Lords Sitting of 17 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prison Remands: Number
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent reduction in the number of people remanded in custody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the remand population currently stands at 12,100, compared with an average figure in 1996 of 11,600, 11,400 in 1995, and 12,357 in 1994. As a percentage of the total prison population, however, the remand population has declined from 25 per cent. in 1994, to 22 per cent. in 1995, to 21 per cent. in 1996, to 20 per cent. earlier this year.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am very glad to hear of that percentage decline in the remand population. Can the noble Lord provide some advice on the latest figures in the Home Office statistics for 1995? They show that only 48 per cent. of those remanded in custody were sentenced to immediate custody. Does the noble Lord agree that if the up-to-date figures are anything like those for 1995, the number of people remanded in custody is rather large and could be reduced to the great benefit of the Prison Service?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely pertinent point. Apart from the matters to which he has referred, the keys are at least two. The use of bail in appropriate cases is extremely important and delay is also important. The statistic that the noble Lord has given may not tell the whole story. It is well known that some courts do not sentence convicted defendants to prison, bearing in mind that they have already served a certain amount of time on remand while awaiting sentence. That is not entirely an illuminating figure. However, I agree entirely with the general thrust of the noble Lord's question. The policy of the Home Office is to attempt to reduce the number as well as the percentage of those who are on remand in prison.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether the figures that he has given are for Great Britain or whether he is following what appears to be the normal practice of Home Office Ministers in giving figures simply for England and Wales but without saying so? The Question is not so limited.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I have provided England and Wales figures which I believe has been the custom and convention in your Lordships' House. I meant no disrespect to any person incarcerated in a Scottish prison.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to get a balanced picture of the situation one needs to know the length of time served on remand? Can the Minister give the average length of time which, linked with the numbers, gives the broad picture?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am able to give those figures. During 1996 the average time spent in custody by untried male prisoners was 53 days. That was a reduction from the 1995 average of 56 days. In respect of untried female prisoners, the 1996 figure was 41 days which represents a fall from the previous year's figure of 45 days. Unsentenced convicted males in 1996 spent an average of 34 days in custody—of course, their situation is quite different—and in respect of females, the figure was 31 days. That seems to have been generally consistent as an average since 1992.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, strikes a great echo in my mind? The noble Lord was one of the most notable of the permanent secretaries with whom I was associated in my ministerial career nearly 30 years ago. One of the noble Lord's minor contributions, with his passion for accuracy, was to write, in green ink, in the Answers to Parliamentary Questions, "in England and Wales".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I share the view which is generally held in the Home Office about the quality of the noble Lord's service as permanent secretary. I am always a little cautious about correspondence that I carry on in green ink. It is often underlined in red several times and consigned to an appropriate dustbin.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is my noble friend able to inform the House how many of those currently in custody on remand are women and whether the Government have any preliminary reaction to today's shocking report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons about the women currently in the prison system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in 1996, 55,600 untried males were received into Prison Service establishments. In the same year, 3,340 untried females were received. That represented a rise of 16 per cent. Any rise in female as well as male incarceration is something that should trouble us all, but it is for the courts to deal with offenders or accused in the way they believe is appropriate. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has issued guidance to magistrates about delay and the prudent use of bail. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is concentrating

1077
keenly on the avoidance of the blemishes that might be prevented if bail conditions were more firmly set in appropriate cases.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, the Minister has identified delay as one of the reasons for the increase in the remand population. Can he inform the House whether fast-track proposals for senior offenders are likely to follow on the back of those for juvenile offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree that delay is a blemish on our system. Sometimes it is manipulated by defendants. The Home Secretary has these matters keenly in mind and intends to make an announcement soon. One of the questions under active consideration is the particular conditions of bail. For example, unfortunately, much delay arises because defendants do not consult their lawyers and are therefore able to be provided with a facile excuse for further delay. That matter is being keenly examined at the moment in the Home Office.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, perhaps drawing on his own experience, that there are occasions when the only factor in mitigation is time spent on remand, and that in those cases it would be no kindness for bail to be granted because there would then be no mitigation at all?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, drawing on my own experience, I always used to try for a little better mitigation than that, frequently before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he was sitting as a puisne judge on the Wales and Chester circuit. I did not always succeed. However, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is one that I made earlier. Sometimes, prison is not the ultimate sentencing outcome for the very reason which the noble and learned Lord specified; namely, that a substantial period of imprisonment has already been served. Nevertheless, in our view it is important that bail should be used when it is consistent with public security.

Helms-Burton Act: UK Trade with Cuba
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the arrangements between the European Union and the United States concerning the Helms-Burton Act will be satisfactory for United Kingdom trading interests with Cuba.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are working closely with our EU partners to achieve an outcome to the current negotiations which will prove to be satisfactory not only for the UK's trading interests with Cuba but also more widely.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, what the Minister has said sounds rather general, so is he satisfied that the new arrangements will enable European companies to trade without any impediment whatsoever? Furthermore, have any representations been made in Washington by Her Majesty's ambassador there to the US Government about the general iniquities of this extra-territorial legislation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, neither we nor our predecessors hesitated to condemn the claims for extra-territorial jurisdiction which emerged from this legislation, of which we disapprove very strongly indeed. We believe that the liberalisation of international trade is crucial. We believe that this legislation stands in the way of that objective and we shall use our best endeavours with our European partners and others to ensure that there can be some reasonable measure of satisfaction for our companies, for this country's interests and for European interests by dealing with this in the most effective way. It is interesting that only today President Clinton has ordered a suspension of the law suits under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act for another six months. I think that our representations are having an effect.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what has been the direct effect of the representations that have been made? Have we been making such representations to the Government of Cuba also so that they are aware of how much this country is interested in using trade as a means of achieving development for a country such as Cuba which has a very long way to go to give its people any real standard of living?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness has touched on a very important point. Of course, we have not hesitated to let Cuba know of our interest in this matter but, equally, we have not hesitated to let Cuba know of breaches of human rights in that country which must also be addressed. Some balance must be applied in such matters and we are seeking to do that. I am sure that the noble Baroness, who is well advised and well aware of these points, will appreciate that in seeking to arrive at a sensitive and proper compromise with the United States on this issue we have to apply some degree of delicacy and tact. Equally, we are letting the United States and Cuba know precisely where we stand on these matters.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, on the question of extra-territoriality, may I ask for a similar assurance that the Government have made representations and continue to make representations about the extra-territorial aspects of the D'Amato-Gilman legislation and Iran?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is so, but it is not a novel feature of United States trade policy. When I was last a Minister—a long time ago now—we had problems affecting the aviation and shipping businesses. People in those businesses from the United Kingdom and other places were threatened with criminal

1079
prosecution and triple damages claims. This is not the way to achieve what the United States has proclaimed that it wishes to achieve, which is a proper liberalisation of world trade while ensuring that the competence of the World Trade Organisation's dispute resolution procedures are properly observed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what is the United States position when questioned about other potential aspects of extra-territorial legislation which is being proposed, for example, towards Burma?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is another issue. The question of Burma is very difficult and I do not think that it will be helpful if I embark on a general debate on such matters now. If the noble Viscount wishes to table a Question on Burma in connection with this matter, I should be very happy to answer it.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's responses at the Dispatch Box today, but does he agree that policy towards Cuba should now be based on engagement and dialogue rather than the prohibitive extra-territorial application of the Helms-Burton Act; and, if so, what specific steps (in addition to the welcome steps which the Minister has announced today) does he believe can be taken with his European colleagues?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, obtaining a measure of real unity on this matter with regard to Europe would obviously reinforce our position. We are seeking to achieve agreement on that front. On the question of constructive "engagement and dialogue", to use the noble Lord's term, we are anxious to promote agreement on that basis. It is quite difficult to do so in the light of the Helms-Burton Act, but we shall go on trying.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, am I not right in remembering that when the Helms-Burton Act first came into effect, the European Union (under the leadership of Commissioner Brittan) was all for pressing for extreme results in the World Trade Organisation, but that after President Clinton's softening of the blows by executive action there was a certain retreat in the European Union to see what could be done by negotiation? Is the time coming when it will be necessary to turn up the pressure again to its original level or is it the Government's opinion that the President's recent executive concession will make that still unnecessary?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we shall continue to seek to persuade and influence the United States, and in particular Congress, to adopt a rather different posture on these matters. The President is not in an easy position and I very much welcome his intervention, to which I referred earlier, which was announced only today. That is a constructive move. The trouble is that there is a real difference of opinion within the United States. We shall continue to express our attitude and that of our colleagues in Europe to ensure that the most liberal terms of trade can be applied and that proper trade can be resumed with Cuba.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of any evidence that restrictions on trade with Cuba over the past 30 years or so have had any liberalising effects in South Cuba?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should have to ponder that question and, as it goes back over 30 years to when I was a mere infant, perhaps I had better avoid it today.

Teacher Training Curricula
3.17 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
How and when they intend to introduce the initial teacher training curricula that were approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 26th June.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, as our White Paper, Excellence in Schools, made clear, improving the skills of our new primary teachers in English and mathematics is critical to raising pupil achievement in the key areas of literacy and numeracy and achieving our literacy and numeracy targets. All initial training providers will be required to introduce the new training curricula for all courses from September 1998. I am delighted that a number of major providers have committed themselves to introducing the curricula from this September. Their experiences will set a standard of best practice for the system.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Would she agree that any curriculum is only as good as its delivery, both by those responsible for teaching it and to those who are going to be? And, if so, which body will she be charging with the task of monitoring the ability and willingness of teacher trainers to instruct their trainees, the future teachers, in these new curricula?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, of course, I agree that, if it is to be effective, the curriculum will depend on the way in which it is delivered, who delivers it and how well it is delivered. We have already written to institutions making clear the new requirements that they must meet, and we shall issue a formal departmental circular confirming those requirements.
All training provision will continue to be subject to rigorous inspection by Ofsted, which will ensure that providers meet the new requirements. The White Paper makes clear that firm action will be taken where provision fails to meet the new standards.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as the poor quality of much of our initial teaching training over the past 30 years or so starts to be generally recognised by the public, would the Government reconsider the proposal to allow mothers, whose children have grown up but who in their day achieved good degrees or good

1081
A-levels, to teach in our schools, perhaps after the very briefest of teacher training courses outwith the existing teacher training institutions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that the quality of teacher training has been inadequate for a long time. I must remind your Lordships' House that the noble Lord's party was in government for 18 years and perhaps took rather a long time to rectify some of those problems. The new Government are doing so immediately.
The noble Lord asked a question about the training of mothers who wish to return or take up a job in teaching. It is just as important that women, even if experienced as mothers, should receive proper training to be teachers as it is for any young person who wishes to join the profession.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there are two further dimensions in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord opposite? First, some of the best and most experienced teachers in the land have been bought early out of service in order to solve financial problems which have existed over a number of years. They now provide a pool of people who might well come into service in giving voluntary assistance with, for example, reading problems. But it is highly dangerous to suggest that we might inject into our professional teaching service a group of people who are not subject to the controls and disciplines which exist in the rest of the system.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I share my noble friend's regret that qualified and experienced teachers have been forced into early retirement in some parts of the country as a result of shortage of funding.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's question, it would be extremely desirable if some of those teachers were available to be recruited back into the profession; and if they are not available, that they might do some voluntary work. But of course it is important that all teachers in our schools are trained properly for the job in hand.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's reply and much in the Government's initiatives. However, perhaps I may underline the worries expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, about how those matters will be implemented. Is the noble Baroness prepared to come back to the House in two years' time to report on how successful those initiatives have been? The Ofsted inspections may not be sufficient and may need to be considered in greater detail.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would like to table either a Starred Question or an Unstarred Question or, indeed, a Motion for debate, of course, we should be delighted to answer him.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I admire the elegance of the noble Baroness in many ways, but
1082
this is a serious question which the Minister should be prepared to answer. Surely the Minister is prepared to report on an initiative.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have just given what I hoped was a helpful answer. I said that if the noble Lord wishes at any time to raise the matter of how successful is initial teacher training for primary teachers, particularly with respect to the preparation of teaching English and mathematics, the Government will be delighted to provide all the information that they have available.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, in view of the lengthy article in the Scotsman recently, deploring, to my utter surprise, the present standard of school teaching north of the Border, has she considered commending the new teacher training procedures to her right honourable friend Mr. Dewar?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the noble Lord acknowledges, teacher training is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I shall ask him to write to the noble Lord about the arrangements. However, I am sure that he would permit me to say that, while we do not always go about things in the same way north and south of the Border, there is absolutely no difference in our commitment to raising standards in education.

Leghold Traps: EU Fur Import Ban
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking in the Council of Ministers to secure the implementation of EU Regulation 3254/91 banning the import of furs into the European Union from countries which still sanction the use of the leghold trap.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government remain committed to ending the use of leghold traps. We shall continue to resist adoption of the framework agreement on humane trapping standards because it does not go far enough in banning the use of leghold traps. If the agreement is rejected by the Council of Ministers next week, we shall press the Commission to bring forward the necessary measures to implement the fur import ban as soon as possible.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Yes, of course I welcome that reply as far as it goes. But is it not a fact that at the meeting next Tuesday of the Council of Foreign Ministers our own Foreign Secretary will have an opportunity to vote out that inadequate alleged agreement in relation to allegedly more humane methods of trapping animals by the leg to restrain and kill them? Is the Minister not aware that the Environment Council and the European Parliament previously rejected that framework agreement out of hand? Can we please ask that the British Government

1083
vote boldly at next Tuesday's meeting and that we insist that EU Regulation 3254/91 is implemented without further delay?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The weaknesses in the agreement that is to be considered at the General Council next week is that, far from prohibiting leghold traps, it risks giving an international seal of approval to padded leghold traps and drowning leghold traps. The Government believe strongly that that agreement must not be accepted next week. If no further satisfactory agreement is reached under the terms to which my noble friend referred, the Government believe that there should be an implementation of the ban.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, what confidence do the Government have that a European Union ban will accelerate significantly the phasing out of those traps in view of the fact that non-European markets are also being exploited?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is a difficult area. The Commission has produced a certification system which would require that all fur imports from countries that had implemented the ban were accompanied by an appropriate certificate. It is sometimes difficult to police legislation, but as with domestic legislation, where there is a strong moral case, that must be done.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness enlighten the House as to whether this regulation is to be made by unanimity, in which case, of course, we would have a veto, or whether it is to be made by qualified majority vote? If it is the latter, what hope is she able to hold out of Her Majesty's Government carrying the day?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is always difficult to predict the exact line that a vote will take. We are aware of concerns. Perhaps I ought not to give that information to your Lordships. It is quite clear that if a majority vote is against implementing the agreement and the agreement is not to go ahead, we need to influence people to ensure initially that we seek to achieve a proper agreement with the countries concerned.
I think I did say, "if a majority voted against the agreement". I apologise. I failed to express myself properly. If we fail to achieve a vote against implementing the agreement, obviously we will wish to take the matter further. If we are successful in preventing an agreement going ahead which is unacceptable, we will then have to use the argument that we are prepared to face in detail the issue of the World Trade Organisation being threatened by Canada and—
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that, even if the framework agreement for this allegedly more humane system of trapping were to be approved, it still would not include the United States of America, which has the largest number of sinners in this field of any
1084
country? Therefore, even the Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, would have no grounds then for refusing to operate the import ban against furs coming from the United States. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall ensure that the concerns raised by my noble friend will be borne in mind. It is the case that the USA Federal Government are unwilling to sign the agreement or enter into a legally-binding agreement because of the constitutional difficulties as regards the rights of individual states. However, the concerns raised by my noble friend are, of course, important and ought to apply to the states.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening in the normal course of business. However, I should like to record our gratitude to the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for telling us recently about the date for the beginning of the current Summer Recess. Perhaps I may ask the Lord Privy Seal whether we might not be favoured with a further piece of information as soon as possible, as the end of term is approaching. The piece of information that I believe the House would like to hear is whether the government business managers could give us some indication of the date of our return.
As your Lordships know, this House proceeds by agreement. I hope that the government business managers will agree that the relations between the usual channels since the election have been both constructive and—I hope that they feel as I do—agreeable. In particular, we have ensured, and will continue to ensure, that we deliver Bills within the agreed timetable.
Further, I wonder whether the government business managers will also agree that our ability to help with the smooth running of business depends on more than just good will and mutual esteem, important though those two qualities are. In particular, I hope that they will further agree that it also depends on a legislative programme which is not overloaded and which preserves a balance of substantial Bills beginning in this House as well as in another place. Therefore, I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal will accept that, on this side of the House, we look forward to the business managers in this House being able to persuade their government colleagues of the importance of that balance.
I have to say in particular that the House would not take kindly to being asked to sit on into August this time next year, or indeed to indulge in a long spill-over period, simply because of the Government's failure to plan business adequately. I am sure that this marker is otiose, but I trust that your Lordships would welcome a reassurance from the Lord Privy Seal on the point, so that we are perfectly clear as to the basis of any negotiations which may take place in the coming 12 months.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, one of the interesting aspects about the usual channels, as I always understood them, is the fact that they flow not only in this Chamber but also down the Corridor and back again. Moreover, I always understood the usual channels to be deep and, on the- whole, fairly impenetrable. I am not prepared to see the usual channels being discussed across the Dispatch Boxes of this House without any notice whatever being given to the Government. If the noble Viscount has legitimate points to raise—and he clearly has—naturally, in their usual spirit of conciliation, the Government will do their best to deal with them.
However, with the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, for him to get up and, so to speak, fire a shotgun in a scatter way at the usual channels who were sitting here very peacefully and quietly in total ignorance of the fact that they were about to be aimed at, is, if I may say so, a little strong. As regards keeping the House sitting until August next year, I am reliably informed that the noble Viscount's noble friend Lord Denham once kept the House sitting until August 12th—a date which, no doubt, is of much more importance to that side of the House than it is to my noble friends on this side. I shall do my very best to ensure that this House will have recessed by August 12th next year, so that pursuits which are no doubt keenly followed can be pursued.
So far as concerns the remainder of the noble Viscount's remarks, I should point out that there will be a number of Bills starting in this House. We shall announce those Bills in due course which will be starting their passage in this House. I have great hopes that the Bills which will start in this Chamber will be sufficiently important so that this House will be pleased that they do so. However, I do not intend to start wrangling about the issue again.
As to when the House goes into Recess, we shall be in a position to announce that date shortly. However, I do not believe that I can do so today. I am sorry, I meant to refer to the date when the House returns after the Recess; of course, I appreciate that we all know when we are going down. Indeed, I hope to be in a position shortly to announce when the House comes back in October. Finally, I can only say to the noble Viscount that I hope this is not the way in which the usual channels will be expected to work in the future.

Parliamentary Privilege: Joint Committee
3.37 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships may recall that in a Written Answer on 9th June I told the House that, in the Government's judgment, the time was now ripe for a general review of parliamentary privilege. Three related considerations led us to that conclusion. The first is our declared intention to modernise Parliament, which has already borne fruit in the setting up of the Select Committee in
1086
another place with a wide-ranging remit to recommend reforms of its practices and procedures. As part of the modernisation initiative, it is surely right that there should now be a fundamental reappraisal of the kind of legal immunities which Parliament and its Members should enjoy at the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced proposals for taking forward a general reform of the corruption statutes, which will include clarifying the law on bribery of Members of both Houses of Parliament in their parliamentary capacity. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the considerable implications which this will have for parliamentary privilege need to be examined very carefully before any legislation on the subject is introduced.
Thirdly, as your Lordships are aware, there have been several instances in recent years in which there have been difficulties in marking the frontier between Parliament and the courts. Your Lordships will doubtless recall the debates in this House last year on an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which allowed Members of either House, whose conduct was in issue in defamation cases, to wave the protection of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights if they chose to do so. On that occasion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, called for a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the serious constitutional issues raised by the amendment—a call that was supported by many other noble Lords including, I am glad to say, the then Leader of the Opposition.
That issue—and, of course, others—would fall within the scope of the comprehensive review that the Government now propose. As questions of parliamentary privilege affect both Houses, it is clearly appropriate that any review should be conducted by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Government hope that it might be possible to complete the review by early next year.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in their Message of Thursday last, that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to review parliamentary privilege and to make recommendations thereon.—(Lord Richard.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the whole House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for this announcement in pursuance of his Written Answer of 9th June. We on this side of the House warmly welcome the proposal. If nothing else, the debates on the Defamation Bill in the previous Parliament showed the importance of this procedure. There was clearly a need to examine the workings of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights in the light of developments that have occurred particularly in the latter decades of the past 300 years.
The privileges of Parliament and its Members have become a legitimate subject for debate. Nevertheless, the privilege of Parliament should be dear to all Members of both Houses. It is therefore entirely appropriate that, as both Houses are affected, both

1087
should examine the issue. The Joint Committee of both Houses that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal suggests would seem to be an entirely appropriate mechanism. Having said that, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can tell us whether the Joint Committee's remit will be as broad as possible. Clearly, this is a subject with many ramifications going right to the roots of our system of parliamentary government. I hope that the tradition of committees, particularly of this House, to give riding instructions which are not too specific—if I may put it that way—but which are broad in their effect will be appropriate in this case.
Can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal also assure the House—I am sure he will be able to do so—that there will be adequate representation on the committee from this House, particularly in view of the considerable breadth of experience available here which could give a helpful slant to the committee's deliberations over and above the interests that this House may have compared to another place? Can the noble Lord give any guidance as to the Government's thinking on the chairmanship of the committee? If he is not in a position to do so, I quite accept that this may he a matter to be discussed at a later date.
We on this side of the House greatly welcome the measure. Indeed, it would be odd if we did not, because, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal knows, this was a measure and a proceeding which I strongly advocated during the course of the previous Parliament. It would therefore be perverse to do anything except commend the Government for their action.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are wholly content with what is proposed. We think it appropriate to proceed by means of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I take it that there will be the normal consultation as regards membership from your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has anything to say, not about the name but in what direction he would expect the chairmanship to lie, we shall be interested to hear what he has to say. We remember with a certain ironic amusement the great fuss which was made as regards getting the Defamation Act on to the statute book. That was a classic example of a squib which blew up in a direction that was not intended.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the European dimension of this matter be borne in mind? I venture to address the usual channels on both sides of the House as there is a degree of unanimity on the attitude they take towards such matters. It is clear to a number of people—certainly to me—that the area within which parliamentary privilege operates in both Houses is progressively diminishing with the incursion by the European Commission and others on the undoubted rights and privileges we enjoy in this country. I hope therefore that the European dimension will be taken quite seriously into account by both sides. As an earnest of my good intentions, I offer my services if these are necessary.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I very much welcome the proposal. The essential feature in the
1088
constitution, the Bill of Rights, is now in a state of confusion. As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal says, a particularly serious feature is that the situation now allows the courts and Parliament to come into collision. That has been carefully avoided for the past 150 years. I entirely agree, for the reasons given, that a Joint Select Committee is the appropriate organ now.
I ask two questions. The first concerns the Scottish dimension. Contemporaneously with the English Bill of Rights there was a Scottish claim of rights. Its status is not entirely clear at the moment. Moreover, it is in different terms from the Bill of Rights. The Scottish claim of rights asserts freedom of debate in Parliament but does not, as the English measure does, make proceedings in Parliament inadmissible in a court of law. That is certainly a matter that will require investigation, all the more so in view of current proposals to establish a Scottish parliament.
My question to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is: will the terms of reference be wide enough to embrace the Scottish implications? Even if it is decided finally that it should be a matter for a Scottish parliament, it can hardly be other than an advantage that the matter should be considered by the Joint Select Committee.
My second question relates to another matter to which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal adverted; namely, the Home Office initiative. Last December the Home Office issued a consultative document on the question of bribery of Members of Parliament. As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal indicated, the present Home Secretary has recently taken that up. But surely it would be highly undesirable to have two inquiries going on simultaneously with overlapping terms of reference. I hope that in spite of what I trust is a provisional view the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to assure your Lordships that the Joint Select Committee will now have exclusive cognisance and that the Home Office will hand over any material it has accumulated.
My final point is a personal one. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has disclaimed any credit for what is now proposed. But in fact what is now proposed is what he originally advocated at the time of discussion on the Defamation Bill. He is now a senior member of the Cabinet. I hope that he will allow us to say that we consider ourselves in his debt.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I add my strong welcome for this initiative as someone who participated in the debates in May 1996. It is timely and important. I shall not rehearse the arguments then made and defeated. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal one question about what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to as the European dimension, but in a rather different direction.
In 1991 Mr. Demicoli, a journalist, was fined in Malta by the House of Representatives for describing a Minister as a clown in his satirical periodical. The European Court of Human Rights found that the use of the contempt procedure in Malta by its parliament had breached the European Convention on Human Rights. It left open the important question, which would apply to our Parliament, as to whether the use of the ancient

1089
contempt procedure satisfied the requirements of a fair trial by proper judicial procedure. Will the terms of reference of the Joint Committee be wide enough to encompass our obligations under Article 6 of the convention in that context?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, following the changes to our ancient rights of privilege as Members of Parliament last year as a result of the amendment to the Defamation Bill, I am aware of concern expressed by Commonwealth parliamentarians—many of whose parliamentary systems are based on our own—about the implications of the changes as regards their privileges as members of parliament in their countries. While I am sure that it would not be right for us to defer to any outside considerations in determining any future system of parliamentary privilege for our Parliament in Westminster, perhaps the Joint Committee will bear in mind any knock-on Commonwealth implication. In its deliberations, perhaps it will consult with the Commonwealth regarding those implications.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that my generation of Peers joined your Lordships' House at a time when no one told us anything? I knew nothing then, and I have learnt nothing since.
Will the noble Lord ensure that the committee has a partly didactic purpose so that it can tell some of us what parliamentary privilege is and what privileges we have? I have listened to people talk on the subject for the past decade. None of it has borne any resemblance to the reality that I have experienced. It would be nice to know what parliamentary privilege is so that we can decide whether it is a privilege that we want or one that we need to reform.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that I disclaim paternity for this progeny. It is always a great satisfaction, having expressed one's views, when, purely coincidentally, some months afterwards, other people seem to share those views. Perhaps that is my situation today.
I seek to answer the questions posed. A number of noble Lords referred to the terms of reference of the committee. They will be deliberately wide. The objective of the exercise is to have a general review of parliamentary privilege for many of the reasons that I gave earlier. The terms will be wide enough to cover the two points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sure that the European aspect in both the forms raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester and by my noble friend Lord Bruce will be within the terms of reference of the committee. I am sure that if the committee finds it helpful, it will consider the Commonwealth situation, as called for by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. I am sure that it will have in mind the knock-on effect, if I may so put it, of what occurs here in relation to other legislatures which have based themselves on the Westminster platform.
1090
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. There will indeed be adequate representation from this House. I am not in a position today to give any guidance as to the chairmanship. It is being considered quietly and discreetly, as I think the noble Viscount knows, by the usual channels. When the usual channels reach the stage that they can bring forth, no doubt they will do so.
Finally, perhaps I may say the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I hope that we shall all learn a lot from the committee. It is an important but slightly arcane subject. I hope that the Joint Committee will be able to shed some light on these perhaps not over-illuminated parts of our constitution. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.57 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Transitional arrangements for existing assisted places]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("() in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond. at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have put forward this amendment because it concerns a broken promise. As was said in Committee and at an earlier stage, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers believe that a promise was made on behalf of the party now in government that children should be allowed to remain in their preparatory schools until the age of 13.
Noble Lords opposite argued that it is better for a child to move from primary to secondary school at the age of 11 years. The Minister spoke of the advantages of moving to secondary school at that age as most of the children within the maintained sector move at 11. But surely in the end it is the parents who should make that final decision.
The noble Baroness also spoke of the powers of discretion which the Secretary of State has with regard to 11 to 13 year-olds. I do not doubt her sincerity when she assured the House that these powers would be used sympathetically. However, we on this side of the House maintain that it is for parents to make that decision and not the Secretary of State. We feel that we would be failing in our duty as a revising Chamber if we did not put forward this amendment.
A promise was made, and a promise is now to be broken. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the letter which was sent to the chairman of the Association of

1091
Preparatory Schools, referred to at Second Reading and again in Committee last week. It stated:
"If a child has a place at school which runs to 13, then that place is to be honoured"—
a clear indication by the then Opposition spokesman on education, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle. On 15th May 1997 Mrs. Gillan, the Member for Chesham and Amersham, asked the Secretary of State in another place whether he would confirm,
"that only a few weeks before the general election he allowed the new assisted places to go ahead from 1 September".
In his reply the Secretary of State said:
"The hon. Lady is correct. During the general election campaign, I said that children who have been allocated places will be permitted to take them up. We shall legislate within weeks to ensure that schools do not abuse the licence that was given to them to look after the interests of children by agreeing to places for 1998 or 1999 onwards. The hallmark of this Government will be to put children before dogma. It will be to ensure that the interests of our children come first on every occasion".— [Official Report, Commons, 15/5/97; cols. 182–3.]
If that is not a promise, I do not know what a promise is.
This is a moral issue to which I do not feel the Government have given the full attention it deserves. I hope that the Government, having had time to consider the arguments, will alter their original decision. I do not feel that the moral issue has been addressed properly. A promise was made, and that promise should not be broken. I beg to move the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, this amendment is, word for word, the amendment that I moved a week ago today in Committee. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in supporting me on this issue, said:
"there is scarcely a cigarette paper's difference between the noble Lord and myself".—[Official Report, 10/7/97; col. 784.]
The noble Lord is far better qualified that I am to know the dimensions of a cigarette paper. It may well be that on this particular point our views have converged. However, I feel it necessary to start by saying that, to the extent that they have converged on this particular point, they do so from almost completely opposite directions.
We have consistently opposed the assisted places scheme. We have opposed its extension; indeed, the very recent extension of the scheme which in effect is the subject of this amendment I myself opposed vigorously earlier this year. Almost the last words I spoke in this House before the general election were spoken in very reluctant acceptance of the clause that gave effect to it on the basis that commitments had already been given and we accepted that they had to be honoured.
However, at that time I asked how those commitments could have been given apparently a month before discussion on the Bill that would make provision for such commitments to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has complained several times that he has not received answers to his questions. Neither then, nor since, have I received an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, or any of his colleagues to that particular point.
1092
In Committee I set out the background to this issue fairly fully and set out my views. I do not intend to take the time of the House today in going over the same ground. It would not greatly profit us. I understand, and I think I accept, that the Minister does not wish to see a blanket provision of this nature on the face of the Bill. She has given her reasons—one being fear of possible abuse. I wonder whether in replying she might say rather more about what she has in mind in terms of that abuse. Although it was not the intention, the impression could have been given at Committee stage of a suggestion that all preparatory schools in this position will seek to exploit their position, perhaps against the best interests of the pupils and perhaps without even advising parents of what might be a better option.
As I said then, I accept that in most cases it will be a better option for children transferring to the state sector to do so at age 11 where that is the normal transfer age. However, I stressed last week, and the noble Baroness has just done so again today, that that decision belongs with the parents concerned and not with the Government.
What I sought last week, and seek again, is that what I termed the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter should be honoured—in other words, the Government when exercising their discretion should start with what might be called the presumption of innocence, the presumption in favour of those pupils and parents who find themselves in the position to which the Kilfoyle letter referred. That is what we seek today. The Minister moved some way towards that position last week. If she is able to take a few more steps towards that today, I shall certainly listen with interest. I have absolutely no wish to extend either the life or the operation of this scheme one day longer than is necessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if I may paraphrase Nell Gwyn, I am a Liberal Democrat cigarette paper. It is a well-known principle that changes in educational policy, good or bad, are brought in with respect to commitments to existing students. That is a good and important principle. It is very rarely broken. I recall it being broken once, by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her first week in office. The noble Baroness was persuaded to think better of it. For the first time, and possibly for the last, I urge the Government to follow the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I start by addressing the participation of preparatory schools in the assisted places scheme before turning to address the detail of the amendment before us.
As I explained in Committee, the admission of free-standing preparatory schools into the assisted places scheme formed part of the previous Government's expansion policy. The first phase of the expansion led to the creation of nearly 5,000 new entry places in senior schools, some in integral junior departments for children below the age of 11 with effect from September 1996. But it was only under the second phase of the expansion that preparatory schools were invited to bid to join the scheme.

1093
Some 70 free-standing preparatory schools in England were notified as recently as February 1997 that they would be admitted to the scheme from September 1997. There are already a dozen preparatory schools in Scotland in the scheme, but there are none in Wales. In total, there could be some 400 pupils in preparatory schools which take pupils up to the age of 13 in the scheme from September 1997. I hope that that clarifies the position so far as the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are concerned.
There are at present no pupils yet admitted to nine-to-13 preparatory schools in England and Wales under the scheme. So we are talking about very recent developments, all of which have taken place in the knowledge that the Labour Party's clear policy was firmly established on the phasing out of the scheme.
As I made clear in Committee, when a child in a preparatory school has been given a clear promise that he or she can keep the place through to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government had given such an undertaking, we shall honour that commitment. In Committee, I set out why this commitment is being met through the use of the discretionary power rather than an express provision in the Bill. However, I appreciate that this remains a matter of concern to some noble Lords opposite. Therefore I want to go a little further to address those concerns so that noble Lords opposite will, I hope, feel able to accept that there is nothing between us in substance.
When introducing his amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, sought an assurance that the presumption would be that pupils in preparatory schools would be able to continue with their assisted place through to age 13 if their parents wished them to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also expressed the view that the decision should ultimately rest with parents; and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has just repeated that view. Both those points are helpful to me in dealing with the concerns raised. I hope that I shall now be able to provide the assurances sought.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, cited a number of examples of children who had received assurances that they would be able to keep their place. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, queried whether a commitment given in the light of the letter from Peter Kilfoyle would meet the conditions for the exercise of the discretion. The presumption will be that any parent who has accepted an assisted place running through to age 13 in a free-standing preparatory school on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter will have that place honoured. I can confirm that in such circumstances the commitment will be honoured through the use of the discretionary power.
Noble Lords opposite seem to believe that all preparatory schools will have made offers of places through to the age of 13 on the understanding that these would be honoured. If it can be demonstrated that the offers were made on the strength of the Kilfoyle letter, then, yes, we shall exercise discretion so that those pupils will be able to keep their places through to the age of 13. Our policy will be to accede to applications
1094
for discretion in circumstances such as those, although, of course, we shall still have to examine the facts of each case.
Perhaps I may give the undertaking that noble Lords opposite have sought that there will be a presumption that support will be extended in the circumstances I have just described. Subject to a check of the commitment given to the parents, and provided the parents want the child to continue through to age 13, then we shall provide support through to age 13.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will accept that I am giving him the assurance which he sought in Committee that the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter is being honoured through the use of the discretionary power. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will also accept that.
My difficulty is that I do not share the certainty of noble Lords opposite over the way that commitments have been given. I believe there may well be cases where parents were not given a clear commitment. I know it to be the case that some schools did not make firm offers of assisted places until after the Bill was published. In those cases, schools should only have made offers through to the age of 11. Others may not have made a clear promise of the duration of the place. That is why we want an arrangement where individual cases can be checked.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, pressed me in Committee and has done so again today on the meaning of "open to abuse". We are in agreement that the right age for children to transfer to state secondary schools is 11. That is the sensible solution for parents and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would also accept that that must be right in the vast majority of cases.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly stressed that parents will have a view about whether transfer at a different age would be better, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I am sure that the vast majority of schools will act honourably and seek to do the right thing by the pupils in their charge. But I am afraid that we cannot rule out the possibility that a school—perhaps giving prominence to its own interests—may not ensure that parents consider all the available options. I am not saying that I in any way believe that they would coerce parents; rather that they might not ensure that parents were in a position to take a balanced view about the opportunities available in the state sector and what might be in the child's best interests long term.
For those reasons, we continue to take the view that the use of the discretionary power which allows the details of individual cases to be checked is the right way forward. I hope that in the light of the further assurances that I have given noble Lords opposite—
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. However, before she sits down I wish to thank her for the statement, which has been extremely helpful. Obviously it is for the movers of the amendment to decide what they do next.

1095
But I believe that the assurances that the Minister has given satisfy me and I would not wish to press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the assurances. I hope that, in the light of the further assurances I have given, noble Lords who put the amendment today will accept that our plans address the concerns that they have raised, while also providing a necessary check to ensure that the additional public resources are made available only to honour commitments properly given. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, she mentioned children in schools in Scotland on the assisted places scheme. I am sure that she appreciates that the normal time for children to move to secondary education in Scotland is not 11-plus but 12-plus, so that those children will all be involved. The amendment would apply to them all, it seems to me. Does the Minister therefore feel that the discretion would have to be exercised in Scotland for all those pupils when there is no possibility of any other leaving age for them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I made absolutely clear at the Committee stage that we would exercise the discretion in relation to all those children where the age of transfer from primary to secondary school was higher than the age of 11. If it is the age of 12, of course, we shall exercise our discretion in relation to all those pupils.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at Report stage and only the mover of the amendment has the right to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Baroness's words. I do not wish in any way to suggest that I do not believe that she would honour the commitment she makes. She is an honourable person and I am sure that she would. I also heard and understood what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that he wanted to withdraw his support for the amendment. However, I go back to my original comment: a promise was given and I think that it should be honoured. I do not feel that it has been honoured in the way that it should be. The use is still discretionary, however much and however widely it is looked at. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. A promise was made and a promise is now to be broken. I beg leave to ask the opinion of the House.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Ailsa, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Aldington, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenyon, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Leigh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

McConnell, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridges, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monson, L.

Byford, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cadman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caldecote, V.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Newall, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norton, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Denbigh E

Prior, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Rawlings, B.

Drogheda, E.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandwich, E.

Flather, B.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Strafford, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Geddes, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Terrington, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Teviot, L.

Hampden, V.

Thurlow, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Vivian, L.

Hemphill, L.

Weatherill, L.

Holderness, L.

Westbury, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Ilchester, E.

Windlesham, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Berkeley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blackstone, B.

Annan, L.

Blease, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

1097

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lockwood, B.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Parry, L.

Eatwell, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Gallacher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Graham of Edmonton L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Headfort, M.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Howie of Troon, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Whaddon, L.

Chancellor]

Whitty, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("; or
() in the case of a school which normally provides both primary and secondary education and which has a single school number assigned to it and one participation agreement, on completion of his secondary education at that school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not dwell too much on the detail of the amendment, which was discussed quite considerably in Committee. It concerns schools that make no distinction between their junior and senior sections. They are one school. The staff serve in both schools; the children play in the same school team, belong to the same orchestra and the same choirs and eat in the same dining hall.
In schools of that kind, which are enlarged—the independent day schools of England, mainly the former direct grant schools—the only pupils who would leave that school at age 11 would, under the present Bill, be in the assisted places. Pupils holding assisted places would have to leave at age 11. They would be the only children leaving that school.
Let me point out that, by 1997, there will be only 179 pupils in the category considered by this amendment. The cost to the state of keeping those pupils and not disrupting their education would be around £500,000, diminishing considerably year by year. The cost to the state of those pupils would be approximately the cost of refurbishing the Lord Chancellor's apartments; in other words, a minor cost in the bill of the state.
I accept totally what the noble Baroness said very convincingly at Second Reading. I agree with her that the Government have a different philosophy of education from that which we hold on these Benches. I accept the commitment put in the manifesto and that the Government have every right to implement their philosophy and get rid of assisted places. I do not object to that. In a democratic society, we accept the results of an election.
The purpose of the amendment is this. It is not the fault of those children who entered all-purpose schools that they have been caught in an ideological battlefield. The battlefield is of our making, not theirs. I repeat, Amendment No. 2 does not affect the Government's desire to fulfil their manifesto commitment. The kind of money that will be spent on those children is not large enough to stop the Government from fulfilling their desire to reduce class sizes. The amendment merely asks the Government to show concern for a small number of pupils—179 in 1997 and reducing rapidly over the next few years. That would cost £500,000 at the most and, in the end, one would be using one's power of paying a lump sum because the administrative costs would be more than the cost of supporting those children.
If the Government are not prepared to give ground on this, they will cause considerable disruption to those children. They will drive them out of the schools which their parents chose; they will drive them out as an isolated minority; surely there is room for compromise in that situation. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, when the Minister replies, will he tell me what one does if one has an assisted place at a school, in a category indicated by my noble friend Lord Pilkington, which is of a religious complexion? Where does one obtain a similar religious education if one cannot continue all the way through the programme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, explained that he is seeking to extend the entitlement of primary age assisted place holders at schools that provide both primary and secondary education. The noble Lord's intention is to give all such primary aged assisted place holders the right to hold their places until they complete their education—presumably until the age of 18.
Perhaps I may first set out why we will resist the amendment in principle before moving on to say how it falls technically short of its aims. We are honouring our

1099
commitment to those on the scheme. The vast majority of places are at secondary school. By phasing out the scheme over seven years, secondary age assisted pupils will be able to complete their secondary education through to A-levels.
In practice, the amendment would mean an extension of the assisted places scheme far beyond what is reasonable. Providing primary aged pupils with an assisted place, some as young as five, through to age 18 would mean running the scheme for another 13 years. We never said that we would support primary aged assisted places at all-through schools. The noble Lord is wrong also about his numbers. The amendment would cover around 3,000 pupils in England, Wales and Scotland and the total cost of such provision would be £100 million to fund the education of those 3,000 or so assisted place holders through to age 18.
We have made a commitment to the 3,000 or so primary aged assisted place holders to fund their education through to age 11. That will cost in the region of £30 million. That is a generous and appropriate commitment in the circumstances. We estimate that the effect of the amendment could cost an additional £70 million, which is the difference between the two figures I quoted.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, my figure of 179 was pupils under 11 for 1997. Did the noble Lord's figure relate to that? I said that there would be only 179 children in the scheme after 1997 and all of them under 11. My figure of 3,000 relates to a different statistic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my figure relates to the entrants who came in in 1997 and our estimation is that there are 3,000 primary aged assisted places at all-through schools. Perhaps I may go on to explain why the noble Lord's amendment does not cover all-through schools. However, I want to make the educational point first.
It is not unreasonable to expect primary aged pupils to transfer schools at the age of 11. As we have said, over 500,000 pupils change schools at that age every year, with due allowance to the position in Scotland to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred and to those places in England and Wales which have middle schools.
Why should assisted place pupils be treated differently? We have faith in the state sector and its ability to provide for able pupils. We promised not to disrupt those pupils' education in the long term. Joining their contemporaries at the age of 11 is the best point for those pupils to enter the maintained sector. Pupils come and go from the independent sector for a number of reasons and there is rather more movement in and out of the sector than the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, suggested at Committee stage. I can see no justification for maintaining an assisted place after the point where it is possible to transfer to the state sector and at such considerable cost to the taxpayer.
1100
I turn to the detail of the amendment. I do not believe that it would completely achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, intends. First, it would have the effect of differentiating between those schools that have one participation agreement and one school number, and those that have one participation agreement that covers more than one school. For example, excluded from the amendment would be Malvern College which has one participation agreement that covers the college and its three feeder preparatory schools, but each school is registered with the department under a separate number. Epsom College has one participation agreement that covers both the college and four feeder preparatory schools, all with separate establishment numbers. I could name others.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has spoken previously about St. Paul's School and Norwich School. As I am sure he is aware, they come within the scope of the amendment because each has a single participation agreement and a single establishment number. But schools like the others I cited would not be covered. The amendment discriminates against those schools with one participation agreement and more than one establishment number. It would randomly exclude certain schools and I do not believe that the noble Lord intended that.
Secondly, preparatory schools that take pupils to age 13 provide both primary and secondary education. They have one participation agreement and one establishment number. It would not be possible for an assisted place pupil at a preparatory school to complete his secondary education at a preparatory school that only provides education to age 13. The wording of the amendment relates to completing education. The amendment would therefore create an entitlement that could not be fulfilled.
Perhaps I can come back to the issue of numbers since I possibly introduced a degree of confusion into the matter myself. The 3,000 pupils whom I mentioned are all those in this scheme under the age of 11 in all-through schools who would be able to continue until age 18 if the amendment were agreed to. That is the significant figure with which we should be concerned and that is the cost with which we should be concerned. Therefore, both for reasons of principle and because of the defects of the amendment and the unfairness it would introduce, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not hear him answer my question in relation to people who chose to see their education through to age 18 in a religious establishment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. There are a wide variety of religious schools in the state sector and I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would not be possible for those who leave the assisted places scheme and return to the state sector to obtain religious education.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, perhaps I can enlighten the Minister. Claremont Fan Court School is

1101
a Christian Science school which sees pupils through from eight to 18. Perhaps he can tell me where that exists in the state sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if it does have assisted places then I agree that there could be a problem. In that case I am quite sure that the Secretary of State would use his discretionary powers under the Bill most sympathetically.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I begin with the technicalities which of course are the problem of the Government. If they want to accept the principle of the amendment the Bill could easily be amended on Third Reading.
As to the point raised, Malvern does not fall within my category. The schools are separate. I was thinking definitely of schools which are on the same site, the traditional day schools. The amendment is designed to include them. Malvern has preparatory schools which are geographically separate from the school. I feel content that the amendment would still cover most of the schools with which I am concerned.
We could argue about the figures, but I will not burden the House now. We can perhaps exchange letters. The fact is that the numbers will be very limited as they will decrease throughout. I still feel that it is wrong to move only a small group of children from school at the age of 11 when they have been fully participating in the school. At Malvern they are actually physically away from the school which is not the same position as exists at St. Paul's, Whitgift or Norwich. Compassion is being betrayed in the Bill in the interests of ideology. I feel that the Government could give way without serious burden on their finances. I cannot accept the Government's assurance and I shall therefore ask the opinion of the House.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Davidson, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Attlee, E.

Drogheda, E.

Bowness, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Brentford, V.

Greenway, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Butterfield, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Byford, B.

Holderness, L.

Cadman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

1102

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Sandwich, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Selborne, E.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Tenby, V.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Runcie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jeger, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter. L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Richard. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Donoughue, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Dubs, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Eatwell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Geraint, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Gilbert, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strafford, E.

Grey, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hanworth, V.

Taverne, L.

Hardie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Chancellor.]

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Convergence Criteria: Deficit Assessment
4.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report July 1997.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense this debate is the fault of the Labour Party. The Section 5 amendment to the European Communities Act was put forward by Andrew Smith, MP, from the then Opposition Front Bench. Its purpose was to make clear the importance we attached to a full interpretation of Article 2 of the Maastricht Treaty. Article 2 of the treaty sets out the Community's objectives which include a balanced development of economic activities and sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment. The amendment also strengthens government accountability to Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, the then Lord Advocate, clarified the implications of the amendment. During the Third Reading of the Bill in the Lords, he explained that it requires the Government to secure parliamentary approval of a report under Section 5 before the information can be submitted to the Council or Commission for the purposes of Articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht Treaty. These articles relate to multilateral surveillance and the excessive deficits procedure respectively.
The Financial Statement and Budget Report—the Red Book—published earlier this month provides an appropriate assessment. It describes the Government's tax and spending plans and develops a comprehensive set of policies which meet the broad economic, social and environmental assessment required by Section 5. This framework of new policies begins the task of equipping Britain for our long-term future. Taken together these policies will allow us to tackle the UK economy's fundamental past weaknesses: repeated cycles of boom and bust, inadequate levels of investment and high unemployment.
More specifically, the Chancellor announced policies designed to: improve the underlying rate of growth and employment by creating economic stability and improving the environment for long-term investment; modernise the welfare state so it provides an effective way of supporting people back into work rather than trapping them in poverty; ensure high quality public services are delivered in the most effective way; develop a fair tax system; and ensure that economic development takes place in a way which is consistent with high standards of environmental protection.
In order to create the conditions for economic stability, the Budget contained measures for long-term fiscal stability. This followed the earlier announcement of giving the Bank operational responsibility for setting interest rates, which removed the perception that monetary policy decisions are driven by short-term political factors. The Chancellor has set out clear rules which ensure a historic break from the short-termism and expediency that have characterised the recent fiscal policies of our country. As with our monetary policy, our fiscal policy will be the more credible for being open and accountable.
Ensuring economic stability will create a healthy climate for investment. The Chancellor also announced specific measures to encourage investment in business,
1104
people and infrastructure. For example, corporation tax was cut by 2 per cent. from 1st April 1997 producing generally the lowest small companies' rate in the EU.
By sending information from the Red Book to the Commission and the Council the Government are participating in multilateral surveillance of economic policies and performance across the European Union. This is sensible. Sharing this information helps promote the adoption of sound policies. An excellent example of taking a positive and co-operative approach is the Chancellor's initiative to increase the job creating potential of the European Union's economies: Getting Europe to Work. The Chancellor's action plan for Europe involves the ECOFIN Council focusing on how to use best practice to cut unemployment across the Community. By evaluating new ideas and projects we can learn how best to combat high and unacceptable levels of unemployment in Europe and by playing a proactive role Britain can lead the debate on the economy.
Turning more specifically to Section 5, this approval of the FSBR as the "report" allows us fully to participate in multilateral surveillance. Under this procedure the broad economic guidelines are drawn up each year and adopted by the Council. They facilitate the surveillance procedure by providing a basis from which economic developments in the member states can be monitored. The Government's central economic objective is high and stable levels of growth and employment. This is fully consistent with the 1997 guidelines. They highlight the need to reduce the Community's rate of unemployment and the need to progress towards price stability and sustainable public finances.
The multilateral surveillance procedure also involves member states submitting convergence programmes to the Commission on their medium-term economic objectives. This is another mechanism whereby information on economic performance can be shared and successful economic policies can be promoted. The Stability and Growth Pact, agreed by member states at the Amsterdam European Council in June, sets out more formally the information which member states should submit in their programmes. This agreement demonstrates the importance that the Community attaches to promoting sound economic policies among its members.
Section 5 also allows us to contribute to the excessive deficit procedure. This procedure maintains pressure on European Union member states to adopt sound public finances. We are of course in the happy position of expecting the relevant deficit and debt ratios to be well within the reference values of 3 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. Moreover, as the Red Book makes clear, the Chancellor's deficit reduction plan ensures the sustainability of the fiscal position.
It is important that all member states manage to achieve sound public finances. Stable public finances are a key requirement for long-term economic stability. The Government have made clear in the Red Book that their fiscal policy will be guided by rules which ensure that borrowing is kept under firm control. Without this stability, and the confidence of future stability,

1105
businesses cannot plan effectively for the long term; and the environment to promote investment, productivity and growth is damaged.
I have already talked about the Government's central economic objective and the importance of stability in this respect. However, I also said that economic development needs to take place in a way that is consistent with high standards of environmental protection. We are committed to explore the scope for using the tax system to deliver environmental objectives by increasing the incentives to reduce environmental damage in combination with other mechanisms such as regulation. The Budget began this process by increasing road fuel duties by 6 per cent. in real terms as a means to reduce CO2 emissions. I also spoke of the need to ensure high quality public services and to develop a tax system which is fair and seen to be fair.
We need to target spending in priority areas and ensure public resources are being spent efficiently. Within the unchanged control total, the Chancellor announced an extra £1.2 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for schools, allocated from part of the reserve to meet our priorities in these areas. A comprehensive spending review is also under way. This will examine every item of spending to ensure that it contributes to the Government's objectives as effectively and efficiently as possible.
On taxation, the Government are committed to a system which reflects the principles of fairness, rewarding work and encouraging savings and investment. These principles were set out clearly in the Budget and it was in this context that the Government kept to their commitment to cut the rate of VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.
These policies I have spoken of today are set out in the Red Book and are an essential foundation if Britain's full potential is to be realised.
Turning to Europe, we shall have most influence resolving the economic problems which face Europe if we play our full part in European Union discussions. Sensible policies in the rest of Europe will foster higher European growth and employment and a larger and more buoyant market for the UK's exports. Approving the FSBR, as the report under Section 5 provides, and participating in the EU surveillance procedures is one way in which we can influence Europe's economic agenda in this direction. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report July 1997.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
5 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I have looked at previous debates under this section and they seem to be slightly odd occasions. They are partly a review of economic policy and partly a review of progress under the Maastricht Treaty. But it is a suitable kind of debate for these matters in which there are few speakers and not an overwhelmingly large audience. So I shall be very brief.
1106
As regards the Maastricht criteria, it seems clear that the Government will not fail to meet them. These criteria are the least of their difficulties. They present much greater difficulties for our German and French partners. But the criteria are not the most important factors. They are guidelines but they have acquired a rather spurious symbolic significance because the real question is whether the future members of monetary union can sustain low inflation. If one looks at the prospects for sustaining low inflation, the UK may have slightly greater difficulties.
I find it very hard to assess the Budget judgment. Many people have firm views that it was too mild, that it has not been tough enough or that it has gone too far. Frankly, I do not know. I fear that whatever the Chancellor might have done in the Budget, a great deal of the strain of containing inflation would still have fallen on interest rates. Inevitably in present circumstances that is so. I suspect that we will keep the inflation targets and that we will be able to contain it. Nevertheless, that is one of the crucial factors that needs watching.
Our real problem about joining monetary union is the exchange rate. I am not sure that there is much that one can do about it. However, it is quite clear that whatever one's views are generally about monetary union, we cannot possibly join at an exchange rate of 3 deutschmarks to the pound. Perhaps there is something that we could do: we could announce that we will rejoin the new, much more liberal exchange rate mechanism when it is possible to do so at a central rate of 2.5 deutschmarks to the pound. In effect that means that as soon as the pound has fallen, as in due course it no doubt will, to a relationship of £2,875 to the mark. That will bring us just within the permitted 15 per cent. range, with a central rate of 2.50 marks.
The last thing we can do is to follow the central recommendation of the CBI and declare ourselves at an early stage as being in favour of the principle of joining monetary union—that is if monetary union starts, as I expect it will. I do not know whether it will start on time or not. We suffer from the instability of the pound and from its recent high rise. We would gain enormously from the stability of being in the monetary union. We would probably gain a measure of stability in the period before we join monetary union if we were "pre-ins" and if we were part of the exchange rate mechanism. I cannot firmly forecast, but I suspect that if we announce that that is our intention, it would of itself have a favourable effect on the pound and our exporters might face a rather more attractive prospect than they do at the moment.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in opening this debate in February my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said:
"This is an annual debate. The cast does not seem to vary".—[Official Report, 19/2/97; col. 757.]
It does not seem to be quite a year since 19th February, but the cast has varied and so indeed has the director of the play.

1107
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that this debate is rather a curious affair. Last time it was longer and more complicated than some previous debates because that day there had been what those who were sitting on these Benches saw as a marginal disagreement on the question of the European currency between my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. That gave those who were then in Opposition a good opportunity to make pointed remarks at our expense, and very effectively they did so.
I have been told that this Motion is purely formal. However, my friends in both Houses have failed to see the necessity for this recent emergency Budget. It would seem that Her Majesty's Government's assessment which is contained in the Financial Statement and Budget report can be summed up as, "Aren't we clever. We have got there". Her Majesty's Government can reasonably look at the convergence criteria and appreciate that this country is virtually the only one that has got there.
However, the recurrent theme throughout the report demonstrates that since 1992 or so the economy has gone ever upward. Even this Government are forced to admit that the former Conservative Government left the country in a very strong economic position. That emphasises that the recession of the late 1980s presented many problems but that a remarkable recovery has been effected, particularly in the past year, with consumer spending growth at 3.5 to 4.5 per cent. since last autumn and with an inflation forecast of 2.4 per cent., although that, as the report says rather ominously, may rise temporarily in 1998. In addition, the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement for 1996–97 was £23.1 billion, which is £3.3 billion less than the £26.4 billion forecast, with a PSBR of £4 billion in the first two months of 1997–98 compared with £6.2 billion for the same period last year.
All this comes from the fact that the previous Government left the public finances in good shape, as I have said. The effect of just one factor—higher than expected corporation tax yields from higher profits—cuts an extra £2.1 billion off the PSBR forecast for this year.
The Chancellor prepared the ground for a tax-raising Budget this summer by introducing five new assumptions on which to base his forecasts of the public finances. These assumptions have a direct impact on the Government's forecast of the PSBR, pushing it up by £3.25 billion in 1998–99 and by £4 billion in 1999–2000. These assumptions are at best speculative.
There was of course no financial need for the emergency Budget at all except to demonstrate the way in which the new Government keep their electoral promises. They introduced only 17 new taxes as they did not wish to exceed in one go the figure of 22 new taxes which they accused the Conservatives of bringing in in five years.
But what the Minister has said is true. The Government can go to the European Commission and with confidence give an assurance that their assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position shows that it is healthy. At the same time the
1108
Government must make hay while the sun shines and, mixing my metaphors horribly, while they are still in the honeymoon period. The Government's crest would seem to be best seen as a cloud no bigger than a man's hand. Who, for instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said, is going to welcome this country flirting with a single currency with the franc at 10.20 to the pound and the deutschmark at over three?
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke of a more buoyant export market. He is perhaps an optimist, bearing in mind the figures which manufacturers and exporters already view with dismay. They will pile this Pelion onto the Ossa of increased costs which must arise as a result of the introduction of the Social Chapter. Even now manufacturers can have little confidence in their ability to make their goods cheaply or to sell them when they have made them. Add to this the temporary increased inflation forecast—which may well be more than temporary when these factors are borne in mind—and we have a potential wrecker of the current healthy economy.
Today we can approve the assessment. When we come to the same debate next year it may not be so easy if the Government maintain the fiscal policy that they have introduced in this emergency Budget.
5.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I note that both of them did what I did and referred back to the preceding debate on 19th February of this year. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that not only are the personnel different but that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in winding up the preceding debate said:
"I look forward to a repeat performance with us in exactly the same positions next year".—[Official Report, 19/2/97; col. 771.]
A few things have changed since then.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, one cannot always be right—usually, but not always.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that recognition on the part of the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that although it was originally the Labour Party's idea to have these debates, they started off rather grandly as an overview of economic policy and attitudes towards Europe but they degenerated.
I do not claim to have anything like the expertise of my noble friend Lord Eatwell who participated in the debate earlier this year to such effect. I remind the House—I do not need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, because he knows—that my noble friend was able to expose great differences between Mr. Malcolm Rifkind and Mr. Kenneth Clarke on the very day of the debate about entry into European monetary union. That has been scarcely referred to in this debate, but we are determined that the debate on European monetary union should continue and that it should be intelligent and well informed.

1109
This very day the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech at Chatham House in which he referred to the need to make the right decisions for Britain and to have an open and intelligent debate on the single currency. He said that British business would be affected whether or not Britain joined the first wave. He said that in the context of a very serious report that my noble friend Lord Currie produced for The Economist intelligence unit which goes into the pros and cons of EMU. I commend that report to your Lordships as deserving careful study. It has been republished in summary form by the Treasury. It is now free, compared with the original price of £195—or even £395.
I contrast the view of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be open and intelligent debate with the views of almost all the candidates for the Conservative leadership, notably the successful candidate, Mr. William Hague. He appeared to close down the debate by saying that not only was he against the single currency on principle—which he had said on many occasions—but that as leader he would rule out as his party's policy anything other than to say that it was against EMU. That is not just cutting himself out of the debate; it appears to be cutting his entire party out of the debate. I find that regrettable.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made a number of points about the criteria for EMU and the obstacles in the way of our entry into it. I recognise that these are serious points. He has said that the fiscal criteria are not the most significant factors and that inflation—which I am glad to see he believes is containable—is more important. He is quite right to refer to the exchange rate as a serious problem. I do not believe that he is right to say that we should consider rejoining the exchange rate mechanism, even less committing ourselves in advance to rejoining it at any particular point, whether it is at 2.50 deutschmarks or not. We have never set a target exchange rate, and it would be dangerous to do so.
I recognise that there is a danger in having too high a level of sterling. We recognise the difficulties for industry. But we expect exports and manufacturing output to continue to grow and to benefit from expanding home and overseas markets. That has been the theme of our Budget.
To respond to the particular question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, about entry into the exchange rate mechanism, we look not so much for any particular exchange rate but for price stability and, without prejudice to the objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including targets for growth and employment. We define price stability by an inflation target which the Chancellor confirmed in his Budget, but we do not believe that it is right to adopt a target for the exchange rate itself.
Both noble Lords have done this debate the honour of treating it seriously and I am grateful to them for the points that they made. The Red Book sets out the arrangements that we have made to ensure the financial stability and sound public finances needed to underpin a stronger and more robust economy. The Government have made these long-term commitments to achieve
1110
their central economic objective. That is why they support European Union level procedures which promote these economic policies in other member states. It is in the interests of all member states that the European economies are dynamic and successful. That is why the Government support the procedures in which Section 5 allows them to participate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Birmingham Hospitals
5.17 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government what is the future of the Birmingham hospitals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the future of Birmingham hospitals, a subject shrouded in mystery and accompanied by chaos. I am especially appreciative tonight of the presence of my noble friend Lady Jay who will reply to this debate.
Birmingham is an important city. It has some fine hospitals and an excellent medical school at the university. It also has large-scale deprivation among its citizens which imposes great strains upon hospital services. Undoubtedly, it is not receiving fair and adequate funding to meet its needs. My main concern tonight is that there is no overall strategic authority to direct the thinking and decision making that is vital to the future of the service. There is no meaningful public consultation before decisions are taken, or not taken, and there is little involvement of the general practitioner in what planning there is.
The trust system is failing because there is no such overall authority. Trust competes against trust. The purchasing authority, Birmingham Health Authority, controls the funds but does not have the authority for any hospital development programme. A classic example of all this confusion has recently come to my notice and caused me to initiate this debate. I informed my noble friend of the circumstances. I know that she has made inquiries, which I much appreciate. The document that I obtained was a set of minutes of a meeting held on 19th February this year of the Birmingham Health Authority Consultants' Committee which was attended by Mr. Brian Stoten, chairman of the health authority. These include the statement that Mr. Stoten and his colleagues at the authority would be happy to see one or two hospitals in the whole of Birmingham. The implications of such thinking would be calamitous for the whole of Birmingham. It would mean the closure of several hospitals and the services that they provide for the public. I immediately faxed my concern to Mr. Stoten and to my noble friend. Mr. Stoten responded immediately, saying that he had been misquoted and that he had written

1111
to Mr. David Farrer, the chairman of the consultants' committee, pointing out that what they had been discussing was the need to rationalise scarce medical resources and the concentration required for patient tertiary and secondary care services. Mr. Stoten also sent me a copy of the reply that he had received, dated 9th June this year, from Mr. Farrer, saying that after consulting his notes he agreed that their conclusions were that Birmingham required,
"One or Two Specialist centres with intermediate hospitals and primary care satellite units"—
and that that unfortunately had been transcribed as "one or two hospitals". However, Mr. Farrer went on to say:
"personally, I think that with increasing specialisation and reduction in junior staff hours, there is a high likelihood that only one or two hospitals for Birmingham would be viable for the future".
I fully accept those corrections from Mr. Stoten, but there is no doubt that these breathtaking concepts were discussed at that meeting of consultants in his presence. Such thinking could lead to disastrous consequences for the future of the hospital services in Birmingham and this is being conducted without any public awareness or involvement. I have sought this debate to bring the matter to the attention of Birmingham's citizens and I should also like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the proposals which we know to be under consideration.
There is general consent among my parliamentary colleagues that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, our principal teaching hospital, is in a parlous state and needs to be rebuilt. I would give that a very high priority. However, the trust which controls it also controls Selly Oak Hospital, one of our large and essential district hospitals. The trust wants to demolish both hospitals and to rebuild them as one state-of-the-art hospital. One of the trusts's problems is that it cannot find a site big enough to build such a hospital and provide car parking.
The cost of such an enormous project would be several hundred million pounds. It seems that the trust, the University Hospitals Trust, hopes that the private finance initiative could produce the money. Ministers have properly made it clear that the number of such schemes would be very limited and I cannot conceive that such a gigantic project would ever get off the ground.
I must also make it clear that there would be enormous public opposition to the closure of Selly Oak Hospital, which also includes the recently rebuilt Accident Hospital; nor do I think that any suitable site is available, so it is better to kill off this notion earlier rather than later and concentrate thinking about the rebuilding of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital upon which we can all agree.
The City Hospital which I know very well is also contemplating rebuilding. This would cost another £150 million of private finance money. Having regard to the statement of Ministers, I do not think this has any chance. In this case, I believe it to be unnecessary. City Hospital does magnificent work among the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It needs modernisation; some £50 million would work wonders. But any
1112
thoughts of closure, such as the thinking of the consultants' committee suggests, and which I have raised in this Chamber on a previous occasion, would be met with public outrage.
Ten years ago Sir James Ackers, the then chairman of the regional health authority, declared its policy for Birmingham to be for four district general hospitals—City, Selly Oak, Heartlands, and Good Hope. He was right. The only criteria has to be the service such hospitals provide for the public.
The geographical make-up of Birmingham's population demands these four hospitals. The demands upon their medical and acute beds is overwhelming, as I know from personal experience. In spite of all the day surgery and technological advances, there are no empty beds in those four hospitals. At peak times, there is overflowing and chronic shortage. The Birmingham public will believe that anyone contemplating the closure of any of those four acute hospitals has taken leave of his senses.
In his Budget speech the Chancellor drew attention to the financial savings that can be made by a merger of trust administrations. I believe that one simple authority for Birmingham hospitals could produce such savings and provide the strategical authority the city needs. In its absence some trusts are contemplating a merger of administrations, such as between the City Hospital and Sandwell. This would save money and is understandably probably welcome, provided it is absolutely clear that West Bromwich and Sandwell need their hospital and that the west side of Birmingham needs the City Hospital. I hope that my noble friend can give me concrete assurances upon those considerations.
The trust administrations of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Selly Oak Hospital are already merged, as are those of Heartlands and Solihull. There is no doubt that substantial savings could be made by merging the administrations of City Hospital and Sandwell. So far as Good Hope Hospital is concerned, its natural population extends into Warwickshire and Staffordshire, a population of some 400,000 and growing. There is room for further administrative economy if Good Hope assumed responsibility for the community hospitals of Tamworth and Lichfield which would be a sensible development.
At the moment we have 11 trusts in Birmingham, which shows the expensive nonsense which my noble friends have inherited. These have to be drastically reduced. As I have indicated, I prefer one single strategic authority for Birmingham with four centres of management based on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the four general hospitals.
Finally, this leads to the one and only priority consideration: how can our hospitals best serve the needs and the convenience of the Birmingham public? There is not much support for the concept of a mega-hospital, even if enough land and financial resources were available, which they are not, so we need to rationalise our hospital services at the acute general hospitals that we now have established.
An example of what can be achieved can be seen from the astonishing figures that I have been given this week for the Heartlands and Solihull Hospitals, which are now administered by one trust. Solihull Hospital is now taking 23,000 more patients than a year ago. Heartlands is up by 55,000. Incidentally, their accident and emergency admissions are up 12 per cent. Last week when I inquired—mid-summer—they had the same patient load as they normally expect in mid-winter. The other Birmingham hospitals are subject to similar pressures. Every bed is full, illustrating the absurdity of any further district hospital closures.
City Hospital and Sandwell have scope for some very sensible rationalisation, especially in the departments of vascular surgery and cardiology.
Birmingham has some great strengths which need to be built upon. These are high quality hospitals, an excellent university and a fine medical school which must be urgently expanded. Sadly, as I stated, the main teaching hospital is totally sub-standard and must be rebuilt.
An example of the world standard research being undertaken at the university, about which I have personal knowledge, is the Institute of Cancer Research which now has a staff of seven professors and 200 researchers in residence. Professors David Kerr and Alan Rickinson are working as a team to develop new cancer treatments from an understanding of the science underlying causes of cancer. They are leading the world in terms of gene therapy, using viruses to treat cancer.
Birmingham has the largest liver transplant team in Europe, led by Professor Paul McMaster, and is considered an international centre of excellence. Birmingham is also developing a team for neuroscience, bringing together surgeons, physicians and scientists to combat neurological illness.
In fact, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is a referral pathway, not just for Birmingham but for the region and the country. Its standard of excellence cannot be tied to just one district general hospital. That hospital, Selly Oak, should have the same relationship with it as do the Heartlands, the City, Good Hope and other hospitals in the region.
Birmingham requires leadership—a strategic authority to make and implement decisions. I know that health action zones—I hope I have their title right—are being created to deal with such situations. I ask my noble friend whether we can please have one created for Birmingham. As a leading administrator said to me very recently—this week in fact—Birmingham has spent so long arguing about what should be done that nothing has been done. It is time for a change, which is why my noble friend sits on the Front Bench carrying all our hopes and good will.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very pleased I am to be in the Chamber this evening, not least to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Your Lordships will be aware of the immense contribution which the noble Lord has made as a
1114
distinguished and effective Member of Her Majesty's Government. If my memory serves me right, he was given the unenviable position as Minister for the elements and to the joy of the general public, he only had to say, "Let there be rain", and there was, and there was an end to the drought; and when we were heavily snowbound, he only had to say, "Let there be a thaw", and there was. As someone who comes from a farming community, I have to say that we were greatly indebted.
But more seriously, the noble Lord did and continues to do an immense amount of good in promoting sport. Locally, he has probably done more than almost any other individual to promote Birmingham. Marrying those two together, I think I can say that the vast majority of us shared his acute disappointment when his sophisticated and energetic bid for the Olympic Games suddenly failed. This evening, in his customary forthright manner, we have heard in this debate his determination that the NHS in its turn should not fail his proud city and its people.
On 6th December 1994 we had a debate with a very similar title, but the situation today is not the same; it is altogether different. In that debate, your Lordships recognised the recent, very unhappy past of the South Birmingham Health Authority and its unresolved deficits. We also recognise the interest and investigation undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee and the department's reply. But that was in 1994 and so much has happened since then.
At one time there used to be five health authorities for Birmingham guided and steered by a regional health authority. The regional health authority was abolished and the five authorities reduced to one. The new, or rather newish, Birmingham Health Authority, is the largest in England and its purpose, among other things is to give strategic direction in consultation with the local people.
It also has a duty to live within its means, and I should like to congratulate it on achieving that. That is no mean feat when there have been so many changes with which to contend and it had to start its work from such crumbling foundations. It had to eradicate a £23 million deficit in three years. That is a huge achievement and I believe that there are lessons here for other large cities in the United Kingdom.
However, Birmingham has not achieved all this by standing still. On the contrary, it has taken some brave decisions, not least in moving the children's services into the old general hospital. Before long these paediatric services will be in place, at a cost of £25 million, and will be in a position to lead the country. Even the great and marvellous Great Ormond Street hospital, with which I know the Minister's mother was closely involved over many years, will need to look out.
The excellence of some of the other clinical services is also unquestioned. The noble Lord has mentioned some of those. The liver, renal and cardiac services have not only a national but an international reputation, and that is without going into the many areas of research and development, for which Birmingham is world famed, and again the noble Lord has mentioned that this

1115
evening. If anyone has any doubts about the delivery of service, then the recent publication of the performance league tables can leave them in no doubt. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, whose very life has been gripped by league tables, must have been thrilled to read the headline in the Birmingham Post: "Best Hospitals in England".
I recognise the noble Lord's fears for the City Hospital. I do not know the detail of the next strategy about to be published, but I would be surprised if, for example, the available places for training medical students, which we know are very important in keeping up standards, were to be reduced. There is a 500 increase in the planned numbers of medical students and they will need clinical experience. Where better to have that than in the City Hospital in Solihull and other local hospitals, albeit the nature of some of the clinical specialist and other services will be changing. That is right and proper if we are to meet the ever-increasing demands of the population and the new developments in technical medical advances.
In our heart of hearts most of us resent change, and never more so than when it is a local and much loved hospital which in our eyes is providing a first-class service. But some changes are inevitable. The merger of the Solihull and Heartlands Hospitals is a case in point. Indeed, it was where the Royal Colleges felt unable to accredit for teaching purposes unless there was a better quality of clinical experience for the medical students.
But mergers do not necessarily mean demolition. I should be very surprised if there were a suggestion that Solihull, with its spanking new A and E department were to be demolished. No doubt the Minister will be able to reassure us about that this evening.
I believe also that there is a limit to the numbers of tertiary centres which can be sustained if we are to maintain or, indeed, improve the quality of care which today is complex, sophisticated and enormously successful. With a population which increasingly seeks redress through the courts, care must be given to ensure that health professionals have the equipment, access to diagnostic testing and access to the skills and expertise among other areas which we know they need in order to provide a first-class service. But we cannot begin to provide everything for everyone in every hospital.
Tonight the noble Lord made a plea for a single strategic authority. A week or so ago, I think, I heard him suggest that Birmingham needs an exercise similar to that performed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson for London or an expert panel similar to the one just set up by the Government under the leadership of the distinguished former president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Leslie Turnberg.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness is dealing with this matter. But I made no suggestion that Birmingham should have anything comparable with the Tomlinson Report. It may need it but I doubt it. I certainly have not suggested it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I stand corrected. I have misunderstood the noble Lord. It was a debate on a Starred Question which we had about 10 days ago. However, I shall have to re-read Hansard.
I am grateful that the noble Lord does not believe that we need something similar to London. I believe that we already have a strategic authority in place in Birmingham. When we look back to the regional health authorities and their abolition, a few of their functions were transferred to the centre but many more were transferred to the new health authorities. Of course, Birmingham, which has a single health authority—indeed, the largest in England—has shown that it does have a grasp, a management grip, to provide not only the ability to control finances but also to procure some first-class services and also to encourage education and research. It has the capability to provide a strategic approach.
If we look back to the history of Birmingham, it will be seen that in the 1980s we had a strategy entitled, "Building a Healthy Birmingham" and that, in the 1990s, it was "Looking Forward" and later, "Moving Ahead". We look forward in the autumn to seeing another strategic document. I am sure that it is necessary because it is being done, but I hope that it is the last one for some time because I believe that the health service has earned itself a reputation of suffering paralysis by analysis. I fear that this may be another case in point, if we go on just providing strategies rather than action.
Finally, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I am aware that he is the recipient of the Olympic Order. I hope that he, in turn, will be able to award a similar distinction to the health services in the proud city of Birmingham, for, although they probably have more work to do, I do believe that they are probably Olympic winners.
5.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to reply to my noble friend's Question about the future of the Birmingham hospitals. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her contribution to the debate which was of course extremely authoritative. As so often, my noble friend has drawn attention to a major issue in this important city which he has represented so ably in both Houses of Parliament over many years. I should like to thank him in this context for his courtesy in discussing the debate with me and letting me know what points he planned to raise.
Naturally I share my noble friend's frustration about the recent lack of strategy in organising and developing healthcare. That has been one of the most destructive outcomes of the National Health Service internal market and is one of the main reasons why this Government will replace it. It has led to the kinds of local administrative excesses which my noble friend vividly described in Birmingham and in many other places.
Birmingham has, nonetheless, a well-deserved reputation for improving its health services, as the noble Baroness described, and has a reputation for outstanding

1117
medical science. My noble friend rightly mentioned some of the distinguished people who have contributed to that reputation. In the past few weeks, I have had the personal benefit of some extremely useful advice from people like Professor David Kerr, who has been enormously helpful in the Government's new initiatives on cancer.
Today in Birmingham the health authority and the health service managers are also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, described, achieving good results after a very rocky period—results which have been achieved by some innovative action. Birmingham now enjoys some of the lowest waiting times for operations in any city in the country. At University Hospital, which is the largest hospital in the region, no patients have been on the waiting-list for treatment for longer than nine months. I am sure that my noble friend is extremely pleased to acknowledge that performance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned the impressive performance on the basis of the standards of the league tables, the most recent of which were published just last week. As noble Lords will know, the Government have been critical of the limitations of those league tables and we shall in future introduce measurements of clinical quality, as well as financial and management targets, into the assessments of NHS performance because we feel that they are more relevant to most of the people who use health services. Nonetheless, I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate Birmingham's hospitals on the great improvement in local standards on the performance measurements which the league tables, as they stand at present, show.
In looking at the particular circumstances of individual hospitals, perhaps I may just recap on the present position. As my noble friend explained and as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, there are four general hospital trusts in Birmingham; namely, City Hospital in Dudley Road, Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital in the east of the city (which is merged with Solihull Hospital) and University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust (which combines the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth Hospitals). There are also four specialist hospitals: Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham Dental Hospital, Birmingham Women's Hospital and the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital. As well as serving Britain's second city, Birmingham's hospitals are indeed a centre of excellence for the whole of the West Midlands region.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned, the most recent organisational plan for Birmingham was published three years ago. It recognised the rapid advances in medicine, such as day case surgery, and new technologies which allow patients to leave hospital more quickly after treatment. But that plan confirmed the need for all of these hospitals, while recommending changes in the pattern of services that they offer. As we know, medical techniques continue to develop year on year, and that plan set in train a series of discussions
1118
about the development of individual clinical specialties. Birmingham Health Authority needs to take that into account in planning its services of the future.
On an earlier occasion—and I believe that this was the one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was referring—my noble friend raised the question of a fresh look at the overall picture of service provision. At that time, in response to an oral question, I did say to my noble friend that obviously the Government will be looking closely at the outcomes of the short-term review of London hospitals that Professor Lesley Turnburg and his expert colleagues are conducting this summer. It was that form of inquiry which I believe my noble friend was anxious to see replicated in Birmingham.
I am happy to confirm today that if we do feel that that is a successful method of reviewing services, it could well be used in developing a strategic approach in other places like Birmingham. I should like to take this opportunity to take note of my noble friend's suggestion about Birmingham becoming a health action zone. That is certainly an idea that I shall take back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Apart from the distribution of services, the other issue which needs to be faced in Birmingham—and again both speakers referred to this—is the physical state of the hospitals. I am sure that I do not need to elaborate on this to my noble friend, but Birmingham hospitals still have many buildings which are in a very poor condition or unsuitable for modern clinical practice and the situation needs remedying. In recent years Birmingham has reduced the number of small outdated hospitals and concentrated services on the four acute trusts that I mentioned. I am sure that my noble friend is familiar with this, but the old Midland Eye Hospital and Birmingham's skin hospitals have closed, with the services being transferred to City Hospital. Moreover, there have been some new buildings on other Birmingham hospital sites. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to some of them.
Those changes have clearly led to improvements; for example, in the upgraded accident and emergency facilities to which the noble Baroness referred. Next spring will see the transfer of Birmingham Children's Hospital to the substantially refurbished General Hospital site in the city centre. Another example is the concentration of cancer services at a centre of excellence at the Queen Elizabeth site of University Hospital, which will enable full advantage to be taken of the collaborative research facilities at the university.
However, despite this and other investments which have taken place, it is striking—and I am sure that my noble friend knows this very well—that the newest of Birmingham's major hospitals actually opened before the last war. My noble friend will indeed know better than I do that investment in Birmingham hospitals is needed, for, as my noble friend and I agree firmly, there needs to be a proper strategic context to plan such investments.
Birmingham is faced with having to meet the constantly changing challenges of medical science in buildings which are often old and in need of heavy maintenance. Consequently, Birmingham Health

1119
Authority is now seeking views from all stakeholders in the various communities and health services in the city about how it can improve access to services and improve the quality of such services. The health authority wishes to use the process to help it to plan the future direction of hospitals and indeed of hospital development.
I know that that is the main point of my noble friend's concern. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there really is no predetermined view of how those services will change. Bryan Stoten, the chairman of the health authority, to whom my noble friend referred, has said that his authority is committed to working collaboratively to plan strategic change in Birmingham. I know that my noble friend has been worried that Mr. Stoten has a secret agenda for change and, as he said in his speech, that he may have been conducting planning meetings behind closed doors. I reassure my noble friend that I have personally spoken to Mr. Stoten about this matter on several occasions, most recently yesterday evening. I am convinced that he intends there to be an open discussion about the future. There seems to have been some genuine confusion about the status and the content of the meeting in February to which my noble friend referred.
I also wish to emphasise to my noble friend the Government's overall determination to improve openness in the National Health Service. We feel strongly that there must be transparency about decision-making in this vast public service, and proper public consultation, before decisions are finalised. I hope that my noble friend will have been encouraged by the recent announcement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that in future hospital trusts must hold their meetings in public. This is an important change which, I hope he will accept, supports our aim of general openness.
I refer to a few of the proposals in Birmingham which are known and already in the public domain. The noble Lord will know that University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust announced last autumn a series of interdisciplinary clinical service reviews across the trust. In the interim report about six months ago the doctors came out strongly in favour of combining the services
1120
of Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals on one site. At the same time City Hospital has begun work on its own site development plan, with a focus on the services required by the people of Birmingham in the next century. Unfortunately, this work was not at a sufficiently advanced stage to have been included in the recent strategic review of PFI schemes undertaken by the Government.
I recognise, of course, that the noble Lord has a particular personal interest in the proposed modernisation of City Hospital, having long been a good friend and a champion of the hospital. I thank him for raising those anxieties here. I look forward to visiting City Hospital again at the beginning of September and seeing the situation for myself. I believe that the eventual reprovision of City Hospital should result in an enhanced service for the residents of Birmingham, taking advantage of improvements in day surgery and shorter lengths of stay. It is too early to answer some of the specific points, for example, how many beds will be required at the new hospital, and how working practices may change. That will be clear only when plans have progressed further, but I can assure my noble friend that the future of City Hospital will be subject to full public discussion and consultation. As a start, my honourable friend in another place, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Mr. Milburn, is meeting Members of Parliament from Birmingham before the end of this parliamentary Session to discuss these questions and the next stage of the plans.
Everyone with an interest in seeing improved healthcare in Birmingham, including local residents—I stress that—will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Any final decision on the future size and shape of the new City Hospital and University Hospital in Birmingham and the other two acute trusts will take careful note of the responses during the consultations and the work currently under way in the trusts. I am sure that my noble friend will continue to contribute vigorously to the discussions and to the consultations. I again thank him for raising these issues in your Lordships' House.
House adjourned at eight minutes before six o'clock.