is no reason why that cannot be done. It is up to the ITC. The ITC watches television companies. But we should make it clear that Parliament is watching the ITC—and so are millions of profoundly deaf people. We hope, and expect, that Parliament's decision to have 5 per cent. signing of most programmes will be respected. And we want very much faster progress than the ITC has envisaged.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when Ministers exercise secondary powers it is extremely important that both Houses of Parliament examine how those powers are being carried out. Although this is one of those orders that may appear to go through almost on the nod, the deficiencies pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, show the importance of Parliament keeping a close eye on how these matters are carried forward.
Parliament wills certain things; the regulators are supposed to devise ways of implementing them; and then the companies are supposed to comply. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, pointed out, there seems to be an enormous gap between what Parliament willed in the primary legislation and what is now being put to us.
Here we have big, rich, powerful companies which are being tested on how they will treat the minorities for whom they supply an important service. I do not believe that anyone can underestimate the power of television for the deaf in enlarging their horizons. Yet as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, the draft order seems to narrow the definition of the service as willed by Parliament and indicated by Ministers in another place. Perhaps even more serious, when Parliament asks a regulatory body to carry out its will and an industry to comply, it expects that what is brought forward should reflect a certain seriousness of intent.
I would say to the Minister in all seriousness that the timescale for implementation is frankly absurd when one considers the broadcasting industry. We shall probably have had at least another four broadcasting
888
Acts by the time this is carried though. Can the Minister explain the extraordinarily long time given for implementation? We are not talking here about new technology or difficult proposals that will impose heavy burdens on companies. If there was the will, it would be possible to implement these proposals much more quickly. If that were the case, it would indicate a great deal more seriousness of intent.
For my clarification, if not for those who are more expert on this matter, does the reference to digital programme services apply to all digital programme services, those to be brought in by satellite as well as terrestrial services, or does it refer only to terrestrial services?
We have here a draft statutory instrument which falls far short of the will of Parliament. The regulator should look at the matter again and treat the will of Parliament far more seriously.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their contributions to this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about the technology involved. It is important that in discussing this we are clear that we are talking about digital terrestrial television, which is something that does not yet exist for most practical purposes. We are in fact talking about new technology.
I accept that some of the technology employed in this new form of transmitting television signals already exists, but it is important that we recognise that what is being done is entirely novel and will be very expensive. That was recognised when we debated this matter both here and in the other place and is an essential element behind the thinking—as I think was agreed on all sides of the House—on the right approach to adopt in considering this matter.
On the one hand, there is the very desirable aspiration to make sure that as many as possible of those with sensory disabilities of one kind and another can benefit from the new technology. On the other hand, if those involved in trying to drive this technology forward to achieve the benefits that it can deliver find that it is so expensive that they cannot do it, the whole process founders.
To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, this refers to digital terrestrial television services. The code relates to that and the specific provisions of Section 20 of the Act relate simply to digital terrestrial services.
One of the characteristics of the approach adopted is that under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act it is open to the Secretary of State to adjust the target figures set on the face of it. That is important bearing in mind the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. As events occur, it is possible for these targets to be changed by reference to the statutory instrument that would have to be taken through both Houses of Parliament. We are not talking about a rigid system; we are talking about a flexible system.

889
Of course I support the remarks of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is important that in this context we confine ourselves to focusing on matters relating to signing and bear in mind the important point that it is for the ITC to take the decisions against the backdrop of Parliament's opinion and the law as it stands. I know that the ITC will listen to the comments made by your Lordships in this debate before coming to any final conclusion.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, it is up to the ITC. I do not believe that it will not respond to the whole issue. It has consulted widely both those concerned with the interests of people with disabilities and the broadcasting companies in an entirely responsible manner. It is against that background that I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Overseas Domestic Workers (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
8.46 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The subject of the Bill goes back to 1980. In that year the Government abolished work permits for incoming domestic workers. Under the old system a domestic could change employers within the same category of work. In place of that system the government of the day arranged a concession outside the Immigration Rules whereby visitors and temporary residents—usually, but not always, from the Middle East—are allowed to bring their existing domestics with them. These workers have no separate immigration or work status. They must go away if their employer leaves this country. They may not change employers and are liable to deportation if they leave their employer.
This concession may be good for trade and our balance of payments; however, it certainly leaves the domestic workers very exposed to exploitation and a whole range of other abuses because they are tied and bonded to a single named employer.
Problems and complaints have arisen over non-payment of wages, extremely low pay, poor food and bad conditions. The list continues with verbal, physical and sexual ill treatment, including rape and assault, not to mention the withholding of passports, lack of holidays and free time and imprisonment on the employer's premises. Many hundreds of cases have been fully documented, largely by the voluntary Commission for Filipino Migrant Workers, without whose dedicated work the London situation would have been far worse. I am sorry to say that new cases continue to arise.
The very unfortunate consequences of government policy have frequently been raised in Parliament. Since 1992 there have been some 24 Questions on this topic in your Lordships' House and I and other noble Lords spoke at Second Reading and moved amendments at all
890
stages of the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. In the other place over a similar period there have been at least 60 Questions and early-day Motions.
I am sorry to say that the Government's response to this parliamentary concern has been slow and gradual, despite delegations and discussions with various Ministers. The only improvements worthy of the name have been the interviewing of domestics, and sometimes also of their employer, prior to departure from the employer's country of origin. Leaflets have also been provided setting out mutual duties and rights. These measures have been only partially effective and have not achieved the full improvement in behaviour that is so much needed.
The Government have refused to set up an interdepartmental committee to consider this matter. They have refused to prescribe maximum hours for domestic work or to publish a code of good employment practice. They were not willing to consult with the International Labour Organisation on preventive measures or inform ambassadors stationed in London of current English rates of pay for domestic work. They have declined, I am sorry to say again, to introduce spot checks on employers.
In view of that truly lamentable record, extending now over some 16 years, I feel fully justified in introducing this Bill. I only regret that it is so modest and so tightly drawn. The scope of the Bill is, in fact, very narrow and the protection it offers is limited to litigants and witnesses in cases before our courts. That is made clear in the Long Title and by the repetition of the words " United Kingdom" in each of three subsections.
Let me now explain the content of the Bill. Subsection (2)(a) enables qualifying domestics to take work while their case is pending or in progress. I hope that the Home Office will not say that that allows them to take any job which may be on offer. In my view, that would be a far-fetched suggestion, since such a person is unlikely to be qualified for anything other than domestic work and in any case the permission to work only lasts while the case is pending or in progress.
Subsection (2)(b) gives protection against deportation. I suggest that that is vitally important, since it is unrealistic to expect poor and possibly unpaid workers to maintain themselves in a third country, while preparing and fighting a case here.
Subsection (3) allows a plaintiff or witness to overstay their leave of entry or not to fulfil their conditions of leave while their case is pending or in progress.
I submit that all three forms of protection are absolutely necessary. They are the bare minimum required to enable overseas domestic workers to bring cases against employers, or indeed against others, and to appear as witnesses in third party cases. The Government have frequently claimed that such domestic workers have access to our courts and to our legal remedies. My Bill will, at long last, if enacted, give reality to that claim.

891
I propose this measure in the interests of justice: justice for people who have been abused and exploited and justice for a minority of employers who should not be allowed to profit from their shameful and criminal behaviour. One of the duties of Parliament is the redress of grievances. Therefore, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hylton.)
8.54 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, in Thatcherite Britain, the tradition of Wilberforce and Shaftesbury, of Kingsley and Dickens, is out of fashion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be placed by history squarely in that tradition. I believe too that your Lordships' House is indebted to him for the clarity and moderation of his introduction to this debate. That introduction would render superfluous any lengthy intervention from me. The brevity of what I propose to say is a tribute to that introduction.
I seek to make only one point. There are always good reasons why we should moderate our compassion. There were persuasive reasons why we ought not to have ended the slave trade, limited children's working hours or kept small boys out of chimneys.
There are problems with this Bill. We need to protect the labour market in this country. Heaven knows, there are job seekers enough already being destroyed by the rejection of one application for work after another. So no one complains that anyone seeking to come to this country to find employment should be subject to controls. If the young girls about whom the noble Lord spoke had been told that they would not be admitted to this country, it might have been very difficult to argue against that.
But that is not what the Government have done. The Government have already bound up their lives with Britain. They have made them dependent on the mercy of the British authorities—not on their application nor for their benefit; they have been admitted to this country for the benefit of their employers. They have been brought here not as potential immigrants nor in pursuance of a normal work permit, but as part of the personal luggage of those who brought them, like their mobile telephones and their hair curlers. If we allow that to happen, surely we have incurred an obligation to ensure so far as we can that they are not abused.
Yet, a survey carried out in 1995 by Miss Bridget Anderson, on behalf of Anti-Slavery International and Kalayaan, showed that of the Kalayaan women brought to this country as domestic workers, 34 per cent. have suffered physical abuse, 61 per cent. were regularly denied food, 74 per cent. were not paid what they had been promised and 22 per cent. were imprisoned within their employers' homes.
892
Whenever we raise the question, the Government tell us, "Well, they are protected like everyone else by employment legislation." I have here a parliamentary answer in reply to Miss Maria Fyfe on 19th June 1995:
"The position of overseas domestic workers is no different from that of other employees in this respect. Contractual terms are matters for employers and employees to agree. Once agreed, they are legally binding and, in cases of non-compliance, employees can take action for breach of contract through the civil courts or, in certain circumstances, through industrial tribunals".
Alone, afraid, in a strange country, sometimes not speaking English or having difficulty with the language, the picture of one of those girls walking into a public library, asking for a copy of Butterworth's Employment Law, looking up her rights and proceeding to the industrial tribunal would not even be convincing fiction. What the noble Lord asks for in his Bill is moderate indeed: where there may be a remedy, they should not be precluded from pursuing it.
If I may say so, my heart goes out to the noble Earl, who certainly is not lacking in compassion but is sometimes, I fear, saddled with an unattractive brief. I hope that that is not the case today. If the Home Office is intent on denying even this basic minimum of justice, the Government will be remembered in history with those who opposed Wilberforce and Shaftesbury.
8.58 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, in introducing this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has once again demonstrated his deep concern for the welfare of those overseas domestic workers who are abused by their employers. I know that no one in this House will doubt the sincerity of his compassion for the victims of such abuse, which has led him to bring these issues before your Lordships this evening. I am equally sure that no one can be anything but appalled by the examples of abuse we have heard of from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, as well as those we have read of in the media.
Perhaps I may begin by explaining the circumstances under which overseas domestic workers are allowed to come to the United Kingdom with their employers. It is a fundamental element of the Government's immigration policy that the number of overseas nationals allowed to come here to work should be very strictly controlled. Only those with a high level of skills which are in short supply here will normally qualify for work permits. But a rigid adherence to this policy would mean that overseas domestic workers—whose skills would not be sufficient to qualify them for work permits—could not accompany their employers here at all. As a result, many of them would simply lose their jobs. It has also to be recognised that many wealthy visitors who contribute significantly to our economy would be deterred from coming here if they could not bring their domestic employees as part of their household.

893
It is for those reasons that the concession exists—outside the Immigration Rules—allowing overseas domestic workers to come here with their employers provided they, and their employers, meet certain criteria.
We insist that the domestic workers are in possession of entry clearance before they come here. That allows a number of checks to be made to establish whether the necessary requirements are met. Those are that the domestic worker must be at least 18 years old; that he or she has worked for the employer for at least 12 months and for at least two years if anything more than a short visit here is intended. The employer must give a written undertaking to provide adequate maintenance and accommodation, including a separate bedroom for the domestic worker. He must also set out in writing the terms and conditions of employment. A copy of that is given to the employee, who must confirm that he or she agrees to them. Interviews with domestic workers for entry clearance are conducted with the employer excluded and the worker is given a leaflet explaining his or her rights in the United Kingdom. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that will give contact points for assistance from the Home Office, the police, the local law centre, citizens advice bureaux or the Racial Equality Council, as well as the employee's embassy.
As your Lordships will see, this is not a concession which is casually handed out. The aim is to ensure as far as we possibly can that only those domestic workers who are already in an established employment relationship with their employers and who wish, of their own free will, to continue that relationship may benefit. Steps are also taken to ensure that when extensions of stay are applied for, those are only granted to those domestic servants in whose cases satisfactory arrangements continue to apply. I should also say here that under no circumstances do we allow the recruitment of domestic workers directly from overseas by employers already in this country.
That these arrangements generally work in a satisfactory way is evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of domestic workers—around 12,000 every year—come here with their employers and return whence they came without incident. But it is a tragic fact of life that, despite these precautionary measures, a small proportion of employers seriously abuse their domestic workers while in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, explained, it is the victims of that abuse which the present Bill seeks to protect. It aims to do so by amending the Immigration Act 1971.
The 1971 Act provides, among other things, for the imposition of time and employment restrictions on persons subject to immigration control. The Act further provides that those who do not comply with those restrictions commit an offence and render themselves liable to deportation.
The present Bill would create a special category of overseas domestic workers who are witnesses or plaintiffs in any proceedings before a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom. In their cases, all employment restrictions would be suspended. They could not commit
894
the offence of overstaying or working in breach of their conditions of stay, and they would not be liable to deportation.
In short, those people would be given unrestricted access to the labour market and virtual immunity from prosecution for immigration offences and deportation. Moreover, the Bill would not accord that exemption solely to the victims of abuse but would extend it to those domestic servants who are witnesses in court proceedings completely unconnected with their own personal circumstances. It would therefore create a category of persons uniquely privileged under our immigration laws.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I fully take the point that he has just made; that is, that if the sole purpose of the Bill were to assist the workers about whom we are talking, it would have to be confined to proceedings in which they are seeking to enforce their rights. But, while we are on that subject, does not a witness always assist a court in ascertaining the facts? Would not there be something to be said, as a matter of public policy, for enabling anybody who has evidence to give in a court, to remain in this country long enough for them to give it?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, poses a number of interesting questions. He is far better informed on some of the more legal aspects of this subject than I am and perhaps therefore I can arrange to write to him.
The Government have no wish to minimise the suffering of the victims of abuse in whatever circumstances it may occur. The leaflet given to domestic workers makes it clear that while they are in the United Kingdom they have the full protection of our criminal and employment laws. But we believe that the privileges that would be accorded to them under this Bill would be against the interests of the resident labour force and of firm but fair immigration controls. The Bill's provisions would also be open to abuse by those whom it was never intended to cover. It is the Government's firm belief that the best way to minimise the risk of abuse is to weed out the bad employer by attaching strict conditions to the grant of entry clearance before domestic workers are allowed to come here. I have outlined the present criteria to your Lordships this evening. But we have always been ready to listen to suggestions for improvements in these procedures and that remains the case. Where abuse has occurred here and domestic workers are required as witnesses in subsequent proceedings, we shall continue to exercise discretion where there are sufficient grounds for exceptional treatment.
In view of my remarks it will not surprise your Lordships to hear that the Government cannot support this Bill, though, in keeping with the traditions of this House, we shall not be opposing it this evening.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for at least the spirit in which the Bill has been received on both sides of the House. At this point I should like to say that I received apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who had fully intended to speak in the debate but, owing to the length of earlier business, had to leave and therefore could not speak.
It is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships or to comment on either of the two speeches that we heard. It remains simply for me to ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RAF Upper Heyford
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington asked Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of the partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the North Oxfordshire Consortium for the proposed development of RAF Upper Heyford and its likely impact on the environment.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Members of the House will remember that on 14th June 1996 the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked Her Majesty's Government whether they were satisfied that the procedure adopted for the sale of the RAF base at Bentwaters in Suffolk was consistent with their environmental policy. During that debate a number of noble Lords referred to the problems being created by the sale of RAF Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire where many of the same problems encountered at Bentwaters were inevitable.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, is taking part in the debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. My only regret is that the debate is taking place so late on a Thursday night. My debate was originally down for Wednesday evening, and that perhaps would have enabled us to get on to the Floor a little earlier. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Earl Howe, could not be here yesterday, and we felt it was very important that he should be present for the debate.
There are great similarities between the disposal of Bentwaters and Upper Heyford which are bound to be repeated in other parts of the country as the MoD proceeds with the sale of sites which are no longer needed for defence purposes. It is therefore important, I feel, that we lay down the principles to be followed in any disposal of MoD land. In my view, it is not enough for the Government to insist that the MoD maximises its capital receipts in these transactions. The overall concern should concentrate on the environmental impact of these developments as well as the impact on surrounding areas and villages of any development. This should be our overriding concern. After all, these lands occupied by RAF bases were acquired at a time of emergency and really belong to the nation, not to the MoD.
Upper Heyford has been an airbase since 1918, but it was during the last war that it grew to its present proportions when the US air force moved on to the base. It became one of Europe's largest airbases, employing some 12,000 personnel. In May 1993 the US air force announced that it would be withdrawing from the base by September 1994. As a result, in 1993 a working party was established by Cherwell District Council, the district council covering the majority of the area, with representations from the county council and from the Defence Land Agent. However, a promise which had been made of further consultancy advice, funded by the MoD, failed to materialise. As a result, in September 1994 the MoD announced that it would ask the Defence Land Agent to dispose of the entire site.
Late in 1994 the DLA commissioned Savills to seek expressions of interest in the site from the development industry. There were many responses, some 30 or so, but none was ever made public. It was hoped at that time by the local people that the joint venture partner was to be a consortium comprising companies with a broad spectrum of development experience and skill.
The site at Upper Heyford is by far the largest site where the MoD has contemplated a joint venture partnership. As a result of that joint venture partnership, the local councils and the local community were feeling encouraged and confident that the involvement of the MoD would ensure that the less profitable works of environmental remediation and infrastructure improvement would be delivered at the right time. Locally, we are very disturbed that the consortium chosen by the MoD was a group of house builders: Wimpey, Taylor Woodrow and Westbury Homes calling themselves the North Oxfordshire Consortium. Their proposals were originally for a new town of 7,500 houses, which was reduced to a town of 5,000 houses.
The consortium's proposal was put as an option in the consultation document for the Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan. Having seen the NOC presentation, Oxfordshire County Council's environmental committee, composed of county councillors of all parties and from all areas of the county, unanimously rejected the option of 5,000 houses at Upper Heyford. There was no disagreement.
Cherwell District Council decided at that time, because the base was empty, to allow considerable short-term rentals for the existing buildings on the sites, including two major car distribution and leasing companies. It was hoped that the funds generated by this activity would be used not only to preserve the security of the base but also to provide the facilities for the longer term improvements. Who collects the rents under the partnership agreement? Is it the Ministry of Defence, or is it the North Oxfordshire Consortium? After paying for upkeep and security on the base, there should be a substantial surplus to be used for any local improvements, particularly for further studies to investigate the suitability of the site for housing development. Of these one of most important should be a thorough investigation into the impact of increased traffic generated in the area. The only transport study

897
undertaken was carried out by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wimpey, which can hardly be called an independent inquiry.
The area surrounding the base, if Members of the House know it, is a peaceful, rural area consisting of many small parishes and villages served by small country roads and lanes. If this development is agreed, large sums of money will have to be invested in road widening schemes, which will destroy some of the essential character of the area. The North Oxfordshire Consortium, when I talked to it, claimed that traffic will be channelled from Heyford through to the A.43 leading to the M.40 and that there will not be an increase in traffic on the country lanes. However, unless you put up an impenetrable fence to stop people moving into the area from any other part, you will not stop the traffic flowing on the completely unsuitable country roads.
The Cherwell Valley is a priceless heritage of rural landscape which must be treated sensitively. There are all too few of these parts of our countryside that remain that have not been spoilt. In addition, only about a mile and a half away, in Lower Heyford, which is almost part of the village of Upper Heyford—they almost run into each other—one of the most important 18th century landscape gardens in England—Rousham Park—is situated. Created by William Kent, it is probably the only one that survives without having been altered. Oxfordshire County Council's transport brief of 10th July 1995 states:
"Development at Upper Heyford is undesirable in traffic sustainability terms".
It has not changed its mind.
The Oxfordshire County Council draft structure plan, which has just been published, envisages 1,000 houses on the site, including the 300 or so houses already there. The plan will come up for public consultation in July this year. In the meantime, Cherwell District Council, with the consent of the North Oxfordshire Consortium, has put in a bid to have the proposed British Academy of Sport at Upper Heyford. The bid has the support of all parties locally. The idea to have the academy of sport there sprang from the chairman of one of the local councils. It is a wonderful opportunity because it would need about 140 acres. It would take up the area which was formerly housing for officers including a hospital, which would be very useful. We all hope that this bid will get going. It has already passed the first shortlisting. We believe that it has a great opportunity to become successful.
I believe that the MoD and the Government should be open about what is happening and what the MoD is doing in its dealings with the North Oxfordshire Consortium. We would like to know the precise terms of the acquisition. I cannot understand why that has been a secret. We also want to know what are the plans for the rest of the site beyond the current structure plan. As I asked before, I want to know what is happening to the rentals that are being collected and who collects them. Is it by the MoD or by the consortium?
Lastly, I plead that no planning permission for houses should be considered prior to the examination in public of the Oxfordshire County Council structure plan which will take place in July this year. I hope that we can get some answers.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for raising this Question this evening. I myself had the pleasure of visiting the site just over a month ago, courtesy of the British Olympic Association which, as the noble Baroness has said, heads the consortium bidding for the proposed British academy of sport. It is fortunate indeed that the ending of the Cold War and the departure of the United States Air Force from Upper Heyford more or less coincided with the Government's decision to have a British academy of sport, because this site is, as the noble Baroness said, so ideal for the purpose. I would like briefly to pay tribute to the United States Air Force for its occupation of the site for the past 50 years or so of my lifetime, which has made me sleep happier at night. But now it is gone.
The bid for the British academy of sport at Heyford has a number of unique features, which more than meet the criteria laid down by the United Kingdom Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage. The bid is ideally sited at the heart of the transport infrastructure for travel by road, rail and air, with links to the existing national sporting centres. It will be developed, as the noble Baroness has said, as part of an evolving new community with 1,000 new homes being built by the North Oxfordshire Consortium on an adjoining section of the former air base. It has the unqualified support of the county council, the district council and the parish councils and features in the draft Oxfordshire Development Plan which has been lodged with the Department of the Environment.
The consortium includes both the University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University, and Eton College, for the rowing facility. The British Olympic Association brings to the bid an unrivalled expertise in British sport, including coaching, sports science and sports medicine. It also brings the unqualified backing of the 33 national governing bodies who make up the National Olympic Committee together with the British Paralympic Association.
The site is to be donated to the academy by the North Oxfordshire Consortium and is also bringing some £70 million of private sector funding which, together with lottery funding, will result in £175 million of capital investment. The BOA has committed at least £1 million a year for revenue funding to add to the revenue generated by the academy itself.
One of the great advantages of the site is the use that can be made of some 700,000 sq.ft. of existing buildings, some only 10 years old, which were left in excellent condition by the USAF.
Turning briefly to the overall site, it would appear that the proposals fit in well with the Government's policies as set out in the Rural England White Paper of

899
1995. The Government set out a number of principles for meeting the demand for 4.4 million new houses by 2016, prime among which is to:
"Make the best use of land which has already been developed. Before building on green field sites, the full potential of derelict and degraded land should be exploited".
The Government also stated:
"We have set a target for the year 2005 of building half of all new homes on re-used sites. These include redundant developments in the countryside, such as defence bases which are no longer needed as well as inner city sites".
As I have said, the proposals seem to fit in with those words extremely well. As has been said, the initial proposal is for 1,000 new homes, supporting 1,500 new jobs, so commuting will be reduced. The area has excellent transport links and the North Oxfordshire Consortium has proposals to spend some £15 million on removing the old Cold War eyesores from the airfield side of the site.
I return to the proposed academy. The reasons that we need an academy for sport have been well rehearsed. Indeed, we were reminded of the need for such an academy only last summer in Atlanta. I do not need to repeat those reasons. Upper Heyford seems an ideal site for that. Therefore, like the noble Baroness, I was pleased that the bid made the shortlist last month. I do not expect my noble friend to say anything further on that subject tonight because I understand that the final decision is to be announced fairly shortly. I can only hope that this bid is the successful one.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for raising a matter which is of both local and national importance. This particular area of Oxfordshire may not have the obvious tourist draw of the neighbouring Cotswolds, but it is still a very special part of England, with small woodlands, rivers, watermeadows, gentle hills and countryside of a kind that is being swallowed up and choked by traffic particularly in the south of England year by year by year.
I do not live in the area, but I know it quite well. For many years, until 1994, those who lived there were readily identifiable. They spoke only in short sentences. To embark on a long sentence was to run a considerable risk that one would be cut off and rendered inaudible by the deafening roar around the clock of one of the enormous bombers taking off or landing. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said that the presence of the United States Air Force there enabled him to sleep better at night, but I suspect that he was not trying to do that near the end of the runway at Upper Heyford.
When silence came in 1994 and the last F-111 left, the sigh of relief from those who lived nearby was shortlived. That relief has been replaced by fear—fear that the Ministry of Defence will now succeed in doing what the United States Air Force did not manage to do, which is to destroy the area irreparably for those who live there and who love it.
900
Of course, we must recognise that an empty air base of this type represents a major problem for the Ministry of Defence, but it could represent an enormous and exciting opportunity for a change of use which, with imagination, could benefit not merely that area but Britain as a whole. It is therefore all the more depressing and worrying, particularly for those who are directly affected, that the Ministry of Defence looks ready to settle for what appears to be the easiest option—and an unsuitable one at that—namely; a new town. The roads in the area simply could not cope with the volume of traffic that that would generate. Although there is clearly scope for some housing, it should not be on the scale proposed.
I intervene briefly in the debate because it seems to me that there are disturbing features in how all this is being handled which I hope that the Minister can go some way to allay when he replies.
I refer first to secrecy. This is not an ordinary commercial transaction. The land was acquired by the Ministry of Defence by compulsory purchase for a specific purpose. It is public land in which we all have an interest, and its disposal is a matter of public concern and should be in the public domain. Surely, that is part of open government. Local councillors and the local community are in effect being kept in the dark while the North Oxfordshire Consortium and the Ministry of Defence do a deal.
As the noble Baroness has already said, the terms of the acquisition of the development rights, the long-term plans for the site, the revenue that is being received from the short-term rents and the use to which that revenue is or will be put for environmental improvements are all matters that should be known. How else can the public be reassured?
The Ministry of Defence is not, and should not try to be, a commercial property developer. It is handling our land for us and should be accountable to us. We need to know the real options, with no secret deals or trade-offs. We need to know that no planning permissions for houses will be considered before public examination of Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan in July of this year. I ask the Minister to give that assurance tonight.
Secondly—and in a sense just as importantly—we need to know that this site is safe in view of the use to which it has been put in the past. To be convinced of that, surely an independent study should be commissioned. Above all, those who live in the 23 parishes which make up Cherwell district need to know that a golden opportunity for a truly imaginative development will not be lost simply because the Ministry of Defence has settled for the easiest option.
It is unfortunate that the only proposal about which we have heard that truly catches the imagination and is worthy of the opportunity that such a site and location offer—that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon—is for a British academy of sport. That has support from all sides. As I understand it, that proposal did not come from the developers or the Ministry of Defence but from the chairman of Steeple Aston Parish Council. Surely the public deserves better from the

901
Ministry of Defence in handling such sites. I hope that it is not too late to ensure that a truly worthwhile development takes place here over the whole site that will not involve turning this part of rural England into yet another traffic-choked commuter dormitory.
The Minister knows about the countryside and cares a great deal about it. I therefore look forward greatly and with hope to hearing replies that satisfy some of these concerns.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, my contribution to this debate is not based upon first hand knowledge of the situation at Upper Heyford but is intended to suggest some conclusions which are beginning to emerge from the methods employed by the Ministry of Defence in selling large redundant military bases. What I have to say draws both on what I have learned from others about Upper Heyford and what I know about the disposal of Bentwaters in Suffolk. I raised that matter in a similar debate earlier this year and recently I was able to discuss it with the noble Earl.
The main question that I wish to raise is the validity of the planning process. We tend to take it for granted and perhaps grumble about its formality and the delays which may ensue. But a degree of restraint in the development of land is surely necessary in this crowded island to take account of the public interest. We may follow the Government's excellent definition of sustainable development in PPG 15. They refer to development that does not sacrifice what future generations will value for the sake of short term and often illusory gains. That can hardly be bettered.
One has only to look at other countries where no such restraint exists to see the consequences. Two examples with which I am familiar are the uncontrolled proliferation of buildings which has desecrated the beautiful shores of the peninsula of Attica near Athens and the rampant urban and industrial growth on the drained Pontine Marshes south of Rome, land which should have been kept for food production and its scarce water resources reserved for agriculture and silviculture.
It is interesting that at both Bentwaters and Upper Heyford the Ministry of Defence began the disposal of the property in the same way by appointing an estate agent who became engaged in a negotiation with a local authority with a view to obtaining permission to build numerous houses. The purpose in both cases was to increase the value of the land before it was sold. Happily, at Bentwaters, our local Member of Parliament, Mr. John Gummer, intervened and persuaded all concerned that prior discussion with the county was necessary so that an informed proposal could be put to an Examination in Public leading to a satisfactory conclusion and modification of the country structure plan.
Sadly, that did not happen, as the statutory consultees—English Nature and the leading NGOs concerned with the environment—were not as fully engaged in the process as they should have been. Although the examination was conducted by an experienced, fully qualified and competent inspector,
902
who produced a balanced report, his conclusions were not readily acceptable to the district council for reasons I do not intend to go into here. But this was surely the correct route to follow. It is the method laid down in our planning law. It gives the leading role to the democratically elected local authorities and it encourages an open, public process, which I regard as essential in decisions of this kind. The system may not be perfect, and is no doubt capable of further refinement, but let us at least recognise that we have a real asset at our disposal, designed for the purpose, and we ought to use it.
Therefore, it concerns me that at Upper Heyford the Government have chosen a joint development partner, the North Oxfordshire Consortium, in advance of the Examination in Public. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness about the need for an assurance that no contract will be let or decisions taken before the examination has occurred. Of course we recognise the need for the closest collaboration and discussion between the Ministry and a local authority in assessing the plans for an important site such as this. But, by choosing a development partner in advance of the Examination in Public, the Ministry gives the impression of wishing in some way to pre-empt the decision at which the inquiry may arrive.
The whole purpose of the Examination in Public is to examine the future needs and possibilities of North Oxfordshire now that this large site and its extensive facilities are unexpectedly available. The inquiry will want to look at the size of the population which can be accommodated and how many can find a place in the local economy, and assess the consequences for transport in the area. These are also issues at Bentwaters, with the added dimension that the latest planning application submitted by the Ministry includes the possible use of the base for civil aviation. Many of us believe that this should not be introduced at such a late stage without some clear understanding of what kind of aviation would be involved and whether any limits should be placed on that kind of development.
As regards Upper Heyford, I believe that it would be wise for the Ministry, as has been suggested, to make before the examination full disclosure of the nature of the partnership, its formal status in law and its financial position. Allegations of secrecy may seem unfair to the Minister, but of course they do not in any way relate to him and it is hardly surprising that they should arise. Openness should be an essential part of the process if public confidence is to be won, and it seems to have been sadly lacking in this case.
I shall conclude with a further reflection arrived at from our problems at Bentwaters. Two preferred buyers in succession have failed to complete their contract negotiations. We are now in the closing stages of a third negotiation. The property is being marketed somewhat aggressively by the MoD's agents. It looks as though a hitherto wholly unknown but allegedly local company, probably specially formed for the purpose, is on the point of completing the purchase. In order to assist the sale, the MoD has submitted its own application to the planning authority, as I said, and that will probably succeed. But it leaves the door wide open to further

903
development proposals which are likely to be strongly resisted. By that time money will have been paid and the new owners may well say that they need further development in order to recoup the purchase price that they have paid and to make a return on their investment.
That is all three-and-a-half years after the base was left empty by the American airforce. It is really very unsatisfactory and causes me to have deep sympathy with the people of North Oxfordshire who are apparently about to undergo a similar experience.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I too am indebted to the noble Baroness for instigating the debate this evening. I have an interest to declare regarding the proposed development of RAF Upper Heyford, as I live in a village about a mile to the north east of the site. My village is one of a group of 23 parishes around the base which have formed Cherwell Valley Parishes. Cherwell Valley Parishes is worried that the Ministry of Defence has appointed a partner, the North Oxford Consortium, which is over-keen to develop a site in a way which is totally incompatible with the surrounding area.
Cherwell Valley Parishes was formed to resist the idea of the base being used simply as a housing estate on a large scale. It is not possible to cover all the issues in a few moments. Other noble Lords have mentioned some issues and others will cover others. Therefore, I shall try to limit my remarks to areas which have not been dealt with in great detail. I had intended to talk about the information flow and the secrecy which has shrouded the matter to date between the MoD, the North Oxford Consortium and the local councillors and community, but the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has already covered that and I need say no more. However, there is one matter on which I seek some reassurance from the Minister. The local councillors and community would like confirmation that no planning permission for houses will be considered prior to the public examination of the Oxfordshire County Council's structure plan, which is scheduled to take place this summer. I would be extremely grateful for such an assurance.
The second area on which I shall touch concerns the planning process and the last point which I have just mentioned. Cherwell District Council, with the consent of the North Oxford Consortium, has put in a bid to have the proposed British Academy of Sport at Upper Heyford. That idea for a centre of sporting excellence was conceived within Cherwell Valley Parishes and has the support of all parties concerned.
There is a concern on the part of the district council and the parishes that the North Oxford Consortium is using the competitive bidding situation relating to the British Academy of Sport to pre-empt the structure plan process of Oxfordshire County Council and the Examination in Public which is scheduled to take place in the summer. That is why noble Lords have mentioned it this evening.
Cherwell Valley Parishes, together with other objectors, has lodged its opposition to policy H2 in the deposit draft that allows for 700 houses at Upper
904
Heyford in addition to the 330 which are already there. I draw the Minister's attention to Annex B to Department of the Environment Circular 16/91, sections B5 and B7 on general policy, which concern the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Those and other paragraphs in the circular set out the circumstances in which certain types of benefit can reasonably be sought in connection with the grant of planning permission. Planning permission for unacceptable development should not be granted because a developer is offering extraneous inducement or benefits. I would argue that the 330 existing houses at Upper Heyford are more than enough to service the British Academy of Sport.
Finally, I wish to mention briefly that the Oxfordshire structure plan clearly states that sustainable development should be achieved, first, by protecting the environmental character and natural resources of the county by limiting the overall level of development; and, secondly, by favouring development in locations which reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car. The structure plan then sets out Banbury, Bicester, Didcot and Witney as preferred locations for new development and states that elsewhere in the county development and consequent expansion of population will be limited.
The plan links development and transport issues fundamentally and is an admirable attempt to reduce the need to travel and the resultant bad effects on the atmosphere and the local environment. The transport infrastructure, the local geography and the existing settlement patterns of the small villages all serve to illustrate conclusively that this is the wrong place for a development of even 1,000 houses, let alone the 5,000 proposed by the North Oxford Consortium.
An independent study produced by the Oxford Brookes University in 1994, before the idea of this new town began, showed conclusively that inhabitants of new estates in Bicester and the M.40 corridor commute further and use private cars more than people living in similar estates elsewhere in the county. The study suggests that high levels of trip making and travel distances by car could be expected of new residents in this location. That would depend on a number of factors in practice, but the convenience of the M.40 and the lack of a range of local facilities nearby reinforce that view.
The Transport Principles Brief of Oxfordshire County Council, dated 10th July 1995, states:
"It may be seductive to believe that Upper Heyford with its potential for both employment and housing development/redevelopment could create a largely self-sufficient community developing low levels of external traffic, but this is likely to be wishful thinking. Unless the development was to be very large indeed there is no possibility that it will be self-sufficient. Indeed, Planning Policy Guidance Note 13—Department of Transport dated March 1994—recommends for this reason that new developments smaller than 10,000 households should be avoided".
That brief goes on to say that, in terms of sustainability and travel reduction objectives, development at Upper Heyford is very undesirable.
Specific transport factors which would need to be considered are: first, connection to the M.40 including the capacity of the new junction 10, which is about to be upgraded with the dual carriageway in the Northampton

905
direction, and the actual capacity of the M.40 itself. I am informed in a letter of 14th March 1995 (addressed to Cherwell District Council) from the Highways Agency that both junction 10 and the motorway are likely to have little spare capacity on existing development levels by the year 2011. The agency also indicated in that letter that it would be likely to resist any application for more than minor traffic generation because of the likely effect on junction 10 and the motorway itself. A figure of 5,000 houses has been mentioned. That would go beyond the junction's capacity.
There is a network of local environmentally sensitive minor roads which I must just mention. They are close to the site, mostly to the west and the south, and pass through quiet villages, some of which are conservation areas. There are also two restricted river/canal crossings at Lower Heyford and Somerton villages and, northwards, the minor road through Somerton and Fritwell provides an alternative local route to the B.4100 and A.43 at Baynards Green which avoid junction 10 of the M.40. Any significant increase of traffic on those roads would be contrary to the council's structure plan policies, which, amongst other things, seeks to restrict increased traffic on minor roads.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, last week we had a full-scale debate on housing, and tonight we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of what actually happens. As we heard, last June my noble friend Lord Bridges raised the similar issue of the Bentwaters RAF base in Suffolk. That is a sorry story and it appears, from what he said tonight, that it continues to be a sorry story. The wider planning and landscape considerations were, and continue to be, ignored.
In the debate last June I was one of those who referred to Upper Heyford. However, we were running out of time and the Minister, quite understandably, was unable to deal with the matter. Nevertheless, I hope he will not mind if I go over much the same ground again, although I shall not raise the question of Orford Ness.
We all agree that dealing with the future of redundant bases in a sensitive yet economic manner is difficult. Therefore, the first consideration surely is that the process must be open and thorough. We have heard a good deal of anxiety expressed tonight on that score. I share those concerns, but tonight I want to concentrate on the planning aspects, national and local, on land use, on landscape quality, and on the transport consequences.
We have heard from several noble Lords about the county structure plan. I merely emphasise the point made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, that the plan sees Banbury, Bicester, Didcot and Witney as the preferred locations for development, not Upper Heyford. That is not surprising. After all, the consequences, if the base were to be a centre of development, would be to reinforce significantly the trend for a peri-urban corridor from Oxford to Banbury. After all, we already have Oxford and Kidlington merging into each other and Kidlington is only seven miles down the Cherwell from Heyford. Bicester, which
906
is just down the road, now has a population of nearly 25,000—I was surprised to learn that—and Banbury's population is already over 40,000.
Some 5,000 houses at Upper Heyford would mean a population of nearly 15,000 in a highly sensitive area. If ever there was a case for an undeveloped buffer zone it must surely be here. We should remember the wise words of the CPRE in a different connection when it observed, in relation to the housing problem,
"New settlements are unlikely to be a helpful solution since they rarely have advantages over building in or around existing urban areas, urbanise the countryside and generate more traffic".
This, if nothing else, would be sufficient reason for giving pause before we rush in. However, there is a further reason which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to, and that is Rousham. I know Rousham. As she said, it is the only extant garden of William Kent that has remained unadulterated by—bless his heart!—Capability Brown or by later development. It is lovingly protected, at great personal sacrifice, by the family who have been there for 300 years. If it was a National Trust property we would fight tooth and nail to protect it, and I am sure the family will do the same. This is quintessential middle England countryside with the added bonus of William Kent's unique and historic landscape garden. For those who like labels, it is Grade I listed. For those who like zoning, the area around Lower Heyford is designated as a conservation zone.
It will be said that the developers are reasonable people who are prepared to settle for a mere 5,000 houses, notwithstanding the capacity of the base for 7,000. It is further hinted that they might be content with only 1,000. I suppose the first point here is to ask the Minister whether the MoD, and perhaps more importantly the Treasury, would restrict their demands to this lower level of development? But even if this were the case, which of us would feel able to bank on such an assurance? The noble Earl cannot bind future administrations. Any extra development now would be a hostage to the future. In my submission 1,000 houses would be a Trojan horse.
Leaving that aside, what about the transport implications? If it is zoned to include industrial and commercial development, it will generate traffic. If it is restricted to residential housing, it will also generate commuter traffic to Banbury, Oxford and Bicester. So there will be pressure, as the noble Baroness said, to upgrade the local road network. That is perhaps the most insidious threat of all.
The noble Lord, Lord Annaly, went into the transport implications in great detail. I shall not repeat what he said. I simply observe that the national traffic projections forecast a huge increase—a doubling of traffic—over the next 20 years. Most people agree that the pressure on rural traffic will be even greater. If one adds a housing development or two, one has the possibility of a disaster.
I referred to the proposal to restrict the total number of houses to 1,000 as being a Trojan horse. That is a further 700 extra houses. It certainly is a Trojan horse because there is pressure to give planning permission for that even before the structure plan is publicly

907
examined. That has already been mentioned. No wonder the 23 local parishes are concerned. By all means let us use the existing housing stock. By all means use the existing military facilities; they are already earning a good rent. Let us use that income to remove the worst excrescences on the north side of the base, and let us support the imaginative proposal—a local initiative—for a sports complex. But surely that should be the extent of the development.
Everything I have said is consistent with the Government's White Paper on Rural England. I conclude with three short quotes from the recent update Rural England 1996. Under the heading Local Initiative and Voluntary Action on page 11 it states:
"Local decision making is likely to be more responsive to local circumstances than uniform plans. We [the Government] therefore aim to be sensitive to local concerns and to work in partnership with local people rather than impose top-down solutions".
At page 13 the report states:
"We proposed in Rural England to: Introduce legislation to establish a formal consultative framework between principal authorities and parish and town councils which will strengthen the consultative and representational role of local councils".
The report continues in similar vein about introducing legislation.
Finally, perhaps I may quote a short section at page 43 on defence. The report refers to guidelines that have been agreed between the MoD and the DoE. It states:
"The new arrangements will ensure that decisions on disposal of sites take account of policies for regeneration and land use, including the need"—
I emphasise this—
"to protect the environment, [and] the needs of local communities".
The report continues by referring to,
"the types of uses which will be attractive to developers".
But in primary place it puts the needs of local communities and of the environment.
The noble Earl is being rather battered with DoE circulars, DoE PPGs and quotes from the White Paper. But local considerations, local responsibility, and the need to protect the environment are at the heart of all those references. We can all subscribe to that being what is needed from the noble Earl's department. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us the assurance that the MoD will follow that guidance in the case of Upper Heyford.
9.58 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the hour is late and I shall not detain your Lordships long. However, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for initiating the debate.
In the Bentwaters debate in June of last year, I ventured to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that because land had been taken in time of grave national emergency at a very cheap price, those same interests were entitled to be offered it in the first place. I received short shrift from the Minister; and I accept that. This is no Crichel Down. But that is not to say that local interests must not be very carefully looked into and looked after in this situation.
908
No fewer than 23 parish councils, referred to by noble Lords earlier, were at one in expressing interest in doing a partnership deal with the MoD. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, told us how they received very little co-operation. I understand that it was a case of too little information, inadequate information, and that it was given too late. There is the feeling locally that they were not given the same level playing field.
I understand that 30 institutions expressed interest in the MoD's proposal. I do not know how many of those went forward to the next stage. Of course the MoD must pay attention to the interests of the taxpayer. But it must also pay attention to what might be referred to as quality of life. That was referred to in detail by many speakers tonight. We do not know whether the bid was the cheapest; or whether, if not the cheapest, it was regarded by the ministry as the best; or simply, as speakers have suggested tonight, it was the easiest way out.
The North Oxfordshire Consortium has impeccable attributes. It is of great resources and reputation. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of the Bentwater bidders, there were two so-called preferred bidders which failed. The Ministry of Defence is not infallible in that respect. The Government have made great play of an open policy in all areas of government. The various charters give effect to that. It must surely be extended to Ministry of Defence bids.
The peace dividend has brought many advantages. But one of the problems that it has brought is the disposal of MoD land. There will be many Bentwaters and many Upper Heyfords to come. So many of those will revolve around housing density. That is where the disputes will lie. In this case there is a huge disparity. There is the original figure of 7,500 dwellings suggested by Cherwell district council; and many people would want fewer than that.
I would mention the British academy of sport, and sound a note of caution. The presence, as we hope, of the British academy of sport in Upper Heyford must not be used as a lever to ask for further houses to service that academy.
I hope that the Government will look very carefully into what can be done at this late stage in the Upper Heyford situation, and that they will also look carefully at their future dealings in regard to MoD disposals.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has just referred to the paramount importance of protecting local communities. He also warned us that there are many—too many—Upper Heyfords and Bentwaters to come. In that context the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, is to be congratulated on having raised an issue of such immense significance to the local population, but one which is also of far wider public policy concern, as was so well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
Inevitably, a number of the issues raised in the debate last June relating to the sale of the RAF base at Bentwaters have re-emerged this evening. As I listened

909
to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, my heart went into my boots to learn—although I am not altogether surprised—that that appalling story of delay and incompetence meanders on, at god knows what cost in stress to the local community. The Ministry of Defence really should do better than that.
While it would not be appropriate in a short debate such as this to reiterate them all, I should like to spell out three of the points that I raised last June, because I believe they lie at the heart of this question and because I am regretfully not convinced that the Government have begun to take them fully on board.
First, there is the importance of developing a consistent policy in the national interest towards the development of the whole defence estate. The current principle above all of sale to the highest bidder, which seemed to apply at Bentwaters and again seems to apply at Upper Heyford, is not necessarily a panacea for everyone's long-term interest.
Secondly, there is the importance of these major developments being consistent with environmental protection and, where necessary, contamination being identified and rendered harmless. It has certainly been put to me that the income from short-term rentals could be utilised to help with that.
Thirdly, there is the importance that these developments of what is, after all, public land should go ahead with a much more open approach and in partnership with local planning authorities as representatives of the local people who will be affected. Here I should like to welcome the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the use of a public inquiry to become the norm as a means of approaching the challenges and opportunities for development positively and consensually rather than with hostility and suspicion.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to these general comments in terms of the national issue. I do not envy him. I know him to be one of the most civilised Ministers in this administration and I believe that he must be under a good deal of personal stress in having to deal with this situation.
I now turn to underline some of the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and other noble Lords. These are questions of concern to many of the people of North Oxfordshire with regard to the situation at Upper Heyford. First, what are the exact terms of the lease enjoyed by the North Oxfordshire Consortium? Secondly, why was the lease awarded to this consortium, whose initial plan to build upwards of 5,000 houses was not consistent with the Oxfordshire structure plan and was unanimously rejected, as the noble Baroness reminded us, by councillors of all political persuasions on Oxfordshire County Council's environment committee.
Thirdly, why were the responsible local planning authorities not much more closely consulted over the disposal of such large areas of public land, the development of which will obviously have huge planning implications? I understand that there is considerable local support for the idea of the sports academy, which sounds an imaginative and exciting
910
concept, deserving of the most serious consideration. In that context it is obviously essential to be certain that the site is suitable in terms of transport, access and wider strategic planning. There are those, it seems—their views have been put to me—who suggest that the sports centre is being put forward as a cairot to encourage acceptance of a private development plan. It is a pity that that suspicion should have arisen because I share the enthusiasm expressed by other noble Lords this evening. That makes it all the more important to demonstrate that the sports academy stands up on its own planning merits.
Fourthly, why has this land been offered to a consortium which plans to build houses only for private sale when, as last week's debate on homelessness highlighted, the dire shortfall in homes and the continued high levels of repossession indicate a continued and growing need for rented housing? Should not this public land also be made available for the provision of much needed social housing?
Fifthly, why do the Government now apparently support the latest scaled-down plan for 1,000 houses when their own policy has been to regard 2,000 as the minimum viable basis for a new community? It is significant to note—I say no more than that tonight—that the Government's own chief planning adviser has been acting as planning consultant to the North Oxfordshire Consortium.
Sixthly, are the Government aware of and concerned by the results of the research undertaken by the Oxford Brookes University, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annaly, referred, which show that inhabitants of new developments at Bicester and on the M.40 corridor have been making greater than average use of cars on journeys to and from work? One can indeed imagine that proximity to the M.40 will be a valuable element in the sales promotion for any new private houses which are built. But it will be to the further detriment of the local environment. About that there can be no doubt. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also made that point powerfully and the House would be remiss not to take him seriously, with all his distinguished experience until recently as chairman of the National Trust.
Finally, can the Government give a categoric assurance on the safety of the site to which the noble Baroness referred? There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence which gives grounds for concern. There were reports some years ago by fanners in the Banbury area that animals near to the base were dying and animals were being born deformed—a situation then believed to have been caused by the dumping by the US Air Force of fuel oil which had seeped into water supplies. There was the secrecy surrounding attempts by the county council to establish with the Ministry of Defence the levels of contamination and the bland and careful wording of the replies that had been given. There was the unwillingness of the authorities in Washington in the United States, despite the reputation for more open government there, to respond satisfactorily to attempts to establish the results of surveys carried out by the United States authorities.

911
There was the article on pollution on military sites, written in 1993 by Captain Orrell-Jones and quoted last September in the Scottish press, which states:
"The attitude that pollution doesn't matter because we can get away with it is rife in the services … Airfields pose a particular problem with their large bulk fuel installations and use of large quantities of de-icing fluids and anti-freeze … There are many cases where continuous leakage is occurring … the effects can be to pollute the soil and more importantly the groundwater beneath and around these installations".
And, of course, there was the study of pollution on US military sites, commented on in an article in the New Scientist last November, which referred to contamination either from radioactivity, hydrocarbons or munitions, discovered at 22 sites in the United Kingdom.
None of that is a basis for local confidence. It was regrettable that Upper Heyford Parish Council was, last September, refused access by the Ministry of Defence to carry out its own survey. Information about what pollution surveys the ministry may have carried out or may be planning for this site (a letter of 10th September from the Deputy Defence Land Agent to the acting clerk of Upper Heyford Parish Council states that:
"there are environmental assessments and other reports planned for the future"),
and a firmer assurance from the Minister on safety than has so far been forthcoming are, I suggest, all badly needed. There has not even been a convincing explanation of why such an assurance cannot be given.
In conclusion, I should like only to add, in joining those who have already made the point, that here we are dealing with the land that belongs to the people of this nation. The pressures on life, pressures on space and pressures on health from the overcrowding and over-development of the south, and particularly the areas around Oxford in which for many years I myself worked, are not only a current challenge but a nightmare potentially for our children and grandchildren. Here is a chance for the Government, through the Ministry of Defence, to show enlightenment, imagination and vision in the way in which they deal with this site in the interests of the people of the area.
10.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for giving the House occasion to discuss the important development opportunities which exist at Upper Heyford. I listened to the debate and the views expressed with keen interest. I shall try to address as many of the points raised as I can, but to the extent that I fail to reply to questions put to me I shall of course write to noble Lords as soon as possible.
I do not need to remind noble Lords that the ending of the Cold War has dramatically changed the military map of the United Kingdom. Many large, important and strategically located sites have been declared surplus to defence requirements and have thus become available for alternative uses. Few such sites can claim either the
912
central location or the potential for useful development that exists in the case of the former airbase at Upper Heyford.
There we have 505 hectares (1,247 acres) of land in the Cherwell Valley, located only some three miles east of Junction 10 off the M.40. Although the site has been used by the Ministry of Defence since as long ago as 1924, from 1950 to 1994 it was occupied by the United States air force. Following the reduction in their presence in the United Kingdom the base was declared surplus to defence requirements and is now in the process of being sold.
Under the Americans the base was a self-contained settlement supporting approximately 3,000 personnel. The site consists of over three million square feet of accommodation ranging from technical buildings, offices, industrial warehouses, hangars and hardened aircraft shelters to residential and recreational facilities.
When a site such as this becomes surplus to requirements it is our duty to protect the taxpayers' interests in general by disposing of land and property in the most cost-effective way. As part of this process we explore the future redevelopment potential so that we can demonstrate that we have achieved full open market value for the site. In the case of Upper Heyford our consultants identified significant redevelopment potential over the next 20 to 25 years. However, to ensure that best value for money is obtained in the particular circumstances of Upper Heyford we recognised that we would—unusually—have to remain involved as landowner throughout the redevelopment period in order to maximise receipts. An outright sale of the whole site could have transferred a latent value to the purchaser to the detriment of the taxpayer.
The site was advertised in January 1995 and 26 bids from consortia were received, all expressing an interest in the site. Following lengthy and rigorous selection procedures the North Oxfordshire Consortium (NOC), comprising Wimpey plc, Taywood Homes plc and Westbury Homes plc, was selected as our development partner in the following July.
The noble Baroness asked what are the terms of the partnership between the NOC and my department. As noble Lords will recognise, the detailed terms of the development agreement and the lease entered into between the parties is commercial in confidence and it would be quite inappropriate for me to reveal them, not least in order not to undermine our ability to negotiate future agreements. I am, however, happy to discuss the effect of those agreements.
The development agreement imposes on NOC a requirement to promote the site through the statutory planning process to secure planning permission for the most favourable redevelopment achievable. Once planning consent is achieved the land is to be sold and developed in accordance with that consent. In light of the scale of the redevelopment which is possible and the need to develop in sustainable phases a period of 25 years has been allowed for that process to be completed.

913
Because of the scale of redevelopment which is possible and the need to carry out development in sustainable phases, the Ministry of Defence has granted the consortium a 25-year lease of the whole base. The noble Baroness may care to note that that transfers responsibility for managing the existing facilities from my department to NOC, including the collection of rents. There are many businesses already on the base, including car storage and vehicle preparation, which have temporary planning permission to operate until the long-term future of the base is determined. As noble Lords will appreciate those uses prevent vandalism and structural deterioration and generate jobs as well as generating income to finance maintenance of the base, all to the benefit of the public purse.
The question was asked whether funds should not be used to finance studies on housing and so on. The lion's share of the funds from the rental stream are used to maintain the site, the costs of which should not be underestimated, and it is for the North Oxfordshire Consortium to carry out any studies required as part of the planning process.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the planning process. I believe that it would be beneficial for me to remind your Lordships of some of the features of the system. The planning process is, of course, the democratic process by which collective decisions on the suitability of developments are made. In order to secure planning permission NOC has already made representations in the Oxfordshire structure plan review proposing sustainable development of 5,000 homes and 7,500 jobs.
The planning process will of course allow all parties interested in the future of Upper Heyford to make representations. These will naturally be taken into account before Oxfordshire County Council makes any decision as to whether the site should be deemed suitable for redevelopment and as to what level of development might be appropriate during the life of the plan. There will then be a need to promote any redevelopment through the Cherwell district local plan, due for review in 1998, and to submit planning applications for each phase. All these processes do, of course, allow for full public comment and participation.
A number of noble Lords have spoken as though it were the MoD, not the local planning authority, that determines the planning process. It is a basic point, but I feel bound to point out that the MoD, quite rightly, is not judge and jury in its own case. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why we appeared to be pre-empting the examination in public with our own plans. With great respect, we are not pre-empting anything. The planning process invites proposals for development, which the North Oxfordshire Consortium has made on behalf of the MoD, and public participation ensures that all views on proposals are considered before the county council and local council make any decision on future use. More than one speaker has emphasised the importance of ensuring an examination in public of the Oxfordshire County Council structure plan before any planning application for houses is determined. It is perfectly clear
914
that no application for new development would be considered by Cherwell District Council before the examination in public takes place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked what our plans were beyond the current structure plan. A master plan is due to be drawn up over the next six months and current proposals include a country park. Nothing can be decided, however, before the structure plan and local plan processes are complete. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether the Treasury or indeed my department would restrict their demands to a low level of development. That is not a judgment for the Ministry of Defence, but rather a matter between the North Oxfordshire Consortium and the planning authorities.
At each stage there will be a need to balance the benefits of accommodating the growth and development of an active and expanding county on a brownfield site—which is already a substantial development in its own right—with the impact of redevelopment on the environment, highway work, infrastructure and population of the Cherwell Valley. Indeed, the Cherwell Valley's natural character, which the noble Baroness eloquently referred to, and the proximity of the Upper Heyford site to the historically valuable and environmentally sensitive Rousham Park conservation area will be important factors which need to be taken into account. The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others referred to that.
Comprehensive redevelopment would, of course, allow careful landscape planning and the removal of much of the legacy of the Cold War from the former airfield. For instance, NOC's proposals promote conservation and enhancement of the environment, and include the creation of an extensive country park for future generations to enjoy.
NOC has also promoted part of the Upper Heyford site as a candidate for the location of the proposed British Academy of Sport. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Baroness and in particular those of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in that connection. The value of such a facility to Britain is well appreciated. Upper Heyford has infrastructure and communication facilities, together with sufficient land to meet the requirements for such a facility. I understand that the site will be considered by the selection panel along with 12 other similarly suitable sites. I can tell my noble friend that any sale of the land for the sports academy would be considered carefully and sympathetically by my department. But we will need to ensure that such a sale does not detract from the requirements set by the Treasury to obtain the best value possible for the site or interfere unduly with the alternative uses intended for the remainder of the land and buildings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked particularly about the impact of any development on the environment. The local authority, together with the county council, following the policies set by the Department of the Environment, has the responsibility of allowing development only where it can be shown that there is no net detrimental effect on the existing environment. I would say to my noble friend Lord

915
Annaly that that includes traffic. Where the effects of development lead to an increase in traffic, these effects will be remediated under the planning process. I know that the local authority does not take this role lightly. These issues will be fully examined at Upper Heyford. We believe, however, that the site is likely to remain in largely its present form for some years as the planning decisions I have referred to are considered and made.
The noble Baroness also mentioned remediation. It may be helpful if I say a few words on that aspect. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, expressed concern about the state of the land following its use for defence purposes. The Environment Act and Planning Policy Guidance 23—Planning and Pollution Control—issued by the Department of the Environment, have emphasised the need for planning authorities and the Environment Agency to ensure that any harmful contamination in, on or under the land is removed as part of the redevelopment process. Our initial view is that there are no unresolvable contamination problems, but I should say that full land quality assessments are being carried out to ensure that this view is correct. The information provided will form part of the submissions for planning permission to redevelop the land. Any decontamination work required will be carried out in a timely, professional and cost-effective manner in order to comply with the appropriate environmental legislation. Radiological surveys and investigation of unexploded ordnance have also been completed and show the site to be clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why we could not be more open in selling the site. The process of disposal is a totally open one. It is only the price which is withheld, for reasons which he will understand. That
916
feature of the process is "commercial—in confidence" and its revelation would undermine our ability to meet Treasury guidelines on achieving the best price.
The noble Lord also referred back to our debate on Bentwaters and asked specifically whether, after the Bentwaters sale, Bentwaters Investments Limited will apply for further development of the site. It is of course entirely possible for the developer to apply for further planning permissions but the planning process will regulate that. I would suggest to him that it is not a matter for my department but for the local people and the democratic planning process in the area.
Over recent years my department has gained considerable experience in the disposal of large sites. Many of those have proved complex cases because of the wide range of often very sensitive factors to be considered. These include the location of sites, former ownership, environmental and contamination issues and so on. Of course, there are often differing views on how a site should be reused, and I must acknowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that we are no strangers to controversy. Although the Ministry of Defence is not a regeneration agency, we liaise closely with those who have such responsibilities. Indeed, it is in our interest to take into account local aspirations if only to achieve a timely and efficient disposal.
Upper Heyford is no different from other sites in any of these respects, although it has, as I said earlier, a number of factors which led to our selection of a disposal method which departs from our normal practice. I am confident that the arrangements put in place, which have been the subject of this stimulating debate, are such that the environmental, economic and social possibilities of the site will be both protected and fully utilised, and that the site will be put to uses of great future benefit to the north Oxfordshire area.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.