Sitting of 7 December 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To he Read a Second time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  Wales

    District Health Authorities (Capital Allocations)
    Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary pf state for Wales if he will make it his policy for the capital allocations to district health authorities to be assessed separately from the regional requirements of the total capital allocation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): It is already my policy to do so.
    Mr. Raffan: As my hon. Friend is aware, under the regional review of December 1986 the capital resource assumptions for Clwyd health authority were reduced by approximately £10 million over 10 years. Does he agree that investment in the capital programmes of health authorities such as Clwyd — particularly increased investment—would enable them greatly to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their hospitals, thus enabling them to provide a better service at less cost? Will he therefore make more money, not less, available to Clwyd so that schemes such as that for a Hollywell community hospital can be brought forward?
    Mr. Grist: To some extent, my hon. Friend makes an obvious point. The other point is that health authorities should try to use their allocations as effectively as possible. I notice that in the current year Clwyd's capital allocation rose by 14 per cent. That is the sort of funding that enables the authority to give good service to its people.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that hospital closures are scheduled in Gwynedd such as those in Porthmedog and Llangefni—where new capital programmes had been promised but are not going ahead, yet the closures that were to make way for the capital programme are taking place? Is not that ridiculous, and cannot more capital be found to ensure that new hospitals are built instead of others being closed?
    Mr. Grist: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot comment on the proposals that will be coming forward from the health authority, because of the quasi-judicial

    3
    position of my right hon. Friend. Over recent years Gwynedd health authority has been the best funded, both in capital and current terms.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that adequate capital allocation will enable money-saving schemes, such as the concentration of services at Glan Clwyd hospital, to take place, whereas under Labour there were savage cuts in the capital allocations, which probably resulted in increased expenditure on current account?
    Mr. Grist: Indeed, that is what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said. He is one of the few who remember that. I certainly remember the fall in expenditure. In one year alone, real expenditure on capital on the Health Service in Wales fell by 33 per cent.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, too, that there are individual black spots, such as the Royal Gwent hospital at Newport, which has a massive waiting list that includes one of my constituents, Mr. Mark Williams of Rogiet? He is 77 years of age and has been waiting for the past 12 months for an operation on both his knees. Now he has been told that he must wait for a further 21 months. Yet at the same time the Minister goes around the country saying that by next April people will not have to wait longer than 12 months to get into hospital. Why does he go around making those false claims?
    Mr. Grist: It is worth pointing out that the Gwent health authority has been funded since 1984–85 for capital by an increase of 145 per cent. It is up to the authority how it operates its finances. For instance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are many ways in which it could raise funds, but it has so far obdurately refused to to so.

    Hospitals and Health Services
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy that no final decision will be made on future hospital and health service provision in South Glamorgan and other Welsh health authority areas, pending the outcome of the consultative processes currently in progress; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: It is already the policy of my right hon. Friend not to make a final decision on proposals for future Health Service provision that are referred to him until the relevant consultation process is complete.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister will be aware of the excellence of the Royal Hamadryad hospital in my constituency, and of the fact that it appears on the consultative document very close to the beginning of the 10-year period, as does the children's ENT hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the position of those hospitals will not be prejudiced and that no decisions in line with the policy that he has outlined will be taken until the consultative process is over? Will he reassure people who are worried that it comes so close to the beginning of the consultative process that that is the case?
    Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm that no decision has been taken about the district hospital in the docks area which at the moment is blighting the only area of factory land available in the city?
    Mr. Grist: I can certainly confirm that no decision will be taken until the conclusion of the consultative process. That is what I have said before. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about hospitals in his constituency and in other constituencies.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that the Sully hospital building is among the best hospital buildings in the South Glamorgan area? Apparently the health authority has no further use for that hospital in the National Health Service. Will he look closely at this matter, because this is a splendid building which is admirably sited and has plenty of land? Surely it is highly desirable.
    Mr. Grist: I can only repeat to my hon. Friend exactly what I have said up to this point, but I can add that his support over many years for Sully hospital has been widely noted.
    Mr. Livsey: With regard to Health Service provision, will the Minister seek to ease the financial situation facing low-paid ancillary workers in the National Health Service? Will he also look at the financial position of medical laboratory scientific officers, who are making a substantial contribution to the well-being of the National Health Service? In my constituency some Health Service ancillary workers are paid £60 a week. That is less than half the £135 per week that is the European Community poverty level wage.
    Mr. Grist: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. These matters are generally decided at national level. Some people might wish that it were otherwise, but that is the position and all that I can do is to take note of what the hon. Gentleman says has said.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Can my hon. Friend confirm that as part of the consultation procedures he will discuss with the health authorities in Wales the present poor record of putting services out to tender, compared with the position in the English regions?
    Mr. Grist: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. We are looking for a greatly improved procedure in the coming year and we have been promised that by health authority chairmen.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Has the Minister seen the representations made today to the Government by the three royal colleges of medicine that acute hospital services have almost reached breaking point? Is he also aware of an article in the British Medical Journal of 21 November by Russell Hopkin, the unit general manager at University hospital, Cardiff, saying that we face a similar crisis in Wales? In this context of an impending breakdown crisis, is it not incredible that there is a standing Welsh Office instruction to Welsh health authorities to try to save an extra 0·5 per cent. every year on spending in this very area of acute services?
    Mr. Grist: It takes the biscuit to have the right hon. Gentleman lecture us. He was a Minister in the Government who saw spending on hospitals fall.
    Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Grist: The right hon. Gentleman saw pay cut by over 20 per cent., and saw the pay of consultants cut.

    5
    When he left government he left the Health Service in uproar, and that is why we have been in government for the last nine years.

    Redundancies
    Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many redundancies have been notified to his Department, to take place in (a) Neath, (b) west Glamorgan and (c) Wales during the last four weeks.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The numbers of confirmed redundancies in Neath, west Glamorgan, and Wales during the calendar month of October — the latest available — were 32, 74 and 239 respectively.
    Mr. Coleman: Does that answer not show that the euphoria of Conservative Members is somewhat premature? Are not the redundancies that are taking place full-time jobs, whereas any gains that we hear about are part-time jobs? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the redundancies that are taking place will appear in the unemployment statistics or will they disappear as a result of the Government's sleight of hand in these matters?
    Mr. Walker: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters and I am delighted to inform him that redundancies in Wales for the first nine months of this year were the lowest for many years. They were two thirds down on last year, and massively down on 1977, 1978 and 1979.

    Water Quality
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the two European Economic Community directives on water quality to be complied with in full in Wales, including the ending of all derogations currently granted by the Commission.
    Mr. Grist: In respect of directive 80/778/EEC on water for human consumption, the Welsh water authority has in hand a programme of remedial works. As a result, the need for the 17 derogations and 22 delays, advised to the Commission under articles 9 and 20 respectively, should be removed by 1992 at the latest. In respect of directive 76/160/EEC on quality of bathing waters, the Welsh water authority programme of remedial works is scheduled for completion in the next 15 years, as I indicated in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 26 October.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister comment on the article that appeared in The Observer yesterday saying that there was to be a crash programme on the quality of drinking water, and will he say how that will affect the current programme of the Welsh water authority? Secondly, will he comment on the answer given to an oral question that I asked in the European Parliament last month, a copy of which I gave him today, which said that the Commission was concerned about the poor quality of bathing water in the United Kingdom, that it was pursuing a number of cases in the European Court of Justice against the British Government, and that it would not be satisfied with a 15-year delay? That being so, it is likely that the investment programme will have to be speeded up considerably.
    Mr. Grist: I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the answer that he was given in Europe, which he very
    6
    kindly gave me at the start of Question Time. I cannot comment on it, except to say that the Welsh water authority is aware of the position. The programme on drinking water is, as I said, very well advanced.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Is the Minister aware that we are all concerned about the quality of water? Did he listen to Radio One today to hear about the pollution of the Llynfi and Ogmore rivers in my constituency, where many salmon, sewin and trout have been washed up on to the banks of the river and children are picking up the fish and taking them home? What will the Minister do to ensure that everyone in my constituency and in other areas such as Bridgend and Porthcawl are informed that there is pollution in the Rivers Llynfi and Ogmore, going down to the sea at Porthcawl? What action will he take to ensure that this does not happen again?
    Mr. Grist: This is an extremely serious matter, and I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. My officials are in contact with the Welsh water authority, which is responsible for doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman requires. The message about the pollution was flashed up on television stations last night immediately the position was known.
    Sir Raymond Gower: When my hon. Friend looks at the matter, will he consider the fact that, whereas the European Commission appeared rightly to have given a good deal of emphasis to the effects of sewage deposits in the sea, possibly not enough emphasis was put on the massive pollution caused by great rivers such as the Rhine, which deposits much refuse in the North sea?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend may be right, but that does not come within the remit of the Welsh Office.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that if the Government take tourism seriously they must do more to clean up beaches in Wales? The present position is absolutely disgraceful. How does the hon. Gentleman see privatisation having any beneficial effect?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that it is proposed to spend £200 million within 15 years, and some £70 million will be spent on the 47 original waters listed; so a great deal of money will be expended on the cause he espouses.
    Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend the Minister made any estimate, or told the water-consuming public, of the potential cost of these measures? Is he satisfied that the measures are realistic and reasonable? Has he satisfied himself, following the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower), about how far other members of the Community will take equal or more rapid steps towards meeting the same standards?
    Mr. Grist: I am not in a position to answer that rather wide-ranging supplementary question. We endeavour to make people aware of the costs of works done on their behalf, not least through Question Time.

    British Coal
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he discussed.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have spoken recently to the deputy chairman of British Coal and the director of the south Wales coalfield on a range of matters affecting the coal industry in Wales.
    Mrs. Clwyd: What measures does the Secretary of State intend to take to protect south Wales pits and the supplies from them to the Central Electricity Generating Board and British Steel markets in the event of both organisations being privatised?
    Mr. Walker: The announcement of the privatisation of British Steel is good news for the coal industry in Wales. There is no doubt that the two steelworks in question in south Wales are the strongest and most modern in the region, and with all the advantages of commercial freedom in future they are the most likely to be the beneficiaries of substantial investment. I think that this is good news for the coal industry. It will be good news if the negotiations on six-day production succeed and there is investment at Margam.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Secretary of State aware of the proposals by the Opencast Executive in my constituency that are creating disquiet and unease among residents, especially those at Cheapside, Liverpool road? Will the right hon. Gentleman or another Welsh Office Minister visit the area to meet the residents and hear their worries? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that good agricultural land is at risk and that residents fear for nearby amenities?
    Mr. Walker: In former capacities I have become well aware that there is anxiety wherever opencast mining takes place. It must be recognised that opencast mining is an important part of the Welsh coal industry as a whole and makes an exceedingly important contribution to its success.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate British Coal on the new £50 million surface drift mine at Point of Ayr in my constituency, which will enable output to increase by 30 per cent. to 600,000 tonnes a year? In only five weeks the new mine has resulted in an increase in output per man shift from 2·8 tonnes to 3·8 tonnes.
    Mr. Walker: Yes. There are many other examples of substantially increased productivity. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should reflect that since March 1985, £100 million has been invested in the Welsh coal industry.

    Unemployment
    Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has carried out any research into the effects of unemployment upon the health of the people of the Principality.
    Mr. Grist: No, Sir.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that many in the Principality believe that he and his Government bear a direct and heavy responsibility for increased ill health as a result of unemployment and the increased number of suicides during the years that the Conservative Administration have been in power? Does the Minister recall that Mr. Mark Robinson, who occupied his position prior to the 1987 general election, said on 20 January 1986
    8
    that he did not believe that there was any link between unemployment and ill health? Does the Minister agree with that?
    Mr. Grist: There is no known causal connection between the two. Figures show quite clearly, however, that in the area of our society that is most prone to unemployment—socio-economic group five—there is the heaviest toll of ill health. That applies, however, whether individuals are employed or not. There is a serious problem in making the connection that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make. The aim and drift of our policies—for example, the valleys initiative, the reform of primary health care and the community nursing review—are directed at trying to correct the imbalance which we inherited, and which has existed for a long time in health services in some of the more deprived areas of Wales.
    Mr. Butler: Has life expectancy increased since 1979 in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: We certainly have many more old people. I must admit that my hon. Friend has taken me by surprise statistically.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: The relationship may be difficult to assess, but will the Minister consider the position at Merthyr Tydfil, for example, where one in five of the population have been in hospital during the past three months? There have been 7,000 admissions over the past year and 10,000 people have been treated as out-patients. Only 10 days ago Hoover advertised 16 temporary vacancies and 150 queued overnight in the street for application forms. Does that not illustrate a catalogue of neglect on the part of the Government?
    Mr. Grist: The very fact that Hoover has survived and prospered shows quite the reverse. The quality of the health services available to the people of Merthyr, including the Prince Charles hospital and all its facilities — the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) knows that I visited it the other day and saw for myself that it is a marvellous hospital—shows how much we care for Merthyr and other parts of south Wales.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the effects of proposed changes in the European Community common agricultural policy on Welsh farmers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have received numerous representations from all parts of the industry in Wales about the proposed reforms of the common agricultural policy. These have centred on the milk and sheep sectors. Negotiations are continuing.
    Dr. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State now take advantage of my question to tell the House that he will defend the level of income for the sheep sector in Wales? Can he assure us that, as a result of sheep stabilisers or long-term changes in the variable or basic premium, there will be no drop in the income of sheep farmers?
    Mr. Walker: I agree that in some low-income forms of agriculture—hill sheep farming and beef are examples—incomes must be maintained by one method or another.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, now that the guide prices have been announced for 1988, the sheepmeat regime will continue during that year? Will he also recognise that if the stabilisers which may or may not come out of the European Community put pressure on the lowland arable farmers and encourage them to move into sheep farming, that may have disastrous economic and social consequences for the Welsh uplands? What action will the right hon. Gentleman take to protect our upland communities?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in negotiations at present, in which he has made it very clear that he is interested, not in maintaining the sheepmeat regime just for next year, but in maintaining the principles of the regime continuously. It would be crazy for the Government to start contemplating what would be done if we were not successful in the negotiations. Our object is to be successful.

    Japan (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the anticipated outcome of his visit to Japan.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I met leading industrialists, bankers and politicians in order to establish with them the attractiveness of Wales as the location for Japanese outward investment into western Europe.
    I am pleased that in the last month three further Japanese companies have decided to locate their industries in the Principality.
    Mr. Jones: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the new factories and jobs that were decided on during his visit were a very worthwhile, positive contribution to the future of Wales, as was all the effort put into securing further investment, which I am sure will come? Was that not infinitely superior to the sterile arguments that my right hon. Friend would have had to listen to from the Opposition Benches if he had cancelled his visit?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I am almost tempted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to extend our Question Time a little.
    The total figures for Japanese interests in Wales are very impressive. I am delighted to say that among the people whom I met there were some who had originally invested heavily in Wales, and that most of them are deciding to increase their investments massively over the years ahead. I also managed to speak to some 200 or 250 leading Japanese industrialists who have an interest in the longer term in considering Wales as their location in western Europe. As I have always said, I believe that our success is due to the combination of the trade unions, local authorities and the Welsh Office having done everything possible to encourage Japanese firms.
    Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State will know that it has been quite difficult to attract Japanese firms to locate further west than Bridgend. Has he given any thought to the problem?
    Mr. Walker: We are trying to attract Japanese firms to all parts of the Principality by the way in which we pursue our policies—through the Welsh Development Agency, with factory allocations, and by pointing out the various services that are available.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely difficult to establish a causal link between his visits to Japan and the arrival of factories? One of the three Japanese investments was announced before he went to Japan.
    Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was delighted to point out that that investment had been announced just before my visit. I joined others on the Friday before the visit in saying how pleased I was that it was happening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rejoice equally strongly over all the investment that will come from firms in the future, and that he will congratulate the Government on pursuing policies that will encourage them.

    Health Care
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to avoid a deterioration in health care in Wales arising from the financial difficulties faced by many Welsh health authorities.
    Mr. Grist: District health authorities have management responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of health care within the resources available to them. They have been funded well in excess of inflation. Between 1978–79 and 1987–88 their recurrent revenue provision grew by 32 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. FlynnThe Minister is again missing out the fact that, in order to stand still, health authorities need to be funded way above the rate of inflation to cope with the demands of our aging population and the more expensive needs of the medical services. The announcement that was made last week in a parliamentary answer shows that the funding is below that level. It copes with inflation, but it does not cope with the other needs. It is not the helping hand that health authorities need. It is another slap in the face and a certain prescription for a deepening crisis within the National Health Service. Will the Minister now admit that his Government's policy is to allow the NHS to decay and to allow services to become debased in order to force people into the private sector.
    Mr. Grist: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have listened to the answer to the question, which showed that funding is well ahead of inflation. That is very different from the position before the hon. Gentleman came to this House. Under his party this country had to suffer. The hon. Gentleman referred to a reduction in Health Service funding. How can that service have been reduced when there are 13 per cent. more nursing staff, 13·3 per cent. more medical and dental staff, over 17 per cent. more consultants and over 10 per cent. more registrars? We are treating 84,000 more in-patients a year than were treated when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. I cannot believe that that represents a failure in any service.
    Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman's answers are based on largely phoney figures, going back over the whole period. Do they mean that he and his right hon. Friend will take no notice of the representations of the presidents of the royal colleges, whose most important representations were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)? Surely the proper answer by anybody who represents, or is responsible for, the Welsh Health Service should be to say today, "We will

    11
    enter into immediate consultations with our British opposite numbers and ensure that something is done to meet the representations that are now coming not only from the Labour party but from the heads of the royal colleges and the great hospitals of our country."
    Mr. Grist: When the right hon. Gentleman was a senior member of the Labour Government, the Health Service stumbled to its knees. Does he really call it a fake figure, when nurses' pay fell by over 21 per cent. when he was a Minister? Is that the way to run the National Health Service?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My hon. Friend has tried to give the real facts about the increase in staff in the National Health Service, but the Opposition do not want to listen. Will he repeat those facts? Will he also tell me how many additional patients have been treated by the Health Service under this Government who would not have been treated had we returned to the funding levels that existed under the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Grist: I shall repeat, because of the uproar last time, that the number of in-patients has increased by up to 84,000—an increase of 24 per cent. The number of out-patients has increased by 76,000. That is not a declining service; that is an improved service, as the people of Wales are well aware.

    Health Services
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of health services in Wales are provided by (a) private medicine and (b) the National Health Service.
    Mr. Grist: The information is not available in the precise form requested. However, there are in Wales 54 authorised pay beds in NHS hospitals and 212 beds in private hospitals; jointly these are equivalent to 1·23 per cent. of the NHS provision of 21,613 beds.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on Health Service developments in Carmarthen? It was announced in October that there was to be a private 50-bed hospital, costing £15 million—the first private hospital in Dyfed. The very next week the East Dyfed health authority announced that, because of financial constraints, it would have to shed 3 per cent. of its staff during the current financial year. Does that not reflect what is happening in our Health Service: that the Government are giving every encouragement and every incentive to private medicine but that the National Health Service is declining, by natural wastage?
    Mr. Grist: The fact that somebody wants to open a private hospital in a particular area of the country does not say anything about National Health Service provision of health care. East Dyfed is receiving over £20 million for building the Llanelli hospital. There has been no lack of funds from central Government for the building of that hospital.
    Mr. Williams: When Welsh health authorities are facing a serious financial crisis, when our hospitals fear a breakdown in services, when the Minister has already had to renege on his July commitment about hospital waiting lists, and when, on Friday, the Secretary of State issued a spending announcement showing that there are no plans even to meet fully the basic standstill needs of the Health
    12
    Service, which the Minister knows full well include not only 4½ per cent. for inflation but the 2 per cent. extra that is needed to meet the cost of the aging population and technological change, how on earth can the Welsh Office issue a press release such as that entitled "Additional Resources for Health and Personal Social Services", which is utterly smug, misleading, indifferent and inept?
    Mr. Grist: That was a long, prepared supplementary question. I should like to give just one alternative figure. The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the previous Labour Government. When he left office, expenditure per family on the Health Service was £15·84 per week. It is now £21·14 per week. That shows the growth. The right hon. Gentleman was a senior Minister in a Government who cut spending and the pay of nurses and practitioners. That is a disgraceful record, but he has the cheek to come here and declaim against us.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Rowlands: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the average cost of the poll tax per family, as compared with rates bills, in local authorities in the valley areas of Mid Glamorgan.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The average rate bill per household in Mid Glamorgan in the current year is £220. Future payments under the community charge will depend upon decisions to be made about grant and needs assessment levels, as well as the expenditure of the local authorities at the time.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is it not a fact that, even by the most conservative estimates, the average tenant and homeowner in a community such as I represent will face a significant increase in the poll tax as compared with the rates bill? By what possible justification can there be equity or fairness in increasing the cost of services, rates or the poll tax to the people who are the poorer home-owners in the community?
    Mr. Walker: In Wales less than 20 per cent. of all local Government expenditure will be met by the poll tax. Added to which, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer to his question, the poll tax will depend on what happens about needs assessment levels.

    Health Authorities
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning staff shortages in Welsh health authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about staff shortages in Welsh health authorities. This is an issue which is currently being addressed at both departmental and health authority levels.
    Mr. Bennett: When my hon. Friend discusses this matter with the health authorities, will he bear in mind the problems of Pembrokeshire health authority and the fact that we are short of staff because of the wages that are paid? Does he agree that there may well be a case for bringing the market into the wages of staff in the Health Service and paying more in areas where it is difficult to recruit staff?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend may indeed have something in what he says. My right hon. Friend and I discussed the issue with the district health authority chairman on 23 November. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that last year the Department established a manpower steering group to develop a comprehensive manpower strategy for the National Health Service in Wales. The group is giving attention to recruitment difficulties and my Department has requested the district health authorities to prepare a 10-year manpower resources plan to forestall future difficulties.

    Transport Links
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the standards of transport links between north and south Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Recent years have seen a steady improvement in standards and more is being and will be done. A substantial number of schemes for improving the A470, A487 and A483 road links are either in progress or planned.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important criteria in economic performance and development is good transport links? Does he also agree that there is an urgent need for a good, modern and efficient road linking north and south Wales? In view of the importance of roads in Wales to facilitate links with the Irish Republic and mainland Europe, will the Minister consider making an approach to the EEC for joint funding with the Irish Republic for road improvements in Wales?
    Mr. Roberts: Naturally, we understand the importance of road links, which is why we have improved 128 miles of motorway trunk roads at a cost of £700 million since 1979. With regard to the north-south link, the hon. Gentleman must remember that certain improvements have been carried out. There is the Brecon bypass and the Dolgellau bypass, and the Abercynon-Pentrebach section has also been dualled. However, we must examine carefully the economic and traffic justification for any further work.

    Pupils (Expenditure)
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure for 1978–79, at constant prices.
    Mr. Wyn Roberts: Provisional figures for 1986–87 show a unit cost figure of £1,320 for each secondary school pupil in Wales, compared with £1,033 in 1978–79 at constant prices.
    Mr. Knox: Can my hon. Friend say whether capital allocations to schools in Wales have increased over the same period?
    Mr. Roberts: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there has indeed been a substantial increase in capital allocations. The system was introduced in 1981–82 and from then to the current year there has been an increase of 50 per cent. The capital allocation for this year amounts
    14
    to £43 million, and for next year a capital allocation of £47·5 million has been announced by my right hon. Friend, which is a further increase of 9·1 per cent.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy (Housing)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what information he has as to how many beneficed clergy or priests in charge of parishes are currently housed (a) completely outside their parishes, (b) more than one mile from their churches and (c) in accommodation next door to a church in their charge; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioners, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners do not have the statistics, but their belief is that few incumbents live outside their parishes, and then only with the bishop's permission.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad, wrong and damaging to their pastoral performance that some clergy now live outside the parishes for which they are responsible? Are not the Church Commissioners equally distanced from the feelings of many ordinary church people who do not wish to see in Crockford's, for which the Church Commissioner's are responsible—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Where clergy live is not relevant to that question.
    Mr. Alison: I should tell my hon. Friend that there are about 9,000 parishes with parochial houses. I believe that all but a handful of parochial houses are located in extremely close proximity to the parish church in question. My hon. Friend also asked about the reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury in Crockford's, and if it is in order for me to respond—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate that to where the clergy live.

    Clergy (Income)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what information he has as to the proportion of clergy income currently provided through voluntary giving by the congregations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: Forty-three per cent. of the total stipends bill for the Church's ministry is met from voluntary giving. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the Central Stipends Authority's 15th report giving further details.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of voluntary giving would be somewhat higher if so many churches had not thrown overboard the twin legacies of the Book of Common Prayer and the King James's Bible, and if certain parishes had given more of a moral lead on some of the great issues facing our country today?
    Mr. Alison: I believe that a clear, moral and spiritual lead from both bishops and clergy is vital if Christian congregations are to be kept in good heart and their giving

    15
    is likewise to be kept in good shape. The fact that the contribution from parishes towards the stipend of clergy has doubled in the past decade is some sign that there is a good deal of good heart and proper leadership in many parishes.
    Mr. Frank Field: While the right hon. Gentleman is correct to draw attention to the doubling of voluntary giving, is it not also important to use this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that if our clergy were dependent on our givings, we would be returning average salaries of less than £3,000 a year?
    Mr. Alison: That is true. A substantial proportion of the stipend is met from the income of the Church Commissioners. It is also true that if the congregations were presented with a direct challenge of the need to make up what the Church Commissioners provide, they would rise to that challenge and the full sum would be forthcoming.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Allen: To ask the right honourable Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what further representations the commissioners have received from clergymen on the effects of poll tax on matters for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Alison: The commissioners have received representations from clergy and church members about the serious financial implications of the proposed community charge for the clergy and the Church generally. The commissioners continue to work closely with the Churches main committee, which has approached Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the major denominations.
    Mr. Allen: When will the right hon. Gentleman, who is speaking on behalf of the Churches, lead an open and public campaign on behalf of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims against the Government's poll tax, which affects synagogues, temples and churches without discrimination? When will he stop the Government allowing the imposition of VAT on religious works such as the Bible and the Koran? If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to answer me again this month, I will be back next month.
    Mr. Alison: I shall welcome seeing the hon. Gentleman in his usual place. If he gives me regular notice of the question, it will not be difficult for me to answer. I should have corrected him by pointing out that no poll tax has been put on to the statute book, and no community charge has been levied by the Government against any denomination to which he referred. I reiterate my earlier answer, that the Church Commissioners are in correspondence and in contact with the Government about some relief for the churches in respect of the community charge corresponding to the 50 per cent. derating that they enjoy under the existing house rating provisions.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what criteria the commission uses in appointing an accounting officer for the National Audit Office under section 4 of the National Audit Act 1983.
    Sir Peter Hordern (on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): In appointing the serving Comptroller and Auditor General to be accounting officer for the National Audit Office Vote with effect from 1 January 1984, the commission followed the long-standing practice of appointing the officer in the best position to discharge overall responsibility for policy and for the resources allocated to the office. The Comptroller and Auditor General is, of course, by statute, head of the National Audit Office. I have no doubt that, following the appointment of a new Comptroller and Auditor General, the commission will wish to use the same criteria.
    Perhaps the House will allow me to pay a tribute to the work of the outgoing comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, who retires at the end of this month. The NAO and Parliament have been extremely will served by him.
    Mr. Dalyell: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Gordon Downey. Does the Public Accounts Commission agree that whoever is his successor as Comptroller and Auditor General should tell Parliament to scrutinise the £1,000 million budget of the security and intelligence services?
    Sir Peter Horden: That is not a matter for the Public Accounts Commission. The hon. Gentleman may, however, wish to pursue his inquiry with his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations from the Public Accounts Commission to the Public Accounts Committee asking it to look into the possibility of surcharging the Leader of the House for the £750,000 which has been wasted prior to the setting-up of the Select Committees?
    Sir Peter Hordern: That is not a matter for the Public Accounts Commission. I doubt whether it is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the accountability of the security services and the £1,000 million that they spend is not a matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) can deal with? Is it not a matter for the Government? Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the question from my hon. Friend? Will he, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, make representations to Her Majesty's Government seeking the right for the Public Accounts Committee — or for a new security services scrutiny committee — to monitor, and indeed to audit, the accounts of the security services in this country?
    Sir Peter Hordern: The role of the Public Accounts Commission is rather limited. Certainly it would not be our role to tell the Government what to do. However, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in areas of Government activity which he may wish to examine and he may do so with the views of the Public Accounts Committee, which he should take into account.

  WALES

    Ambulance Services (Gwent)
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for

    17
    the effectiveness of Gwent's emergency ambulance services of implementing the reductions in crew numbers propssed in the report currently being considered by the health authority.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The management and operation of the ambulance service in Gwent is the responsibility of the Gwent health authiority and it is for the authority to determine the number of ambulance staff that it requires for the efficient operation of the service.
    Mr. Murphy: Is the Minister aware of the considerable anxiety in the county of Gwent about this matter? Would not a reduction in crews be bound to affect the ambulance emergency services? Despite what he said, will he intervene if Gwent health authority decides to consider such a proposal?
    Mr. Grist: I am aware of the proposals, but, given the Secretary of State's appellate functions, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them now.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Select Committee Reports
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will make it his policy to ensure that all Select Committee reports are the subject of timely and substantive motions in the House.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 23 November. With regard to debating all Select Committee reports, I remind the hon. Gentleman that since 1979 there have been more than 500 reports from departmental Select Committees alone.
    Mr. Dalyell: Should there not be a Select Committee to shadow the Department of the Attorney-General, which would give us an opportunity to have an informed debate, not only on the injunctions on the BBC, which should attract timely and informed parliamentary comment, but on the position of Mr. Charles Elwell? Is it not extremely unsatisfactory that a party committee, albeit the distinguished defence committee of the Conservative party, should invite a former security officer to Parliament? What does the right hon. Gentleman think about that?
    Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is not a matter for me, but I understand that the invitation is not being pursued. The other matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman have been decided by the whole House, and I have no plans to make any changes.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of the Environment still has to reply to a report on "Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments", published on 18 February last, a report on the "Property Services Agency" published on 8 April last, and a report on "Pollution of Rivers and Estuaries", published on 14 May last? We have been given various excuses, such as an impending general election and the non-reappointment of the Select Committee. Does my right hon. Friend regard those replies as satisfactory? Will he ensure that the convention that Command Papers are placed before the
    18
    House within three months of the publication of a report is adhered to in the future, and may we have a debate on those papers?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer my hon. Friend's points to the Ministers concerned. Select Committees are entitled to replies to their reports, and in the majority of cases that has already been done. There is always pressure on time for debates, but I will do my best.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Leader of the House have any plans to have discussions with the broadcasting authorities which deal with broadcasts from the House to ascertain what would happen if, during debates from Select Committees, including the Privileges Committee, references were made to people who had at some time been members of the security services?
    Mr. Wakeham: From time to time I have discussions with broadcasting officials, and these matters may come up.
    Mr. Rees: The Leader of the House will know that I am anxious that we should debate pretty soon the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on Boundary Commission changes. The changes are already beginning for local government re-warding, and if we are not careful it will be too late to do something. It was an excellent report, and many hon. Members believe that the time has come to change the procedures of the Boundary Commission. But we can do nothing until we debate the report.
    Mr. Wakeham: I know of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about such matters. I have already discussed the report with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who will have a word with the right hon. Gentleman. As a result of those discussions, we shall decide how best to proceed.

    Palace of Westminster (Cleaning)
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if, pursuant to the answer of 16 November, Official Report, column 388, there are any plans to clean the stonework or otherwise improve the appearance of the internal courtyards of the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Wakeham: Yes, the courtyards are included in the stonework restoration programme, but we intend to give a higher priority to the restoration of the south elevation and the Victoria tower.
    Mr. Chapman: Although I welcome that answer and recognise that higher priority should be given to the Victoria tower and completing the clean-up of the external elevations of this splendid pile, does my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the general appearance of the internal courtyards is dirty and unsightly? If they were cleaned up, it would considerably brighten the environment of those using this Palace and also perhaps throw new light into some of the rooms and corridors.
    Mr. Wakeham: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with our priorities for the stonework restoration programme. I accept that everything is not right with the courtyards. They are swept every day by the cleaning contractors. The Refreshment Department is responsible for taking its rubbish to the collection point in the State Officers Court. There are problems because of the

    19
    limitations imposed by the building, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee.

    Facsimile Transmission Equipment
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will consider the provision at public expense of the necessary equipment to enable hon. Members to make facsimile transmissions from the House direct to other facsimile machine users for use in connection with their parliamentary duties.
    Mr. Wakeham: Hon. Members are already able to make transmissions, on a repayment basis, from the facsimile machine in the Central Lobby post office. Several hon. Members have also purchased machines for their own use from their office costs allowance.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the provision of facsimile services to hon. Members at public expense would be no more revolutionary than the provision of telephone services to hon. Members some years ago? Is he further aware that the service available in the Central Lobby is the Intelpost service, for which hon. Members are charged £2·50 per page to receive a message and £3·50 to deliver the message from the machine in Central Lobby to an hon. Member in his office in the House? Does he not agree that that is most unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Wakeham: The present arrangements appeared to be satisfactory until fairly recently. However, I recognise hon. Members' increasing interest in such facilities and I shall ask the Services Committee to consider this matter again.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is two and a half years since I asked the then Leader of the House to arrange for fascimile machines to be made available to hon. Members in various parts of the House? Is he aware that at that time it would probably have cost about £10,000 to do the whole House? Does he know that over the last one and a half years hundreds of thousands of pounds must have been spent by hon. Members on acquiring individual machines for their own offices, as indeed I did, and I spent £2,000 of taxpayers' money? Is it not a waste of money when a cheap route was available that would have been economic for the taxpayer and would have resolved the difficulties of hon. Members with offices in their constituencies hundreds of miles away?
    Mr. Wakeham: The position up to now has seemed satisfactory to the majority of hon. Members. There is now an increasing demand and it is right that we should consider the matter again.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is it not something of a paradox that, when Government and Parliament are always lecturing people outside on the need to innovate and keep up with the latest technology, we always seem to be the last when it comes to introducing new technology for our own benefit? People outside cannot understand it when they are told that they simply cannot pass messages here and that messages must be sent by motor bike dispatch riders. If one does that, the messages promptly get lost in the system. These facilities must be introduced soon.
    Mr. Wakeham: We have to work by consent. Hon. Members have different views about the speed at which technology should be introduced in this place.

    Government Expenditure (Scrutiny)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to bring forward proposals to enhance the scrutiny of Government expenditure by the House through departmental Select Committees and the Committee of Public Accounts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allen: I am sure that the Leader of the House is not aware that tonight the Government will try to sneak through public expenditure to the tune of £47 billion on the Vote on Accounts, and over £1 billion on the Winter Supplementary Estimates, without a vote, debate or reference to the Select Committees. Now that he is aware of that, will he ensure that this vast amount of public expenditure is at least debated by the House prior to the Consolidated Fund Bill?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not know about sneaking anything through. We are putting matters on the Order Paper in the proper fashion. It was not possible this year to have them debated by the Select Committees. For reasons which the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not possible to set up the Committees any earlier than was done.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is time for a scrutiny of the expenditure by Select Committees, especially with regard to staff and travel? Does he believe that the House should now look again at the role of Select Committees and decide whether they are worth the money?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree that there are two points of view about Select Committees. Select Committees were established to provide expert and detailed scrutiny of departmental operations, complementing that of the PAC. They have discharged that role in a way in which the House would find difficult given other competing claims on its time. It is not necessary for their reports to be debated for them to have a significant effect on Departments and publicly.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that because the Select Committees were not set up in time at the beginning of the parliamentary Session a lot of money has been saved for the taxpayer in respect of all the trips that have not been enjoyed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—excluding a few of us who do not believe in this sloppy consensus system of Select Committees and who are aware that it does not produce any fruits for the taxpayer? Will he bear in mind that that money should be saved for the taxpayer? Does he agree that that money could be very usefully employed if it was sent to a country such as Ethiopia, where it could help to fill the starving bellies of the kids out there?
    Mr. Wakeham: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to suggest that the money might be used to offset the surcharge that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) sought to impose on me a minute ago. I recognise that, because the Select Committees were set up later than some people had hoped, money was saved. I do not put that forward as a valid argument. I believe that on the whole Select Committees do a good job for the House.

BBC (Injunction)
3.30 pm
Mr. John Morris: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the legal restrictions obtained by the Government on broadcasting by the BBC in the case of the radio series My Country, Right or Wrong."
The matter is specific in that it deals with the gagging of the BBC. Our Law Officers may be trigger-happy in seeking injunctions, but they are not anxious to explain themselves to the House. There was no statement from the Law Officers, and, but for my private question, the House, to which they are answerable, would not have heard from them. A debate will give them a proper opportunity to explain, and, more important, the opportunity to discover the Prime Minister's role in the matter.
The matter is important, as the injunction is but part of a process of limiting discussion. It is censorship. At any rate, at least the BBC was spared having its premises raided on this occasion.
The matter is urgent because it is obvious from the Attorney-General's letter to the BBC last Friday that there is an awareness in high places that the Law Officers" have gone too far and there is a willingness to compromise. The House wants to know what motivated the Attorney-General in trying to plug the dam against the charge of inconsistency or something substantial in the programme? Right hon. Members contributed to the programme. There is uncertainty about what the media may now report. Is it really the Government's considered view that allegations of illegal and subversive action must never be published without first informing the proper authorities?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the legal restrictions imposed by the Government on broadcasting by the BBC in the case of the radio series My Country, Right or Wrong."
I listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised meet the criteria laid down under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. Perhaps I may tell the right hon.and learned Gentleman and the whole House that there will be opportunities to debate the matter — perhaps during the recess Adjournment debate tomorrow.

Parliamentary Questions
3.33 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I promise that I shall not refer to the substance of any individual question. You will have noticed that out of 15 Welsh questions today, no fewer than seven related to health. You will also have gathered from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and myself that on Friday the future policy for health in Wales was announced by written answer on a day when it is very difficult for hon. Members to know what is being announced.
You will have observed, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for Wales did not answer any of the seven questions that were tabled. Therefore, can you advise us, as Opposition and Back-Bench Members, how we can ensure that when an important policy statement is issued the Secretary of State answers at least some of the questions related to that statement instead of hiding behind a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, especially when that Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State does not seem to know the answers to any questions put to him?
Mr. Speaker: Who answers at Question Time is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure that the representatives from the Welsh Office who may be on the Front Bench will have noted what has been said.

BBC (Injunction)
3.35 pm
Mr Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you assure the House that any matter that is raised in the House in relation to the BBC's position regarding the injunction and the programme "My Country, Right or Wrong" can be reported by the BBC, because anything that is said here is, is of course, covered by parliamentary privilege? In fact, I understand that the terms of the injunction seem to be preventing the BBC from even reporting the proceedings of the House. Clearly that must a be serious infringement of our rights.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that anything that is mentioned in the House is in the public domain. It is a matter for the BBC whether it reports what is said.

Parliamentary Language
3.36 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I raise a matter of which I gave your office notice, namely, the use of language in the Chamber? It will be within your recollection that, a fortnight ago, I was expelled from the House for five days for having made an extremely specific accusation about the action of a parliamentary colleague in relation to a specific event—Westland. I did not use generalised abuse. It was a specific point at issue, and it will be within the recollection of the House.
May I draw your attention—the attention of your office has been drawn to it — to column 1124 of the previous Thursday's Hansard? It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) used an extremely abusive word that was not withdrawn, namely, "twerp", in referring to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
If some of us are to be expelled for being wholly courteous when making a political charge, we want to know what the general rules are in this regard. I realise that you are in a difficult position, Mr. Speaker, and that there are times when you should turn the Nelson eye. However, the hon. Member for Northampton, North was, in a sense, far more generally abusive of the Leader of the Opposition than I was about the Prime Minister. I wonder whether you have any reflections on this matter?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member said that he intended to raise this matter, but I thought that he intended to do so last week. At the moment when, regrettably, I had to name the hon. Member, he had the Floor of the House and, in a calculated way, he used an un-parliamentary expression. I think that the hon. Member accepts that. I have to confess that I did not hear what happened on Thursday because there was a great deal of noise. The comment was made from a sedentary position, and it was not until I read Hansard on Friday morning that I saw exactly what had been said. I must say to the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that had I heard the remark at the time I would, of course, have had it withdrawn. But I did not hear it.

BBC (Injunction)
3.38 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice because, three or four weeks ago. I appeared on a BBC programme together with the former Lord Chancellor. Last week, much to my surprise, I learnt that the programme had been banned. I understand that the BBC is to oppose the injunction and that we might be in for a long legal case. Would I be in order, under the sub judice rule, if I repeated what I said on that programme, which has been banned, on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman is called in the debate tomorrow, what he says in his speech will be entirely a matter for him. What we do not allow in the Chamber is the reading out of excerpts.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, following your earlier reply. You said, in answer to a point of order from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that should anything be said in the Chamber it would be in the public domain. Will you confirm that if it is in the public domain, if the BBC reports it, and if any action is taken by the Government following that reporting, you would regard that action by the Government as a gross contempt of this High Court of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for anything that the BBC may or may not say. The BBC will have to take the advice of its legal advisers and make up its own mind as to what it reports from this place. I repeat that everything in the High Court of Parliament is in the public domain.
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important point and you, Mr. Speaker, with respect, are the guardian of the liberties of the House. Of course, anything that is said in the High Court of Parliament is privileged. What we want to ensure is that no one will be adversely affected if he reports anything that is said in the House, including, in particular, if he names anyone who is or has been in the security services. At present, the media, particularly the BBC, are inhibited from so doing, in accordance with the terms of the injunction. It would be a grave incursion into the liberties of the House if action were taken against anyone who reported the proceedings of the House in that way.
Mr. Speaker: That would not be a matter for me. I am responsible for order in the House and for what goes on here. I am not responsible for what the BBC does or does not put out on radio or television.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I applied today, under Standing Order No. 20, for a debate on the injunction preventing the media from giving the public information about the activities of the security services. I heard your reply to the application made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). We are placed in some difficulty, because the Leader of the House replies to the debate on the motion to adjourn for Christmas, and on many occasions you have heard the Prime Minister refuse to add anything to the statements that she has made on these matters.
What lies at the heart of our concern is the alleged inconsistency of Government policy on the confidentiality of the security services. The difficulty is that we cannot have any debate unless you grant one in which the Prime Minister, who is responsible for Government policy in these matters, is required to answer to the House. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on that difficulty and indicate whether, on reflection, you believe that an application under Standing Order No. 20, such as has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon or by me, would facilitate such discussion.
We believe that the accountability of the security services is of major public importance and that the House should be given an early and full opportunity to discuss that issue. We cannot obtain that debate unless you grant it. That is why there is urgency in this important matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I well understand the concern of the House about this issue, but under the standing order I must have regard to other opportunities which the House may have to debate or discuss matters. I have already indicated to the House that there will be an opportunity tomorrow to raise the matter in the debate on the motion to adjourn for Christmas. As to who answers it, it is not my responsibility, but that is the immediate opportunity to discuss this issue.
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to trespass even further on your generosity, but I raise, I hope, a matter that comes within your specific responsibilities as the guardian of the liberties of the House.
My understanding is that the BBC has been given the privilege of broadcasting the proceedings of the House. In particular, it has been given certain facilities within the precincts of the House. I understand that the BBC is now enjoined by the injunction of another court that it should not report the names of persons who either are or have been in the security services; for example, the well-known author of the book "Spycatcher", Mr. Peter Wright. If that name were to be mentioned this afternoon — we have been mentioning it backwards or forwards for the past six or nine months—if the BBC were to use our facilities and report that through the machinery that it now has, and if an action for contempt were brought against the BBC by the Attorney-General, would not that be an inhibition of the rights granted to the BBC by the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a hypothetical matter — —[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "if". Surely that is hypothetical.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You referred to the matter being hypothetical, but there is no other means of defining action in the House except by postulating a situation. We are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to say that you will protect the rights of the House in so far as we have the right, under privilege, to have the proceedings of the House reported outside. That is not a hypothetical matter. It has affected us every day in the past and will affect us every day in the future. We want that assurance from you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that anything said in the House, provided it is in order, is the responsibility of the hon. Member concerned. The reporting of them outside is not a matter for me.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the matter. I cannot say any more. I am not responsible for the actions that others take outside the House; I cannot possibly be.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We entirely accept what you have just said, that you are in no way responsible for the editorial judgment of the media, whether or not it is the BBC, but surely you are responsible for seeing that that editorial judgment is not inhibited by the Government.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, M r. Speaker. As you will recall, many years ago the BBC was given the power and the right to record our proceedings, provided that it was done in a fair and responsible way. That meant that it should be at the
26
convenience of the House and that, as its head, Mr. Speaker would be in charge of monitoring in the event of the BBC's not carrying out proper and responsible reporting of the proceedings. I see you shaking your head, Mr. Speaker, but if you look at the record you will see that the BBC was given that power only on condition that it carried out fair, responsible and balanced reporting.
The truth, as we now know, is that the reporting is not balanced. We know that what the Attorney-General did last week means that the BBC cannot carry out the remit that it was granted, in about 1974–75, to broadcast Parliament. If the BBC is not carrying out that balanced reporting it seems to me that you, as Mr. Speaker, and all of us for that matter, must see to it, in some way, that that remit is carried out. Therefore, in my opinion, that in itself is a matter for you and for the House of Commons.
I suggest that on this issue it is important, and convenient, for the House to see to it that the BBC's reporting is at all times fair and balanced, and if there are discussions about the Attorney-General's injunction and they are reported in Parliament, that should be carried on the BBC air waves, because it would be fair and balanced reporting.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly right, as the lion. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, that it was laid down at the time that reports should be fair and balanced, and a Committee was established in the House to ensure that that occurred. It has never been the responsibility of the Speaker to decide which parts of our proceedings should be broadcast. Frequently I have been informed by the BBC that it intended to broadcast certain parts of our proceedings. It is not for me to tell the BBC what it should broadcast.
Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been following the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Conservative Members appear to make light of a potential invasion of our liberties such as has not taken place in this century. They should, perhaps, remember that they have a duty to the people who elected them—and to those who did not—to sustain the liberties of the House and the freedom of the BBC to report what goes on here.
Having said that, I would be grateful if you, Mr. Speaker, would undertake further to consider the points that have been made and the application under Standing Order No. 20 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). In view of the points that have been made this afternoon, and of the deep concern that is felt by Opposition Members and, I suspect, by one or two of the quieter Members on the Conservative Benches, and certainly by the BBC, I hope that if there is no further development that is favourable to freedom of speech you will be prepared to consider favourably a further application under Standing Order No. 20.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a busy day ahead of us. I undertake to reflect on what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said.
Mr. Andrew Fauldsrose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Faulds: This is a specific point of order about this afternoon's proceedings.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that I shall reflect on the matter.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.51 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In that case, sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I decide who is called to speak.
Mr. Home Robertson: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), wants your job, Mr. Speaker.
I want to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which was published by the Government on Friday. It is an important measure that will dismantle the public sector housing service in Scotland. According to the index to the Bill, it has 67 clauses and 10 schedules. However, look as I might, I could find only nine schedules in my copy. The incompetence of the Scottish Office is legendary. It could not run a sweetie shop. I do not expect you to comment on that, Mr. Speaker, but can you please give an assurance that the House will not be required to consider on Second Reading a Bill that has not been properly published by the Government? Am I right in thinking that the Government will have to have it reprinted and allow a further two clear weeks—during the time that the House is sitting—before we consider the Bill on Second Reading?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that there was some defective printing in the Bill and that it is being reprinted and will be re-issued tomorrow.

Urban Development Corporations
3.53 pm
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State is now unveiling to the press his plans to create a number of new urban development corporations, and members of the press therefore have an opportunity to cross-examine him on these matters. Is it not a scandal that Members of Parliament are being denied the opportunity to question the Secretary of State when the creation of urban development corporations will directly affect the constituencies and constituents of hon. Members? Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your influence to enable us to hear the Secretary of State make an oral statement in the House —not an answer to a written question—on the creation of a whole series of new urban development corporations?
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the announcement mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), an announcement is to be made either by a press release or by a written reply. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, you have said in the past that these matters should be announced to the House. I ask you to invite the Minister to do that in this case.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that only last week we had the Third Reading of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill, which reduces the opportunity of the House to debate any matters to do with the activities and financing of urban development corporations. That annual and regular opportunity will be lost if that Bill becomes law later this Session. Given that this week we are to debate local authorities and to approve their orders and their financing, it is unacceptable that the Secretary of State should make an announcement outside the House about territory that is effectively being moved out of the control of local authorities and into the control of Government quangos appointed by Ministers. These quangos are entirely unaccountable and have been much criticised, especially recently, in connection with all sorts of dubious activities. No Minister came to the House to make an announcement about that handover. Can you, Mr. Speaker, make strong representations to ensure that we get a statement on this issue, if not today, tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) have made strong representations and I am sure that they will have been heard by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Boyes rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Boyes: It is a matter for the Leader of the House and, as he is present, I hope that he will tell us whether there will be a statement later today or tomorrow on this very important matter.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.57 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for telling us that the Bill is to be reprinted tomorrow.

29
Can you confirm that it would be quite improper for the House to be required to consider that on Second Reading next week as the Bill was not available to us in its proper form last week?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that again is not a matter for me. I do not decide when Bills are to be debated, but the hon. Gentleman's point will have been noted.

BBC (Injunction)
3.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Mr. Speaker: As it is nearly Christmas, I call Mr. Andrew Faulds.
Mr. Faulds: Your parliamentary charity and generosity. Sir, are well renowned.
Mr. Tony Banks: We can see him at Selfridge's as well this year.
Mr. Faulds: I hope that this young puppy is not referring to you, Sir. Mine is an immediate, practical point of order to do with the proceedings that the House indulged in a few moments ago.
As understand it, the practical result of the injunction obtained by the Attorney-General in the courts is that if the BBC wanted to broadcast the exchanges that took place it would have to introduce a bleep the moment the name of Mr. Peter Wright was mentioned. Is that really the practical result of this injunction? If that is so, is it not totally unacceptable censorship of the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: I am not an expert on injunctions, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I shall ensure that the rights and privileges of the House are upheld.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Corbyn: It is on this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, but I call him to put his point of order.
Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Friday the whole nation heard on the BBC 6 o'clock news that the Corporation was unable to report part of what went on in Parliament because of the injunction that had been obtained against it. Therefore, I ask you to give a ruling on this question. If the BBC is prevented by an injunction from reporting part of what goes on in Parliament, it follows that that is an infringement of the rights of Parliament to discuss what it wishes. Surely it also calls into question Hansard and its distribution, because if the injunction covers what is said in Parliament, quite specifically the BBC, newspapers and other news media are prevented from reporting exactly what is said in Parliament.
You, Mr. Speaker, have the right to uphold the legal immunity of Parliament to disuss what it wishes, in the way that it wishes, and to uphold the right of the report of its proceedings to be freely available to every person in Britain. Quite clearly, in granting this injunction against the BBC last week the courts have infringed that right. We appeal to you to protect our right to speak freely in the House and, above all, to protect the rights of people outside Parliament to listen to what we discuss.
Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat what I have already said; that whether a broadcast is made is not a matter for me. I certainly uphold the right of hon. Members to have their say in this Chamber and their right to be reported in Hansard.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1949) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1950) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Farm Business Specification Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1948) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (Electoral Scheme) (Variation) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Darrell.]

Orders of the Day

  Health and Medicines Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Minister, in view of the rather late start to the Bill and the large number of right hon. Members and hon. Members who wish to participate, I appeal for short contributions.
  4 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 25 November I announced publication of the Government's White Paper on primary health care, "Promoting Better Health". The White Paper set out the Government's strategy for primary health care and our key objectives. These were to make the services more responsive to the needs of the consumer, to promote health and prevent illness, to raise standards of care and to improve value for money.
  The Bill, which was read the First time on the same day, paves the way for the implementation of some parts of that strategy, others of which do not require legislation. The Bill goes wider than primary health care, for example, in giving health authorities new powers to generate additional income for patient care in various ways. I shall comment on those provisions later.
  First, I should like to say a word about the context of the primary health care provisions of the Bill, which I suspect are those on which much of the debate will focus. As the primary health care White Paper stated, expenditure on family practitioner services has risen by £1·5 billion, or 43 per cent. in real terms, since 1978–79 and our existing plans provide for additional expenditure by 1990–91 of over £0·5 billion more in real terms.
  The proposals for promoting better health, taken together, will require sizeable additional resources. Subject to the progress and nature of negotiations with the professions, I expect expenditure on the family practitioner services by 1990–91 to be substantially in excess of £600 million in real terms more than it is today. It was against that background, as I emphasised in my statement on the White Paper, that we concluded that it was reasonable to secure some of the additional resources going into primary care services by asking those who can afford it to meet something more of the overall cost of their health care, with the provisions in the Bill concerning dental charges and eyesight tests, about which I shall have something to say at the appropriate part of my speech.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening so early, but will my hon. Friend consider looking more widely at our Health Service and consider the French approach, where people are asked to make a contribution whenever they consult the health services? This would broaden the principle he is outlining and upon which he will expand. Is he prepared to look at it on the same basis, because it might give us more resources and may have a wider beneficial effect than the measures he is proposing today?
  Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will note that there is no proposal along those lines in the Bill. I would not wish to be drawn to comment on that today.
  32
  As the House knows, our principal aims, through those proposals, are to improve the standards of care, in particular in the inner cities, and to give greater emphasis to the prevention of ill health. We believe that more can be done for the family doctor service through the practice team by vaccination, immunisation and screening for cervical cancer. The White Paper outlined our plans in those areas for what might be called prevention targets. The intention is that doctors have targets for each of the main preventable diseases and the action taken to prevent them. We shall relate remuneration to the achievement of those targets and encourage greater provision of more general advice on keeping healthy, not only by doctors but by other members of the practice team. We shall introduce a sessional fee for health promotion sessions.
  We emphasise also—it is an important point in the broader context of this debate—that vulnerable groups such as elderly people should be properly cared for. In recognition of those needs, higher capitation fees are paid already for each patient over 65 and 75. We propose to discuss with the profession what sorts of additional services should be provided for elderly patients. The routine screening of mobility, sight, emphysema and hearing, and keeping in touch by one means or another with elderly patients, particularly those who live alone, are the sorts of services we have in mind.
  The effective development of this approach depends not only on the doctor but on a strong practice team. It is this which lies behind clause 13 of the Bill. We propose to release more funds to enable practice teams to take on extra skills and to carry out the sorts of task I have just described. That may mean, for example, additional practice nurses or the extension of services provided by a practice to include the care that can be given by people such as counsellors, physiotherapists or chiropodists. In inner-city areas, or other areas where a similar problem arises, some practices may wish to recruit interpreters under this heading to help people of ethnic minorities whose command of the English language is limited. Subject to negotiations with the profession, more money will be made available for those purposes.
  We also intend to abolish the current central constraints on the type and number of team members whose salary costs can attract direct reimbursemment. Clause 13 substitutes a more flexible system, which rests on giving the local family practitioner committee or health board freedom to determine need and allocate priorities within a budget. Clause 12 will strengthen practice teams by clarifying and extending the scope for reimbursing the training costs of staff. For example, subject to the passage of the Bill, we intend to arrange for general practitioners to be reimbursed for the training costs of practice nurses and for financial recognition to be given to those general practitioners who provide clinical training for undergraduate medical students. Both changes, which have been widely welcomed by the profession, would help to improve the quality of primary care.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Welcome though it may be that physiotherapy, chiropody and other GP services will be extended, how will the Government ensure that minimum standards are retained and that we do not have a patchwork of standards which vary considerably from area to area, withour any guarantee being imposed on the GP services?
  Mr. Newton: That is precisely why we think it right to move to the allocation of budgets to family practitioner committees and health boards, so that they can have a say in determining the priorities for expenditure in those areas and seek to achieve a better spread and balance of services than we have at the moment. This is something that sometimes affects rural areas, which may be what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has in mind. More often it affects inner cities and deprived areas, which have been the more common focus of attention.
  The more flexible approach reflected in those clauses also affects clause 13, which provides for financial assistance for practice premises through improvement guarantees or under the cost rent scheme to be controlled locally under a cash-limited system. This picks up the hon. Gentleman's point; it enables locally set priorities to be determined and makes it easier to direct funds to the areas where they are needed most. Quite apart from practice team support, it is often the case that the premises of family doctors are at their worst in the inner city and other deprived areas, and we wish to direct extra resources to their improvement.
  Family doctors can also be helped to buy surgery premises by obtaining Government-guaranteed loans from the General Practice Finance Corporation. The White Paper announced our intention to seek powers to change the constitution of the GPFC to allow maximum use of private sector funds. We propose that the corporation should become a statutory company under the Companies Act and a trust should be set up to represent the medical profession on the board of the new corporation. The exact shape of the new arrangements will depend on discussions with the corporation and with the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association, as well as with potential investors. Clauses 1 to 3 would provide powers to enable such changes to take place. They would provide also for the GPFC to have greater access to private sector funds in the period before reconstruction.
  I have referred to premises in inner cities and to support for general practitioners in those areas. A striking feature of the inner cities is that they have an above average number of elderly doctors—some of them are very elderly— who too often practise on their own.
  The responsibilities of family doctors are extremely exacting and we would expect them to become more exacting following the implementation of the proposals that I have outlined. We have come to the conclusion that it is not reasonable to expect doctors to continue to work beyond the age at which they can carry out their responsibilities properly under NHS contracts.
  Clauses 5 and 6 are intended to change the present system. They would give powers to introduce a compulsory retirement age for general practitioners and would end the so-called 24-hours retirement, whereby doctors over the age of 65 years can retire, draw their pension and return to practice a day later without any reduction in either pay or pension. Our proposals were widely supported in consultation and by the Select Committee on Social Services. We would expect and hope that the places of retiring doctors would be taken by younger, vocationally trained doctors who are genuinely keen to work in group practices and as members of primary care teams. That we see as contributing to the improvement in the standard services that we wish to see.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Dentists often own their own businesses, which means that compensation would have to be paid. Any rapid decision to make dentists sell would depress prices, and perhaps mean they would be treated unfairly.
  Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point. If he reads the White Paper he will see that it contains passages on compensation for goodwill. That is something that we have in mind and it will be considered in our negotiations with the professions.
  I have referred to the £170 million overall that we expect our proposals in respect of dental charges and eyesight tests to contribute to the £600 million-plus of additional expenditure on primary care services that we expect over the next three years.
  I shall turn directly to the issue of dental charges and to clause 8, which is concerned with them, because I know that this is a matter of some concern to the House. The House will know that we propose to move to a proportionate charge for dental treatment and to extend that system to dental examinations that are now free. Existing powers already permit proportionate charging for routine dental treatment. Clause 8 is required to enable such charging to cover dentures and bridges and to permit charges for dental examinations. It follows that we intend to move to the new arrangements in stages.
  Under existing provisions, regulations will be brought before the House at the appropriate time to provide for proportionate charges from 1 April 1988. The regulations will also specify fixed charges for dentures and bridges at or about the same percentage of cost. Bearing in mind that the current average of the proportion of treatment charges that is met by the patient is 65 per cent. and that there has been no increase in dental charges since 1985—in other words, by next April they will have been unchanged for three years—we expect to set the figure at 75 per cent. At the same time, the maximum charge—I know that the British Dental Association has been concerned about this—will be increased from £115 to £150.
  Subject to the passage of the Bill, we would at a later stage move the charges on bridges and dentures to the same fully proportionate system for routine treatment and introduce the proportionate charge for the dental examination. The House will be aware that the principle of moving to proportionate charges for treatment has been widely welcomed and pressed for by the profession. In saying that, I intend only to associate it with the principle, not with a particular rate.
  I think that it is generally acknowledged that the present system is difficult for the public to understand, difficult for the profession to administer and difficult for anyone to defend as fair. For example, the present charges for dentures, bridges and crowns vary from 25 per cent. to 93 per cent. of the cost. The cost of routine treatment ranges from 100 per cent. to less than 50 per cent.
  I wish to emphasise the need to consider our proposals as a whole. The move to proportional charges will reduce substantially the costs of much routine treatment. For example, on current figures a 75 per cent. charge would cut the cost of a clean, polish and two small fillings from £14·20 to £10·65. I acknowledge readily that that saving will be offset by the proposed 75 per cent. examination charge, which on current figures would be £2·93. Even after allowing for that, the cost of examination and treatment in the case that I have mentioned would be

  35
  £13·57 compared with £14·20 for the treatment alone on the basis of current charges. We estimate that some 2 million courses of treatment, including the proposed examination charge, will cost less than they do currently. The charges for extensive and more expensive treatment will generally be higher, and the net result of that will be, in our view, to set the signals much more clearly in favour of those who attend a dentist regularly and take proper care of their teeth.
  Sir Barney Hayhoe: My hon. Friend has talked about regarding the Government's proposals in the round. Does he recognise that some of us who are generally very supportive of the main provisions in the Bill, and who will be voting for the Bill's Second Reading this evening, are sharply opposed to charges for sight tests and dental examinations? We are extremely concerned also about the mounting and increasing difficulties that are facing many hospitals and district health authorities, which have been spotlighted by the important statement of the three royal colleges which has been reported today. Does my hon. Friend recognise that clause 4, which refers to giving greater freedom to district health authorities in raising income, is superficial and peripheral to the fundamental and central problems that have been highlighted by the presidents of the royal colleges, which demand the urgent attention of DHSS Ministers and my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister? That should be the message from this House.
  Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend has referred to the proposals in clause 4, with which I shall deal later in my speech, and generally to the proposals which I have been outlining, which are perhaps not related directly to hospital and community health services, and described them as peripheral. It is clear to anyone who examines the pressures on the Health Service that it would be wrong to ignore or dismiss any reasonable source of enhancement of the resources that we can put into health care as a whole. That is what I have had in mind—I hope that this will be the view of the House generally—in judging these proposals. We all know that the potential for spending on health is literally infinite. Therefore, we all have a duty to consider every legitimate way of garnering resources to spend on health services.
  Mr. Peter Fry: My hon. Friend has referred to those who are able to pay. Will he accept that there are many pensioners whose income is slightly above the supplementary benefit level who will find it extremely difficult to meet the new charges that are embodied in the Bill? Will he undertake to examine the present exemptions from charges and give consideration to whether they could be widened to take account of the difficulties that will be faced by those on very modest incomes?
  Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says. I was about to emphasise that all existing exemptions — I know that this does not meet his point directly—from treatment charges will extend to examination charges. In other words, neither will be paid by children, students, those on low incomes, including the elderly, expecting and nursing mothers, and certain other groups. We are talking primarily about those on supplementary benefit or income support.
  36
  I recognise the reasons why my hon. Friend has introduced that point. Let me say, in general terms, that the objective of the Government's policy in relation to those over retirement age—which is clearly reflected in the measures that my hon. Friends concerned with social security have been introducing and carrying through in recent months and years — is to build on what has already notably occurred in recent decades: a steady improvement in the general standard of living of those over retirement age, not least with the development of occupational pensions.
  I believe that the proper strategy of Government policy — and it is the strategy of our policy — should be to continue to build up the capacity of people in retirement to make choices and decisions for themselves, and thus enhance their independence. It follows from that that when public resources are to be applied by way of exemptions or special concessions, it is right to focus them on those who have not the advantages of, for example, the development of occupational pensions, and are — by definition—too late to benefit from what we are now seeking to do. That, I believe, is the right approach in this and other matters.
  Mr. Robert McCrindle: While I accept what my hon. Friend has been saying about the desirability of encouraging those who are able to contribute to do so, will he take on board that many of us who will be voting for the Bill's Second Reading this evening for that very reason nevertheless feel strongly that, if it is impossible for the individual to make a contribution towards health care and only the Government remain capable of providing adequate resources, we should look to them progressively to do so in the weeks and months ahead? Many Conservative Members would be forced at this point to endorse the call by the presidents of the royal colleges this morning.
  Mr. Newton: Let me say for the third time that I note what my hon. Friend has said, and ask him to note what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) a few minutes ago. I also ask him to recognise that it is too simple by half to associate all the pressures faced by the expanding Health Service solely with demand for additional financial resources.
  I thought that one of the weaknesses of the statement issued by the presidents of the royal colleges last night was that it contained little or no serious discussion of the complex causes of some of the difficulties, including, for example, the nursing shortages which have been acknowledged recently in the Birmingham area —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) says that that has to do with money. But the cardiac clinicians who wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the beginning of last week, in a letter that gained some publicity in the press, made it clear that they felt that they could afford to pay intensive care nurses more within their existing budgets. They did not suggest that it was an overall resource problem; they suggested that it was a question of the structure of pay. We are tackling that through the so-called clinical grading review, on which I hope negotiations are nearly completed. That will give us a basis, through the subsequent recommendations of the review body, to tackle the problem in the way in which it needs to be tackled—in relation to the pay and grading of nurses.
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must examine the restructuring of nurses' pay. However, let no one be deceived into thinking that it is just because of pay that 30,000 nurses are leaving the profession. They are leaving because they are demoralised.
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is oversimplifying matters in the same way as the statement by the presidents of the royal colleges. As was made clear in the debate in the House the week before last, no one suggests that there are not problems and pressures in the Health Service—as there have always been—over meeting demand. I do not try to dismiss those problems, any more than I did in that debate, or during the past few minutes. I ask in return only that my hon. Friend accepts that they are complex problems, which are often reduced to excessive simplicities by some of the statements that are put out.
  Clause 7 of the Bill broadens the scope of the community dental service, and gives health authorities discretion to redirect the service's resources away from the routine treatment of children—who can be, and for the most part are, looked after in the general dental service —and towards providing health education for children in schools. We are also looking for new contractual arrangements, such as a continuing care, contract and capitation, which — subject to negotiations with the profession—will enable general dental practitioners to devote more time and resources to preventive work with their child patients.
  I am bearing in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the injunction from Mr. Speaker about brevity. In conjunction with the profession, we shall be launching a dental health testing campaign to promote dental awareness and regular attendance. The campaign will be directed in particular at young people in inner-city areas, where the standards of dental health are still some way behind those in the rest of the country. We shall also be taking a step designed to enhance the quality of treatment—one step among many, but a legislative step. Clause 9 provides increased powers for the Dental Estimates Board to survey and research norms and standards of treatment, and to deal with dentists whose work appears to be at variance with those standards. The White Paper also referred to our intention to consult the profession about a new counseling and monitoring service of dental practice advisers, which we hope will contribute to the improvement of services.
  Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister think that the British Dental Association has circulated among many of us a powerful memorandum opposing examination charges for adults? Does he agree that charges will mean that people will go to the dentist less regularly, and that, ultimately, the expense will mount?
  Mr. Newton: I do not find it surprising that the British Dental Association has circulated such a document. However, I disagree with its assessment of the effect of the proposals, especially against the background that I emphasised, possibly at excessive length. The net result is likely to be the provision of significant ranges of treatment — even with the examination charge — at lower costs than are now incurred; and, therefore, greater incentives for people to visit the dentist regularly while they still need modest treatment, rather than leaving huge problems to build up.
  38
  Clauses 10 and 11 relate to the general ophthalmic services. The first confines free National Health Service sight tests to groups which we have specified: children, those on low incomes, young people in full-time education and those who are registered blind or partially sighted. Those groups account for an estimated 30 per cent. — nearly one-third — of such tests. For the remainder, however, free NHS sight tests will cease to be available.
  I should make it clear that there is no question of the Government setting or imposing a particular charge. The figure of £10, which has been quoted fairly widely, is simply the amount that we currently pay for such a test by an ophthalmic optician. For a test by an ophthalmic medical practitioner, it is rather less—just over £6, In the light of experience—following the end of free NHS glasses—with vouchers being provided for the priority groups whom I have mentioned— we can sensibly expect that the extension of competition, which has both reduced prices and notably increased consumer choice for spectacles, will restrain charges. Given that even those who already need glasses visit the optician only once every two or three years, I see no reason to suppose that people will be deterred in the way that has been suggested.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Let me remind the Minister that when the House last discussed the matter the previous Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), said:
  "we also believe that the access to a free sight test is important in detecting serious eye disease." —[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 295.]
  What medical advice—I stress the word "medical"—has the Minister received that has encouraged the Government to change their view, and no longer to believe that that is important?
  Mr. Newton: I shall comment on screening in a few moments. However, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have been seeking to expand and develop our health services as a whole and that we have placed great emphasis on the primary care services. We have rightly kept that policy under review. We launched the primary care consultation, and we have now published the primary care White Paper and this Bill. We have come firmly to the conclusion that we wish to undertake further development of these services in the interests of the general promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health. In the context of furthering and continuing that development, we have thought it legitimate to bring this proposal before the House. It will contribute to the resources that we need to carry out the other developments that we believe are worth while. I make no apology for the fact that we have done that.
  Mr. Cook: I repeat my question: what medical advice did the Government receive on that point?
  Mr. Newton: I repeat that I shall say something about screening in a few moments.
  Clause 11 safeguards competition, which has had a significant effect by reducing the price of spectacles and increasing choice. We believe that that will restrain the cost of sight tests. We propose to safeguard competition by requiring the optician after a sight test to give the patient a prescription, if glasses are needed, so that he or she can shop around for glasses, as can be done now.
  I am aware—the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) echoed this point in his interventions — that

  39
  suggestions have been made that our proposed changes will diminish the role that is played by sight tests in screening for other conditions. The extent to which that argument stands up at all depends on expecting people to be deterred from seeking eye tests. There is no reason to expect that to happen. Sight tests will continue to be conducted at least to the same standards, although opticians may decide in practice—partly because of the competitive pressures to which I have referred—to offer a wider range of tests than is available under the National Health Service. It is a professional requirement of the General Optical Council that the optician should refer a patient to a doctor if he detects glaucoma or diabetic retinopathy. That arrangement — clearly on medical advice—will continue.
  Dame Jill Knight: If opticians are to be encouraged to conduct different types of tests, with some being not quite so thorough as others, who will be responsible if, during a less than thorough test, early signs of diabetes are missed? Will the optician be responsible, although he has been encouraged by the Government to carry out a less than thorough test on his patient, or will the Government be responsible?
  Mr. Newton: I think that I shall carry my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these matters, with me if I acknowledge that the extent of the tests that are carried out by opticians already varies from one practice to another. If it is felt that further steps should be taken either to tighten up the procedures or to impose precisely what should be done, that could be considered. I do not dismiss my hon. Friend's point, but I am uneasy about the apparent willingness to rely for the screening of some conditions, in particular diabetes, on the chance that people go to their optician. Our proposals for general practitioners are designed to encourage, particularly in relation to the very young and the elderly, the systematic overall health screening of those who are most likely to be at risk. It is worth considering whether that is a better and a more sensible approach to these problems than to rely on people going to their optician.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend accept that I have a typical diabetic condition that was found when I went for an eye test? I am not elderly and I am not a child. In those circumstances, would I have had the benefit of a sliding scale option? How much would the minimum charge have been and would the optician have given me that option at the beginning or at the end of the diagnosis?
  Mr. Newton: I am not, I am afraid, absolutely sure that I have understood the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The charge will depend on what the optician decides to charge. My view is that the pressures of competition, which have significantly reduced the price of spectacles, will similarly restrain, and possibly entirely eliminate, the charges for eyesight testing. However, that is for opticians to decide within a much freer market than exists now. I believe that it will have the same beneficial effect as the move to vouchers has unquestionably had.
  Mr. Holt: Am I to understand that each optician will be able to choose what charge he makes, that that charge
  40
  could be nil, if he so chooses, and that the reimbursement by the Government will be according to a sliding scale that the Government will fix at another time?
  Mr. Newton: I have already emphasised that there is no question of the Government setting or prescribing particular charges. We shall continue to discuss with the profession the arrangements for reimbursing opticians for eyesight tests that remain free NHS eyesight tests —according to current figures, about 30 per cent. Where there is no question of a free NHS eyesight test —roughly the other 70 per cent. — it will be for the optician to decide how much he wants to charge. I make no secret of the fact that my guess is that in many cases the charge will be rather less than the amount that is paid to opticians for carrying out those tests now. Indeed, it would be very surprising if that were not the case.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend says that he does not expect people to be deterred by charges for what was previously free. Since that is contrary to what any person would expect the consequence to be, on what objective evidence are his expectations, which seem to be so improbable to common reason, based?
  Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will accept that it can only be a matter of judgment, in the light of the experience that we already have of the abolition of free NHS glasses and the introduction of the voucher scheme. We were told that large numbers of people would be frightened and would not have spectacles. I know of no evidence that that has occurred. We were also told that opticians would never be able to provide spectacles that were as good as or better than the old NHS ones at the sort of price that the voucher values represent. One only has to visit one of the attractive spectacle stores that have now been set up to find that such establishments are offering a significantly wider range of much more attractive spectacles that come within the voucher values. I accept that it is a matter of judgment, and I hestitate to quarrel with my hon. Friend's judgment, but in this case my judgment differs from his.
  Sir Peter Hordern: Is it not possible that the charges are most unlikely to be as much as £10 a visit, and is it not possible that more people will be encouraged to visit their optician? As for the complaints by the principals of the royal colleges, is it not a fact that there are now twice as many nurses and doctors as there were 20 years ago, when these eminent people first started in practice, and that if only they had run their hospitals better and achieved better savings, and if there were not so many hospitals, the Health Service would be a great deal better off?
  Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I can vouch for my hon. Friend's statistics. Mine usually go back to 1979 for reasons about which the House will speculate. However, I confirm my hon. Friend's view. One need only consider the different periods of day surgery care from health authority to health authority, and, indeed, from hospital to hospital, the differing periods of time that patients spend in hospital following certain procedures or the relative costs of different hospitals and different clinicians to know that there is a good deal of room for improvement among all who are connected with the Health Service. I hope that doctors will reflect on that.
  In addition to the contributions to the general improvement in health care services, especially screening

  41
  and preventive services, with which we expect the resources released by the changes to assist, I should emphasise that the changes will enable us to extend other important services related to eye care. We propose to extend the voucher scheme to help adults who frequently break their glasses because of physical or mental disability. Negotiations will shortly begin with the profession about widening the National Health services to enable practitioners to provide a sight testing service to the housebound. I know that many people who are concerned with community care attach great importance to that point, which will be of real assistance to many elderly people. In addition, the value of vouchers that are available to those who require complex and expensive lenses will be given special consideration to ensure that that group of patients is not placed at a disadvantage.
  I have already taken quite some time from the House and shall cover the remaining clauses briefly so that, at least, I shall have given the House some idea of what they contain. Some are principally technical measures to tie up loose ends that arise from earlier uncertainties.
  Clause 14 anticipates the integration of the artificial limb and appliance services into the National Health Service in 1991. That has the effect of maintaining continunity of employment to civil servants who choose to transfer to the National Health Service.
  Clause 17 confirms the legal basis of fees for licences that are issued under the Medicines Act 1971.
  Clause 16 fills the gap in the limited powers of the Secretary of State to make grants for the training of local authorities' social services staff in England and Wales. That may sound a small point, but one aim is to enable us, at some appropriate moment, to put resources into improving the training of staff concerned with child abuse, for which we think we currently have inadequate powers.
  Clause 15 removes the power of local authorities to charge health authorities for the services of social work staff. When the National Health Service was reorganised in 1974, local authorities were made responsible for employing social workers and health authorities for employing doctors and nurses. Resources were transferred centrally at that time from the health budget to local government grant arrangements to reflect that change of responsibility. There is no justification for retaining the anomalous powers for local authorities to make the charges. Subject to passage of the Bill, we intend that that should take effect at midnight on the day of publication, 26 November.
  I return, as I said I would, to the issue of income generation by health authorities. The Bill is intended to assist health authorities in creating new opportunities to generate additional resources and, not least in connection with the points made during the past half hour by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, to improve health care. The Bill gives health authorities new powers to supplement their resources by making, for example, better use of their facilities. They will be able to take greater advantage of opportunities to lease space to commercial outlets, such as shops or hairdressers. If they wish, they could sell advertising space in the hospital or at other premises. They will he able to consider providing completely new facilities such as health clubs, for which they can, quite sensibly and properly, make charges.
  Several authorities have already made a modest start, for example, by charging taxi companies for the installation in hospitals of free taxi-phones for use by
  42
  patients and visitors, or by recovering and selling the silver from used X-rays. The Bill is designed to enhance such opportunities and to make it clear, in the statute, that such activities can only be undertaken provided that they do not interfere, in any way, with the main duty, which is to provide services to patients under the National Health Service.
  Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Newton: Yes, but then I must get on.
  Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. If an entrepreneurial health authority holds bazaars and all sorts of events and raises a lot of money in the next year, will it suffer a deflation of its allocation by the regional health authority or will it be allowed to keep that money, in addition?
  Mr. Newton: I intend to make it clear to regional health authorities, without attempting to dictate every detail of their allocation policy, that I expect them to ensure that district health authorities are not put in a position in which it does not seem worthwhile to engage in entrepreneurial activities because they fear that they will not gain or benefit from them.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Newton: Yes, but this may have to be the last time that I do so because otherwise many hon. Members will be unable to speak.
  Mr. Galbraith: The Minister said that those other functions must not interfere with patients and subsection (5)(a) of clause 4 state that they should not,
  "to a significant extent, interfere with the performance".
  Will he tell us how he will ensure that they do not interfere with performance?
  Mr. Newton: The sort of schemes that we would be prepared to countenance will be a matter for monitoring by the Department and by regions. We intend to set up a central unit to distribute the information and to assist health authorities in such matters. I re-emphasise, because I do not want this to be misunderstood, that there is no intention of permitting activities that could be seen as detracting from the services provided under the Health Service to those to whom the health authorities have a responsibility. The purpose is to gain additional resources for the continued improvement of the National Health Service.
  The clause gives health authorities much greater freedom as to the way in which they set charges for private patients. Currently, authorities can only recover through charges the costs of the services provided for private patients. We intend that in future they should be able to set charges according to the prevailing market conditions. That should enable authorities to increase their income from such services.
  Partly because I have given way so much, I have taken rather longer than I would have wished and shall conclude briefly. In many important respects, the Bill paves the way for the implementation of significant improvements in primary health care in this country, for increasing consumer choice and improving the quality and quantity of services overall. It also provides those new powers that will make a useful contribution to the further development of hospital and community health services. In that sense,

  43
  it will be a significant and useful step forwared in the continued development of policy for improving the Health Service in this country and, therefore, I commend it to the House.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: Under this Government, the straightest way to the heart of any Bill is to turn to the financial memorandum. From the financial memorandum we learn that there will be no significant effect on public sector manpower, but that there will be significant net savings on public expenditure. I congratulate the Minister on his nerves of steel. Against a background of financial crisis in the Health Service, it takes a thick-skinned and impervious Government to come to the House of Commons to ask it to pass a Bill that will further reduce Government spending on the National Health Service.
  I saw the contrast between the needs of the Health Service and the priorities of the Government graphically illustrated yesterday on the front page of my Sunday newspaper. Side by side with the report of the death of baby Barber there was a report that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax next March, plus a cut of 10p in the income tax of top people. Apparently that is because of what is described as the "prosperous" state of Treasury revenues and the "negligible" need for public borrowing next year.
  It costs £3 billion to reduce income tax by 2p, leaving aside the extra gilt for the top-rate payers. One third, or even one sixth, of that sum would transform the situation in British hospitals. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has such money to spare, it is the duty of the Minister for Health to get it for the National Health Service. It is a function of Government to make a judgment between competing priorities for resources. However, only a Government who have abandoned all pretence of measuring social need could persuade themselves this winter that tax cuts should take priority over spending on the National Health Service.
  The point was expressed yesterday succinctly by Philip Barber, who was interrupted at a marathon, sponsored game of pool to be told of his son's death, when he observed:
  "There is something wrong in a society which needs me to play pool so that babies can have operations to save their lives"
  Yet the Bill confirms that even the Ministers responsible for the nation's health have agreed to share the priority of cutting spending rather than meeting need.
  Mr. Hayes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House in any way. When he talked about the financial and manpower effects he talked about significant net savings, but he did not go on to say that that was because the General Practice Finance Corporation will be a limited company and will not be counted in the public sector borrowing requirement. I am sure that he would like to explain that.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman refers to clauses 1 to 3, to which I shall refer in a moment. If he re-reads the passage that talks of significant net savings in public expenditure, he will recognise that it refers to clauses 1 to 13, which go well beyond clauses 1 to 3.
  Clause 13 is likely to be the most profound measure, because for the first time it extends cash limits to the family
  44
  practitioner service. I noticed that the Minister said that that would be a more flexible system than the present one. We are surrounded by abundant evidence of what this flexible system of cash limits has done to our hospital service. The rest of the nation is appalled at the consequences of this flexible system on the hospital service, yet apparently the Government are so pleased with the results that they propose to extend the system to general practitioners. Clauses I to 3 promise considerable savings to the public sector borrowing requirement, never mind that The Observer tells us that the PSBR is also negligible. Apparently it is the first duty of the Minister for Health to find still more savings to make it even more negligible.
  The savings arise from a proposal to privatise, not the family practitioner committees— the Government have not yet reached that stage — but the General Practice Finance Corporation. It was set up because GPs had difficulty in obtaining commercial loans to purchase property in areas of poverty and under-privilege; in other words, in areas where the banks were reluctant to lend. That remains the distinctive contribution of the GPFC. It is astonishing that in a package that we are told is designed to improve primary health care the Government should wash their hands of the major provider of funds for premises in inner cities, where there is the greatest need to obtain more premises and to modernise existing ones.
  The Government considered privatising the GPFC in 1984 and rejected the idea. The Minister's predecessor came to the Dispatch Box on Report on the Health and Social Security Bill and positively preened himself on keeping the corporation in the public sector. He said:
  "It shows what a flexible and non-ideological Government we are."—[Official Report, 2 May 1984; Vol 59, c. 366.]
  By the same token, we can only conclude from today's measure that we are faced with an inflexible and ideological Government. The savings from this bit of ideology are small beer, because the Government have already so reduced the borrowing limits of the corporation that it is allowed to spend only £10 million to £12 million a year. The Government will now receive 15 times that sum in increased income from the proposals on new charges for teeth and eyes.
  I shall flag an anxiety raised by several members of the BMA about the breadth of clause 8. Mysteriously, reference to dentists and dental charges vanishes in subsection (2). When the Minister replies, will she clarify the scope of clause 8 and confirm that she is not giving herself powers to introduce by regulation charges on the services of general pracitioners? I shall wait in expectation of her reply when she is briefed.
  What we know about the clause is bad enough. It provides for a new charge on having one's teeth examined. Since 1948 teeth have been examined free under the NHS as a matter of principle. The Government propose to raise £50 million by abandoning that free examination. One is bound to observe that they sell their principles cheaply—
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As the Labour Government did in 1951 with the introduction of prescription and dental charges.
  Mr. Cook: With the greatest respect, no previous Government, of whatever colour, have introduced a charge for the examination of teeth. Nowhere are we favoured with an explanation of how it will help to prevent

  45
  dental disease by deterring patients from going for a regular check-up, and deter them it will. I assert that with confidence because, thanks to the Government, we have experience of what happens when dental charges are hoicked up. In April 1985 the Government increased dental charges by 25 per cent. Over the subsequent year the number of fillings fell by 5 million, the treatment of gum disease fell by I million and root treatments fell by more than 100,000. By contrast, the number of patients opting for the cheaper treatment of extraction increased by 5 per cent.
  Mr. Richard Tracey rose—
  Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall happily give way when I have finished this point.
  It need not surprise Conservative Members that increasing charges has that effect on demand. After all, they, more than anybody else, have put their faith in the market mechanism, and they should be gratified to learn that that faith is justified when patients respond to the pricing signal by staying away from surgeries or opting for the cheaper option of extraction.
  Mr. Leigh: What happened to the nation's teeth when the Labour Government increased the cost of routine dental treatment by 150 per cent. in 1977?
  Mr. Cook: I cannot answer that, but I can say what happened at the local elections, because I was canvassing on the night when that was announced. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that several colleagues and I resisted that charge when it came before the House, and if we had had the support of his colleagues we would have defeated it.
  Many will undoubtedly now stay away when they receive the reminder for a six-monthly examination. It is worth remembering that that examination has importance in health care well beyond sound teeth; the dental examination can reveal other medical conditions. To take one topical disease, it is likely that some AIDS carriers will first be detected through thrush of the gums when they present themselves to a dentist. It is important not only for them, but for the rest of the community, that they are not inhibited front obtaining early diagnosis of that condition.
  There is also the wider issue of the structure of the charges. The Minister prided himself on the fact that some people will pay less under his new charges, and that may be so. I am prepared to concede that some people may have a smaller bill, but the Minister cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend that that is some sort of general rule. After all, we know that he is budgeting to expect £85 million more in charges from those who visit the dentist, so, demonstrably, most will pay more. In particular, the 100,000 who at present bump against the ceiling of £115 on charges will now bump against the ceiling of £150 per charge.
  The Minister said that the charge would be proportional to the cost, but no such proportion is set out in clause 8. On the contrary, clause 8 is drafted in alarming terms which would allow the Minister to recover the whole cost of the charge. I suppose that 100 per cent. may be passed off as a proportion of a sort, but it is hardly what most people understand by the use of the term. Clause 8 gives the Government the power to abolish by order all public support of NHS dental treatment. It puts the dental
  46
  service on the slipway to an entirely private marketed service, and if anyone concludes that that is fanciful, I would ask who would have thought eight years ago that that is precisely where the NHS optical service would now be?
  That brings me to the key proposal in the Government's preventive approach to eye care, which is to introduce charges for eye tests. The Minister said that it would not necessarily cost a tenner. A tenner happens to be approximately what optometrists are paid—£9·30 to be precise. Anything less than that would leave them out of pocket. The Government may argue, as the Minister argued, that they could opt for a lower income and therefore suffer a lower charge
  The Minister referred to the market. Markets seek equilibrium when supply and demand are in balance. I should not have to point that out to such a disciple of the Prime Minister's economic philosophy. It would be a curious market which found it equilibrium at the point at which all demand was met. By definition, if the Minister is leaving it to the market to settle the charge, some demand will not be met because it cannot meet the charge. There was no hint in the consultation document of that proposal. There was not a breath of it in the Conservative party manifesto—a point of some relevance.
  Mr. Ian Hunter, the general secretary of the Association of Optical Practitioners, told Conservative Back Benchers that most of them had voted for the Government. No doubt optometrists are men of strong political convictions who would have done so anyway, but it is a pity that the Conservative party did not trust them enough to tell them in advance what they were voting for.
  The majority of optometrists' clients are pensioners, and pensioners need the eye test most, and they need it most often. Six million pensioners will not qualify for a free eye test. Many of them simply will not go, or will not go as often as they should. They may save a tenner, or perhaps a fiver if the market system operates, but they may also lose their eye sight. The eye sight test is a misnomer. Optometrists offer a full examination of the back of the eye, and they require specialist training and special equipment. They can detect serious health risks such as diabetes and hypertension.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) was in contact with me over the weekend, following a visit from a constituent who visited an optometrist about three months ago. The optometrist examined the back of her eye and immediately arranged for her to see an eye specialist, who referred her to a neurosurgeon. Within a week of her examination, she was operated on for a brain tumour and was advised by the neurosurgeon that had she waited for another two weeks it is likely that she would have lost the use of her legs permanently. In that case a very serious medical condition was revealed by the eye test. I must add that the constituent in question was quite frank in saying that, on her wages as a cook, she would not have gone for that test if she had had to pay a tenner.
  The damage that will arise from the introduction of charges is perhaps best illustrated in the case of glaucoma. Three out of four cases of glaucoma are detected by the eye test. I cannot do better than read the observations of the International Glaucoma Association, which says that it
  "can only conclude that either the Government have not been well advised; or that they have deliberately decided to brush

  47
  aside as of no consequence the certain increase in the number of people with glaucoma who will not be discovered until the disease is well advanced."
  I listened with interest to the interventions of the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) who are no longer in the Chamber. It would have been nice if they had stayed and participated in the rest of the debate, as they feel so strongly. They said that, although they would vote for the Bill, the Minister could not expect them to support the measure.
  I have to tell those hon. Members that the Minister made a very interesting statement of particular relevance to Conservative Back Benchers who claim to disagree with his proposal. The Minister said that he believed that adults with means of their own should make up their own minds and make choices for themselves. I believe that that is precisely what those Conservative Back Benchers who are unhappy with the proposal must now do. It will not do for them to stand up in the House and say that they disagree with the Bill and then go into the Lobby and vote for it.
  Clause 4 gives expression to the Government's latest fad, which they have termed income generation, and provides a new place in district management teams for a marketing director whose role will not be meeting health needs, but that of finding the sponsor who will pay most to get his name on nurses' uniforms — the Adidas solution to Health Service funding. It is not an optional course, which is being offered to managers as light relief from the stress of being unable to meet health needs. Clause 4 authorises the Secretary of State to direct health authorities to market their services. For good measure, it adds that it is their duty to comply with such directions.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) made a penetrating intervention, if I may say that without prejudicing his career, when he asked whether the Minister would allow health authorities to keep the fruits of their marketing. He received a particularly Delphic response. I have in front of me the words that the Minister used when he was asked an identical question at a press conference last week. His words on that occasion were slightly less Delphic. He said:
  "Inescapably, we have to look at the totality of resources available from all sources."
  The hon. Gentleman feared that that meant that the Minister would deduct from the allocation to health authorities the revenue that they had raised from marketing. I have to warn the hon. Gentleman that it will be worse than that. After the Minister has taken his powers to direct health authorities to market the services, and after he has taken the power to oblige them to comply with those directions, he will assume that they are obtaining income from marketing the services, whether or not they are securing that income. It is a fraud on the House and on the nation to pretend that extra revenue will be available for patient care.
  Let me make it clear where the Opposition stand on that matter. We believe that the test that has to be applied to marketing services is whether they will improve the service to the patient. If a spot of franchising provides greater variety in the cafeterias, that is well and good. If those cafeterias are run on the principle of a healthy diet, that is even better, although that rules out 90 per cent. of the fast food chains in Britain.
  Mr. Holt: And in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Cook: In the House of Commons, too. What is wholly dishonest is to pretend that clause 4 will unlock a chest of gold that will plug the yawning gap in hospital finance.
  Last week the Minister objected to my description of this as tuck shop economics. Ken Grant, the manager of the City and Hackney health authority, who has done more than anyone else to generate income, expressed it in more blunt language than I dare use. He said:
  "In terms of what the NHS needs, the money we are raising is peanuts. It's just that at the moment peanuts are bloody useful"
  After three years the peanuts will amount to £70 million in a full year. To put that in perspective, it is less than half the £168 million by which the Government have underfunded nurses' pay in the past year alone. It is sheer effrontery for a Government who cheated the health authorities on that scale now to claim the credit for allowing them to raise half that money in the market. The basic reason why we are suspicious of clause 4 is that, eventually, the pressures on hospitals to make profit will make the patient pay. Nearly two thirds of clause 4 is about charging patients.
  It might be salutary to recall at this point the crushing failure of the Government's previous intervention on charging patients, which encouraged hospitals to expand pay beds by one quarter over six years. Unfortunately for them, those six years turned out to be the same period in which the number of patients wanting pay beds fell by one third. The legacy of that colossal misreading of the market is a mountain of bad debt. Health authorities are writing off £500,000 in bad debt from private patients who slipped to the front of the queue into pay beds and failed to pay for them.
  Despite that lesson of history, the Government now want to encourage health authorities to invest still more money in that loss leader. I have evidence of what the Minister has in mind. I understand that on Wednesday, or later in the week, at a press conference he intends to reveal a deal which the Government have struck with Bioplan Holdings to develop private day units in NHS hospitals. One of those is the Hope hospital in Salford, where Bioplan is to build a 12-bed new day centre unit. Another is the Churchill hospital in Oxford, where Bioplan is to equip an existing Health Service day surgery unit and provide 15 private beds. Those are the first two out of six such deals around the country. Each of them will have the capacity to carry out 10,000 operations.
  That reflects the trend in America for fast in and out day surgery as the basis of private care—the "Kwik-Fit" approach to surgery. It breaks new ground in reducing health care to a market commodity. It will mean that NHS hospitals and private hospitals will occupy the same sites — in the case of the Churchill hospital, the same building. They will share common staff. It is not even clear whether consultants will operate in their own time or in the time paid for by the district health authority. They will share common laboratory staff—at any rate until such time as the Government privatise the laboratories.
  The absurdity of the position is that the district health authorities will provide the sites, lend the staff, run the back-up services and must then pay Bioplan for the treatment of the patients. Of course, the deal has been stitched up behind closed doors, which is the very antithesis of market forces. There was no open tender here.

  49
  It is a flagrant case of favouritism — and what a favourite to have chosen. Bioplan shares its directors with the British subsidiary of the Hospital Corporation of America. The vice-president of that corporation has observed with engaging frankness:
  "We try to maintain a low profile when we enter a country because we don't want it to appear that — here is a big American company to take over the health care system."
  With equal candour, two years ago the founder and controlling shareholder of Bioplan stated his health care philosophy at a Financial Times conference. He said:
  "I don't apologise for being commercial—the bottom line to me means profit."
  How fitting that this Government should choose such a company as a partner. How perfectly that demonstrates where we are going with clause 4 and the joint priorities of that company and the Government.
  Meanwhile, back in the state sector, every day we see more clearly the reality of the Government's commitment to the NHS. In Birmingham the reality of health care under the Government is a charity appeal for £500,000 to cover a corridor from the operating theatre so that ill babies need not be wheeled through the mud. In Leeds the reality is parents clubbing together to fund a registrar's post in a children's cancer ward.
  At the weekend it was the turn of the royal colleges to issue an unprecedented joint statement. I have not been charged with the health portfolio for as long as the Minister has, but even if I had the years of experience that he has I hope that I would not presume to tell the presidents of the three senior royal colleges that they had not grasped the complexity of the issue. The three presidents said:
  "In spite of the efforts of doctors, nurses and other hospital staff, patient care is deteriorating. Acute hospital services have almost reached breaking point."
  That statement is a damning indictment of the state of our hospitals this year. The statement demands a response from the Government that matches the magnitude of the crisis that it depicts. That response will require vision and clear-headed choices between priorities. It will require a readiness to square up to providing the resources to do the job adequately. Instead, the House is offered this tawdry Bill about putting petrol pumps in hospital forecourts and charging the elderly to have their eyes examined.
  The measures are objectionable enough in themselves. The Bill that contains them is doubly objectionable because it is a pathetic and fatuous irrelevance to the real crisis in the Health Service. We will vote against it tonight with contempt.
  5.13 pm
  Sir David Price: Following Mr. Speaker's injunction to make brief speeches, I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) will forgive me if I do not immediately answer some of his important points, especially the latter ones. I hope to take up some of them during my brief contribution.
  I am the only member of the former Select Committee on Social Services, which spent most of last year examining primary health care, who is present for this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing, at least in principle, with most of the recommendations in our report. It would be churlish of me not to extend similar thanks to the Goverment for their White Paper. It is
  50
  important for us to realise the commitment that they have made. In the preface to the White Paper, the four Secretaries of State say that we must
  "shift the emphasis in primary care from the treatment of illness to the promotion of health and the prevention of disease."
  To succeed, that shift will require extra resources. Illness will not just vanish because we decide to work for a healthier nation.
  In the long term, if we place more emphasis on the prevention of illness and immunisation, it will be reasonable to expect a reduction in known ailments, with known causes where they are known to be preventable. Former killer diseases such as smallpox, scarlet fever, diphtheria and tuberculosis have been nearly, if not completely, eliminated through public health campaigns, immunisation and the development of antibiotics. Thus, there is an historical basis for the long-term hope that prevention will reduce the incidence of illness. But we have no chance of doing it quickly. Therefore, the extra activity that we hope will come into primary care as a result of the White Paper will require further resources. We know that resources are already under strain, and the hon. Member for Livingston drew our attention—if we needed it—to the statement from the presidents of the royal colleges.
  What are the Government doing to provide extra resources? In his statement of 25 November, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health outlined the Government's commitment to putting more resources into primary health care. He reminded us that existing plans already provided for an additional £570 million in real terms by 1990–91. Today, he talked about £600 million. I do not know whether he was rounding up or whether we have got another £30 million out of him.
  Mr. Newton: I started rounding down and said that we were committed to spending at least another £500 million. The programme of additional expenditure contained in the White Paper will take it from under £600 million to well over £600 million.
  Sir David Price: My hon. Friend went on to say in his statement that the £570 million
  "will be further increased by the substantial extra resources that the Government will make available to finance the improvements that I have described today." —[Official Report, 25 November 1987; Vol. 123, c. 260.]
  Paragraph 2.6 of the White Paper examines the Government's intentions and suggests that additional resources will be available. That puts a different light on the Government's proposals from what was said by the hon. Member for Livingston and by some of my hon. Friends. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who will reply to the debate spell out more precisely the Government's commitment to provide these extra resources? It is important for us all to know what that commitment is. I will carry the whole House with me when I say that to move forward in health promotion, the prevention of illness and immunisation—all the matters that were set out in the Select Committee report— we shall need extra resources. I believe that the Government are committed to making available those extra resources, but that message is not getting through to the public or to the House. Much of the debate so far has centred on the false idea that the Government are reducing resources.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: It seems a pity that that point has not got through to the

  51
  professionals. When the discussion document was put out for consultation, no suggestions were made about how the developments could be financed. The professionals were slow to come forward, but they were not slow to be entrepreneurial. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the Health Service could consider other opportunities, but the professionals have not been slow to find other opportunities to boost their income. The Sunday Times said that consultants in the Bristol hospital were earning £60,000. Perhaps members of the profession will come forward with suggestions.
  Sir David Price: My hon. Friend makes a useful intervention which goes rather wider than the scope of the Bill, but he takes me on to my next point. If, as a nation, we are to develop our health services as everybody wants, we must consider new methods of financing them. That takes up my hon. Friend's point.
  We must not reject ideologically the use of charges, but we must ask what sort of charges should be made and whether they are acceptable medically. The hon. Member for Livingston made a very telling point. I could put the same point in the language of the Royal College of Nursing which said that we encourage free medical checks of all parts of our body by clinicians except our teeth and our eyes for which we will have to pay. This distinction requires a more detailed justification than we have had so far. I am not opposed to the concept of charges. It is an important matter and we must discuss which charges are relevant. No charge must be imposed which might reduce a citizen's access to services because he cannot afford them.
  Mr. Galbraith: I do not agree with charges, but there are different types of services for which we can charge, for example, treatment, including prescription of spectacles, and screening. That is an important distinction. People would continue to take up preventive treatment, but they would not take up a screening test.
  Sir David Price: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. Let me move from charging to my old hobby horse, which I do not apologise for raising again. We must aim at smaller lists for general practice. I have already quoted the Select Committee's recommendation on this matter and, with the indulgence of the House, I shall repeat it because it goes to the heart of improving the scope of primary health care. We said:
  "With an ageing population, earlier patient discharge from hospital—particularly of children, increasing opportunities for diagnosis in general practice to reduce referrals to hospital, as well as greater responsibility for the management of chronic disease in general practice and a greater emphasis on a range of preventive services, the case for further reduction in the GP list size seems unanswerable."
  I believe that it is unanswerable. The measures necessary to implement the House's intention for better primary health care — the House supports the White Paper's intentions—must centre upon the reduction of list sizes.
  If we wish to improve our primary health care, we must recognise that nurses should play a greater role than they have hitherto and that they are professionally competent to do so. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with what we said in paragraph 60 of our report, which is clearly relevant to the Bill. We state:
  "There must also be better training for nurses and a proper career structure, if they are to perform an extended role in the
  52
  community. Steps need to be taken to recognise and raise the status of nurses working in primary care. Practice nurses need training specifically directed towards work in the community."
  If the Government accept that view, why does clause 12 provide extra remuneration for training by doctors, but does not extend it to nurses? It would be an important improvement to the Bill if a clause to that effect were added.
  In the same vein, why are the Government not taking advantage of the Bill
  "to permit nurses with appropriate training limited powers to prescribe and in defined circumstances to modify dosage"?
  That was our recommendation 30 with which the Government agreed in principle. In their reply they said that they accepted the proposal, but that they would have to consult the professional standing advisory committees. It is nine months since we made that proposal and a good deal longer since Julia Cumberlege also proposed it. We must take advantage of the Bill because we do not have a Bill like this every year. Therefore, I hope that the Government will add a new clause to that effect.
  There are many other matters with which I should like to deal. We issued a long report with 62 recommendations. I wish to put a few of our points in headline form because they are relevant to our debate. We must consider the role of other professionals in primary health care, particularly physiotherapists and occupational therapists. It is important to include social workers in the primary health care team. We must develop pathological and radiological services and bring them closer to the community, giving a quicker back-up to primary health care. The community hospital must support the general practice and act as a satellite to the district general hospital, thus linking the hospital service through to general practice. We must also consider how voluntary bodies fit into the scheme of health care. I wish to impress on the House the need for closer ties between hospitals and general practice. Those ties should be so close that there would be a seamless robe of care from the patients' bedside right through to intensive care, if needed. We do not make this any easier when we separate the family practitioner service from the hospital service. As my right hon. Friend knows, this is one of my hobby horses. Scotland shows a very much better example in these matters.
  Occupational medicine has a contribution to make in improving standards of preventive medicine and promoting good health care. The private citizen in ordinary families provides most care. I remind the House that there are more private carers—as the House knows, I count myself among them—than all the professionals in the public and private sectors added together. It is worth reminding the professionals occasionally that we amateurs carry more of the heat and burden of personal caring than they do.
  The Select Committee believed that new legislation had only a minor role to play in the improvement of primary health care. It was much more a matter of improved administration, better deployment of staff, more training, additional resources, and, above all, the will to succeed. Like my fellow Select Committee members, I came away from our inquiry optimistic about the prospects for better primary health care, provided that more resources went into the service. I was encouraged by much evidence of good practice in many different areas, including rural areas and inner cities.

  53
  I welcome the Bill and the White Paper. Unlike some other hon. Members who may speak in the debate, I view them with hope and optimism.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) made a number of interesting points. He knows that he and I do not agree on everything, but we have a meeting of minds on some things. We seem to spend our time in the House complimenting each other. He obviously has a very astute and sharp mind if he agrees with me.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): He understands.
  Mr. Galbraith: Yes, he understands.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) referred to consultants. Since I have been a Member of the House, I have heard veiled threats about consultants. The hon. Gentleman referred to consultants earning £60,000. Anyone who knows my background will be aware that I have been one of the greatest critics of consultants and some of their practices. My salary would not reach such a level because of my antipathy to private practice, which is the method by which such sums are earned. Many consultants will not indulge in private practice and I was one of them. I hope that we shall not hear any more contributions like that from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East.
  Although the Minister for Health has now left the Chamber, I thank him for allowing so many people to intervene in his speech. That was very laudable. Indeed, it was in stark contrast to the speech made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security who, when she replied to the previous debate on this subject, did not allow anyone to intervene. It was odd that the hon. Lady would not allow interventions, especially when she misquoted me for purely party political purposes. I know that I am new to this House, but I would advise her that such action did not help her or her argument. When she replies today, I hope that we shall not hear any silly claims that the Government are responsible for the increased rates of survival of kidney transplant patients. That would do nothing to help the hon. Lady or her argument.
  I was very interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Eastleigh about primary care and the way forward, and I agreed with some of them. The trouble with the Bill, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh almost admitted, is that it misses the opportunity to make a number of contributions in the right direction. This is a nasty little bit of piecemeal legislation which does not tackle what is at issue. The thrust of the Bill, that primary care should be directed towards the promotion of health and the prevention of disease and that GPs should take more responsibility, is correct.
  I welcome a few parts of the Bill. I welcome the parts about doctors retiring earlier and the aspects of GPs issuing information leaflets about services on offer, for example, whether family planning is carried out or whether there is parking for disabled drivers. Those are worthwhile. However, as long as we continue to adopt a piecemeal approach to primary care, we shall not progress.
  As the hon. Member for Eastleigh asked, why is the general practioner service still separate from the hospital
  54
  service in England? We could have brought the primary care services together under a health board incorporating family practitioners, primary care and community units. The health board could have pulled together the physiotherapists, dentists, social workers and GPs. It could have clearly planned a tip-top primary care service. It could have set standards and asked the GPs to follow them. If we wanted to allow financial inducements to practices, they should not have been achieved in this manner. They should not be applied for services, as that might produce unnecessary services. We could have identified a basic practice allowance for practices that were willing to follow standards and attainments set out by the primary care and community health board. The practices that did not wish to follow those standards would receive a smaller basic practice allowance.
  I also accept that there is a need to reduce the size of practices to the ideal number of 1,700. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when she replies what in the Bill will induce practices to become smaller. The way to achieve smaller practices is to reduce the capitation fee for patients above the figure of 1,700 and reduce it further above 2,300. I believe that the Bill is a missed opportunity with regard to primary care.
  I want to consider clause 4. It appears that not only the Labour party has trouble with clause 4. I will try to be brief as I understand that other hon. Members want to speak. Clause 4 refers to finding additional resources. I want to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Any additional resources will be marginal in comparison with the health care budget. If we want more resources for the Health Service, they must be obtained from income tax. That is the basis on which the Health Service was set up and that is the only way in which extra resources can be obtained. We must remember that, when we refer to increased resources, we are talking about marginal increases.
  I am worried about the question of selling hospital services within clause 4. I am not referring to a hamburger chain in a hospital foyer. I do not have hang-ups about that. However, I am concerned about the idea of health boards going out of their way to sell services to patients at a profit. I want to restrict this point for the moment to British nationals otherwise other considerations will have to be taken into account. The selling of services and the provision of pay beds can be achieved only at the expense of other patients within the hospital. No matter what anyone else may say, that can be achieved only at the expense of the rest of the patients within that service.
  There are certain reassurances written into the Bill. It is claimed that there will be no interference with performance. I asked the Minister earlier how he would ensure that and he responded vaguely. I know how he will achieve that. The Government will issue guidelines as they did in the Social Security Act 1979. Those pious guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on. No one follows them, they are hopeless. The provisions in clause 4, in many respects, will lead to the deterioration of the service for those who are not paying. That is the only consequence of clause 4.
  When the Minister replies, will she tell us, if the guidelines are issued, that the services cannot be sold if the hospital has a waiting list for that service or if a waiting list would be induced as a result of the sale? The Minister might be able to build in a mechanism to prevent some damage that might be caused.

  55
  I want to refer to some other marginal sources of finance that the Health Service might consider. Such sources of finance might stop us from introducing charges for eye inspections and dental care. There are some areas which have not been examined. The Government are so determined to cut services and so intent on flogging the service off to the private sector that they have not considered the opportunities within the Health Service.
  I suggest that the Minister might consider the whole question of domiciliary visits. That service does not incur great expense, amounting to about £10 million. It has probably outlived its usefulness and is considered to be abused. Will she consider domiciliary consultations by consultants with GPs? Will she also consider merit awards? Merit awards involve about £60 million. What can be done about them? Will she also consider drug companies? Before Conservative Members jump up, I am not referring to nationalisation. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the drug companies carry out a considerable amount of research for their products within hospitals. Of necessity, that research involves patients staying in hospital longer and they always receive additional X-rays, scans, investigations and blood tests. Will the Minister consider whether the drug companies should be charged for that research on their behalf?
  The only area of charging that would be acceptable is one that does not involve patients. Patients should not be involved. However, we can consider a particular area of charging. Patients may be seen privately at a private consultation and as a result they may move into a National Health Service sector hospital. Patients may also be in a private hospital, but then enter a NHS hospital because the facilities are better there. Will the Minister consider the possibility of charging that private sector hospital—not the patients—when they are moved in? Will she consider charging the organisation responsible for patients entering a NHS hospital and charging it at a rate that it would charge in a private hospital? Certainly, that charge represents more than £100 million, but it is only a marginal amount. However, that idea contains the seeds for considering other methods of raising finance.
  I agree that the NHS is receiving more funds than it received in 1979, but that funding is not adequate to provide the services that are required. It is not true to say that we can never meet those requirements. The Health Service in Britain receives less in funds than any other country in Europe apart from Greece. We must find the resources for the NHS. Those resources must come from central Government and from taxation. Therefore, the Opposition will continue to fight for those resources so that we may have a better Health Service for everyone.
  5.39 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: May I start by saying, wistfully, that I would like to be able to support this Bill. The Bill contains some things that are right. We have a significant number of doctors and dentists who still practise when they are well over 80 years of age—some are even over 90 years of age. There has been a degree—I do not want to mince my words—of cheating about the business of retiring and then going back to work within 24 hours. I believe that the Government are absolutely right to tackle that. I also support the idea of more education and training for professionals in primary
  56
  care. I also support the few suggestions for obtaining more money—an honest copper or two—by the commercial use of Health Service resources. Why have the Government spoilt it all by bringing in charges for tests for dentists and ophthalmic opticians?
  The Secretary of State will already be well aware that he faces the united opposition of the British Dental Association, the General Dental Practitioners Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Federation of Ophthalmic and Dispensing Opticians, the British Medical Association's committee, the British College of Optometrists and the Association of Optical Practitioners. I must also tell the Minister that a significant number of our hon. Friends are anxious about the proposals in the Bill. There is no doubt that there is also a large body of concern among citizens outside the House.
  Can it be that the opposition to this Bill is based either on the anger felt by the public for having to pay more money if they want to be treated or the irritation felt by the professionals over being forced into a position where they receive less money? Does human greed operate those groups as a puppeteer operates his dolls? Or is it possible that there might just be some wise, sound, even altruistic arguments against what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to do? I believe that that is the case. Both dental and ophthalmic checks keep necessary treatments down to the minimum. Such checks make cases quicker, simpler and cheaper to treat. I believe that it is turning the argument on its head to say that if people must pay for a check it will mean that things will be cheaper in the end because people will find they need treatment at an earlier stage and it will not cost anything like it would if the problem were treated later on. Surely that is what happens now. People have tests at an early stage. How can it be logical to argue that, by making a charge for checks, people will receive cheaper care? I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Minister, but I find it difficult to follow that argument.
  In every sense, checks are preventive medicine. Astonishingly, the Bill claims to support such medicine. Early signs of conditions that can be cured or certainly treated often appear in the eyes and the mouth before the sufferer has any idea that he has a serious medical complaint. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has already told us of such a case. Indeed, this morning a young man told me about how he had gone into an opticians, quite casually, to have a test. He had some time on his hands and he suddenly thought that he had never had his eyes tested and considered the fact that both his parents wore spectacles. As a result of that test he was immediately referred to a hospital because he had signs of early heart disease. He told me that, as a result of that test, he had been saved. The hospital had been able to start treating him early and had given him diet sheets. He told me that he would not have gone in for that eye test if he had had to pay a charge of £10.
  There are many examples of the importance of preventive care. Glaucoma has already been mentioned. That complaint is caused by pressure building up within the eye that eventually starts to damage the optic nerve. Often, during the early stages of that complaint the patient does not notice that something is wrong, but if that problem is not caught early the condition is irreversible. Diabetes can lead to kidney failure and, as many hon. Members will know, to blindness. Again, early detection

  57
  —provided by eye tests — is absolutely essential. I received a letter from the consultant in diabetes at University College hospital and he says:
  "Diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of blindness in people of working age in the UK. Treatment … is able to prevent some 60 per cent. of blindness, but the changes must be detected at an early stage."
  That is an important piece of evidence.
  Cancer can often be discovered by both dentists and optometrists as a result of ordinary, routine check-ups. I am sure that no one in this House needs to be told how important it is to diagnose cancer early—it is a matter of life or death. Dentists can detect anaemias and sexually transmitted diseases. That is extremely important.
  Dentists are extremely worried at the proposition that checks will no longer be free. When that was mentioned earlier on in this debate there was a fairly solid outcry from my hon. Friends to the effect that dentists are worried because it affects their pockets. In fact, one letter that came to me from the memberhip officer of the General Dental Practitioners Association states:
  "Because of the way in which dentists' remuneration is calculated (review body—DRSG)—"
  I am sure that all hon. Members know about that—
  "a reduced demand will not and cannot reduce our average net income—charges will be amended next year to make good any deficit. I hope this alone will argue the case that I am not in any way in this argument considering my income."
  That is a relevant piece of evidence.
  Certainly patients are also concerned because there is a great strength of feeling—I must put this on record—that dental treatment is already extremely expensive. Many people complain about the costs of dental treatment. If people are also to be charged for examinations, I do not have the slightest doubt that the majority of people will not go for check-ups. Dentists who have contacted me have told me that, at the moment, we have a wonderful state of affairs in this country. People have better teeth now than at any time in our history. Dentists feel that that will change if the proposed regulations are agreed. They say that an increase in dental disease will cost the NHS far more in the long run—we should consider the long-term effects of the Bill.
  Dentists have also said that there will be a lowering standard of general health due to neglected mouths. All this hinges on whether or not people will go for check-ups. However, the highest authorities within the dental profession assume that people will not go for those checkups. They say that, as a result, mouths will be neglected and the effect will be bacteraemia, heart disease, digestive disease and chest complaints. Indeed, one dental surgeon in my constituency came up with an entirely new suggestion. He said that it would be better to do away with free dental treatment for expectant and nursing mothers since there is not a shred of scientific evidence to suggest that the incidence of dental decay is any greater for those women. So perhaps if we are considering costs we might bear that in mind as well.
  The dentist also suggested that dentists should not be given a fee for examining people who have no teeth—I was astounded to hear that dentists are given a fee for examining people who have no teeth — when those people come along for replacement dentures. He says that the fee is paid for spotting oral diseases and cancers, but that it is unnecessary to spend any time on testing because such conditions will immediately be apparent during the normal course of fitting dentures.
  58
  So if my hon. Friend is anxious to save money, there are two little suggestions by people who are in the profession.
  Dentists undoubtedly see the free check-up as the cornerstone of National Health Service dentistry. They are in no doubt that people will be discouraged from visiting the dentist regularly and that the present happy situation will deteriorate. Is all this really worth it to save the sum that my hon. Friend has mentioned?
  Either the Minister believes that regular check-ups are not important or he thinks that people will still go for check-ups anyway. If the former, I must tell him that all the evidence is against him. I have a feeling that he himself believes that regular check-ups are important, otherwise why is he suggesting that the Government will pay for so many people to have them? If they are not important, there is no point in paying for them anyway. If they are important, are people going to go for these checks'? People who have no money worries will probably still go and have their checks. I am not really worried about those people. I am worried about the broad, middle band of people who do not qualify for free check-ups but who nevertheless cannot possibly find £8 of £10 or whatever the fee will be. One lady tells me,
  "I have a small growth in the pituitary gland which, if it should grow, will jeopardise my sight—starting with the peripheral vision. I therefore have to have sight and fields-of-vision tests twice a year."
  She goes on,
  "I am the only breadwinner in the family."
  Do we really think that she could go on having those tests as often as she is supposed to if she had to pay £8 or £10 every time? This lady has a problem in making ends meet as it is.
  There will be young parents who will not spend the money if, say, Johnny needs a new winter coat or Jane is growing out of her shoes. If they are faced with either paying for an eye test or buying the clothes, the children's clothes are what they will go for. Parents of young children are like that.
  Elderly people a little above the limit for supplementary benefit will not go for their tests either, and they are very much at risk. Elderly people are in a special category.
  There are those who must have checks frequently, possibly because of a family medical history. It is the frequency of the testing which will be a cost to them, one that they will be unable to afford.
  I come now to a point to which I would particularly request a reply later in the debate. If a patient goes to a doctor in his consulting room complaining of bad headaches and the doctor tells him that he needs an eye test and can either have it from an optician and pay £10 for it or have it free at a hospital, it is obvious that the patient will go to the hospital. Hospital eye departments have been under stress for years. Already we have very serious problems fitting in the patients who need to be cared for in our hospitals. Is it really sensible to direct people to have their free test at a hospital? Or—and I ask my hon. Friend this gentle question—is it suggested that later on the payment will be extended to tests in hospitals and general practitioners as well? If so, I would really rather know it now. But if it is a half-and-half service—free when given by a doctor or in a hospital and chargeable when given by an ophthalmic optician or dental surgeon —the implications are worrying.

  59
  As regards ophthalmic opticians, I must tell my hon. Friend with as much force as I can muster that it is insulting to tell a man who has been trained for three, four or five years at a university or at an eye hospital that he should give his professional, expert services free and make his money selling frames. That is an offensive thing to say to him, that his professional expertise is worth nothing and that he must get his money by other means. It is particularly offensive when the Government themselves took away the ophthalmic opticians' customary sale of frames in the 1985 legislation. I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend this afternoon when he said that the Government had enabled people to take their prescriptions from the optician and go and buy their frames wherever they liked. That is what they do.
  What we are saying is that they must give the test for nothing and will probably not even be able to sell the spectacles to the person concerned. I have no pecuniary interest in this at all but I happen to know quite a lot about it. It seems to me extraordinary to tell a trained, professional man that he must give his services free when testing a person and allow that person to go and get his glasses somewhere else— because that is what we have encouraged them to do. How will the optician pay his bills, for goodness sake? How will he pay his overheads, let alone his salary and those of his staff, his rates and his rent? We really cannot expect him to do all this for absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Newton: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting her, but it is important that this point be understood. Firstly, I have no intention of being offensive to anyone—I always try to avoid being offensive—and I am not telling them that they should or must give their services free; all I am saying is that it is up to them to decide how they wish to do it. Another important point: while we do not think it right that people should be in a position to say that they will only test a person's eyesight if the glasses are subsequently bought from their shop, there is nothing to stop an optician, if he makes a charge for the test, offering a discount, as others would do in comparable circumstances, if the spectacles are bought from the shop. We are anxious, however, to ensure evenhanded competition.
  Dame Jill Knight: That does not really invalidate what I said.
  My hon. Friend said earlier, and not only here but on another occasion, that it might well be that opticians would provide their expert professional services for nothing in the hope of being able to sell the frames. This is not an acceptable thing to say to a group of professional people. Before the 1985 Bill, successive Governments had for years expected opticians to take a low fee for doing the test and to make their money on selling the glasses. Now we are beginning to say, "Never mind a low fee—none at all" and it is up to them to decide. This is not on.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that there will be encouragement to treat people, test them, in their homes. This has been going on for years. Domiciliary eye tests have been carried out by many ophthalmic opticians; they have never made money on it and look on it as a form of social service. It is very expensive to load equipment
  60
  into the car and then drive to a person's home. I do not know what fee would be suggested, but they certainly would not be able to do that except at considerable cost.
  Mr. Newton: NHS tests will be paid.
  Dame Jill Knight: If they are to be paid, it might be more expensive than my hon. Friend thinks at present. It is a good idea, because some people cannot get out of their home, and cannot go to an ophthalmic optician for an eye test.
  I entirely agree that more money must be found for the NHS. I agree with the parts of the Bill concerned with getting more money, but I do not think that we shall solve the problems of financing the Health Service in the way described in the Bill because the demand for the services that are miraculously available now is never-ending. I am certain that we must look at new methods of financing the Health Service. When we are doing that, it might be a good thing to reflect on how willing people are to show their gratitude to and appreciation of the Health Service. The money that comes out of the Exchequer is one thing, but there are so many people in this land who are willing to put more money into the Health Service, but not so that preventive medicine is as seriously hampered as I fear it might be by the Bill.
  6.1 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: As several hon. Members have said, it is particularly ironic that we are conducting this debate against the background of the presidents of three royal medical colleges calling on the Government to save the Health Service. They are not Left-wing doctors, militant nurses or even restive Conservative Back Benchers. After all, one of them is the Queen's gynaecologist. It is remarkable that they feel that they should have to say publicly:
  "the Government must do something to save our Health Service".
  I welcome much of what the Government are trying to do in putting an increased emphasis on primary health care. For far too long, primary and preventive medicine have laboured under a Cinderella image, and their importance has not been reflected in finance and development. Although today the important matters are being brought to our attention, financing is still a major problem.
  The White Paper attempts to redress the balance in terms of primary health care, but perhaps it is a matter of regret that it took some eight years to arrive. However, we are glad to see it. It is clear that resources, not just for, this area, but for the Health Service itself, are at the heart of our debate.
  The Government have put up a seductive and perhaps logical argument on why we need to find savings within primary health care to pay for the improvements needed in that area, but I firmly reject the principle of charging for health care checks. First, it is clearly the belief and conviction of the people that more of the wealth currently being generated should be spent on our Health Service. We all saw in the Sunday newspapers the rumour that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is contemplating a further 2 per cent. cut in income tax. It was an interesting juxtaposition that on the same page we had the cash plea from the three royal colleges.
  The National Health Service benefits all the people, and the best and proper way to finance it is through general

  61
  taxation. Survey after survey has reinforced the understanding that people are prepared to forgo tax increases to pay for the NHS.
  It is nothing short of scandalous that this country spends less on health as a proportion of gross national product than our major European competitors. That figure is declining, not going up. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), stated recently that spending on the NHS would decline as a percentage of GDP over the next few years, or, as she put it, spending would "stabilise". That is at a time when spending had not been increased to meet nurses' pay awards, and health authorities are having to pay for them out of cost improvement schemes. That should be remedied before the Chancellor of the Exchequer hands out any further tax cuts. It should be addressed before we consider further the Bill's implications.
  It is not possible to place a greater emphasis on primary health care or attempt to push through major reforms without providing the necessary finance. Other sections of our National Health Service are in desperate need, but if we are to make primary health care an important part of that service, we have to pay for it. Improvements in the long term will be cost effective. There will be a time lag, but primary health care and preventive medicine will have cost benefits in future. That will not happen immediately. We shall still pay high hospital costs for curing current diseases, many of which will be preventable in future if we spend that money on primary health care now.
  It is a false economy to save money in that critical area. There is no better example than to compare the cost of having to care for people who develop glaucoma, cataracts, even blindness, cancer and AIDS—many of the diseases that have been mentioned today, which can be detected through simple eye or dental checks—with the cost of continuing free tests. As a result of the Bill, people will have basic check-ups less frequently than they do now.
  I shall now examine some of the less contentious points in the Bill. I accept the Government's move to turn the General Practice Finance Corporation into a limited company because that will remove the financial restrictions placed on that body by its being subject to the public sector borrowing requirement. Being allowed to spend only £12 million when there is an estimated need of over £27 million is hardly the best way to ensure that the shortage of doctors' surgeries is made up.
  As a Member of Parliament for an inner-city area, which much of Greenwich is, I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that there is as much flexibility as possible in the new system to make sure that general practitioners in the inner cities get the resources that they need. I have no objection in principle to raising money through the commercial means that we have heard about today, but I worry that the Secretary of State is taking such wide-ranging powers. It is clear that he is giving himself the power to direct health authorities on how that extra revenue should be raised, and it will be their duty to comply with the regulations. I should not be so worried about those powers if I thought that it would make a huge difference to the health authorities' budget, but it will not.
  I also should not be so worried if I thought that hospital managers had time to devote to those schemes, but they have not. In the same month that the Government issued the White Paper, we had a report from the National Audit Office showing that there is significant unused theatre
  62
  capacity in the NHS. Surely our hospital managers would be better used in solving the problems that deal directly with patient care. I should not be so worried if I thought that Health Service managers had the expertise to implement the directives, but in many cases that is not what they have been trained to do. It is critical that they should reap the benefit financially, and not have any extra money that they raise deducted from their revenue.
  Dental inspection in schools can still take place under the Bill, but it is no longer a duty, which is a great step backwards—as was the withdrawal from the commitment to the nutritional content of school dinners. We have an obligation to ensure that our children's well-being—especially children whose parents do not take them regularly to the dentist—is maintained.
  I come now to the specific issue in the charging for check-ups on eyes and teeth. I oppose such charging for three reasons. First, we have always been, and still are, wholly committed to the principle of the National Health Service being free at the point of use. So, I thought, was the Secretary of State; indeed, he is on record as having said so. The introduction of charges for eyes and teeth examinations erodes that principle. What will we have to pay for next? As has already been pointed out, it is ridiculous to be able to have free examinations for any part of the body except the eyes and teeth. Perhaps we should be considering more free check-ups on the lines of those offered by private health companies, which, in the long run, will save the National Health Service money.
  Secondly, charges make no sense in health or financial terms. The dental rates study group research clearly demonstrates that charging people for examinations will mean that fewer people have them. Fewer dental and sight examinations will mean less prevention and screening, which will inevitably lead to worse health. Eye disease cases will overburden the Health Service, and other non-related, but detectable, diseases will go undiagnosed until it is too late for simple and effective treatment. This lack of free check-up treatment will overburden our hospitals. GPs will refer patients to hospitals, which will have to pick up the pieces of patients who are not diagnosed as having a serious complaint until it has become very serious.
  Thirdly, I challenge the charging element because it is wholly out of keeping with what the Government purport to be trying to do in the Bill. How can one call for greater emphasis on primary care on the one hand and reduce basic access to primary care measures— by charging for them—on the other?
  Let us examine some of the categories of people who will be most affected by the Bill. Pensioners are, perhaps, one of the most vulnerable groups of all. About 6·5 million of our 9 million pensioners will have to pay for eye tests under the Government's proposals. Some of them may be able to afford them, but we all know that, as people get older, they worry about their financial security and future, and many of them will shy away from paying £10 if that money can be saved for basic heating bills and other weekly expenditure.
  Another category comprises low-paid people, particularly parents of young children, who are not eligible for supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Such people will not come forward for check-ups. I was involved in collecting information for the Central Office of Information before becoming an hon. Member. My work illustrated the point clearly. People who are hard up will make savings first and foremost in this sort of area.

  63
  The short, simple truth is that eye tests will be missed by elderly people, who will not be screened for many of the illnesses about which we have heard today.
  It has been suggested that part of the cost of an eye test can be transferred to the price of spectacles. That is not true for the many ophthalmic medical practitioners who do not sell spectacles but give of their valuable time to perform a service for their patients. There is a lack of logic in the assumption that people who are unfortunate enough to have to wear spectacles should cover the cost of eye tests for the rest of us who may want an eye test but have to wear glasses. Charging for those tests is bad; it goes against the principles of the National Health Service and of basic preventive medicine—both of which the Bill purports to endorse.
  I want to draw attention to four omissions—some of which have already been mentioned. First, I want nurses to be able to prescribe. That has already been discussed, and it is not necessary for lengthy further consultations to be held before a decision is made. I also want doctors' capitation fees to be adjusted so that they are not tempted to have lists of patients that are longer than they can adequately cope with, and they can give proper consultation time to the people who come to them for attention. I suggest that capitation fees taper off above an agreed figure—somewhere above the 2,000 mark.
  Thirdly, social workers should be included in primary health care teams. That is an idea of the greatest importance. We constantly hear from doctors that they are dealing with the emotional wreckage of our society, particularly in inner-city areas, where they often deal not with a health problem, but with a housing problem. Social workers in a primary team would be the ideal means of dealing with such problems.
  Finally, I suggest amalgamating the family practitioner committees with the district health authorities. That would be a sensible move. At present, two potentially rival bodies operate in the same area, which does not seem sensible.
  I hope that many Conservative Members will join us in defending the principle of the National Health Service—that it should be free at the point of use—by opposing the Bill.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am pleased to have this opportunity to welcome the main provisions of the legislation. Some of us have waited a long time for the White Paper and for parts of the Bill. It is only right and proper, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree, that we should have a Health Service based on screening and prevention, as opposed to the sickness service that we now have. It is right and proper that doctors should be given incentives, sometimes in cash, to go into the inner cities and to check the most vulnerable in our society — the under-fives and the elderly.
  It is also only right and proper that people should have the chance of being able to complain about their doctor in a more relaxed way. Many hon. Members, I am sure, know of many unfortunate incidents in which incompetent family practitioner committees and skulduggerous doctors have combined to provide little justice for some of our constituents. I am therefore delighted that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have grasped that nettle.
  64
  It is right that we should change the dentists' contract so as to place more emphasis on prevention. All that is laudable and should be applauded by all hon. Members.
  The trouble with the Bill is that it has the Treasury's fingermarks all over it. They seem to reach right up to its throat. How can we say with our hands on our hearts— despite what Opposition Members say, most Conservative Members have hearts—that the Bill really promotes preventive medicine and screening, when we shall be charging people for their first entry into the dentist's surgery and the optician's consulting room? It is difficult enough getting people into the dentist's surgery anyway without slapping a charge on them.
  In the very able and eloquent winding-up speech that I expect from my hon. Friend the Minister, I know that she will quite properly trot out the old brief with the statistics about how many people will be exempted. However, it will not really cut a great deal of ice, and in the long run this will cost the Health Service a great deal more money. I am in favour of proportional charging for people who can afford to pay, but let us have it after they have had the professional advice from the optician or the dentist, and not before.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) spoke about the community dental service, because I, too, am concerned about that. The community dental service presently has a duty to examine, and in some cases to treat, children's teeth. Under the Bill that duty will be turned into a power, and we all know what occurs when that happens. Health authorities that are hard-pressed for resources—in other words, most of them—will say that they have an opportunity to cut out a non-acute service. That service will be the treatment of our children's teeth. Admittedly, the British Dental Association has a vested interest in this matter, but it is right when it warns that because of this there is a very good chance that 50 per cent. of our children will not receive free dental care. That cannot be right.
  On the broader matter of the Health Service, the Government have a record second to none. We know that we have more doctors and nurses and by how much in real terms we have increased Health Service resources. We know how many hip operations, heart bypass operations and other operations have taken place, and how the waiting lists have decreased. However, there is no point in all of us repeating those statistics like some sort of mantra. Every hon. Member, whatever his party, knows that most health authorities have some serious problems. Unless the Government get to grips with the general problem of financing, I suspect that there will be serious trouble.
  My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I went to see her with a delegation about my own district health authority, West Essex. I do not want to bore the House with specific details or with too many statistics, but that health authority is a classic case. It is doing the things that the Government are asking authorities to do. It was the first one in the region to put personal services out to tender, and one of the first in the region to implement the Griffiths proposals. I presented to my hon. Friend a team consisting of consultants, management, nurses and the community health council, and all the members of that delegation were wholly united in their aims on cost efficiency. That is rather unusual, because very often those strands in the Health Service tend to pull against one another rather than with one another.

  65
  Sadly, we were not able to get the £600,000 that we need, despite the savings that have been made. We have even had to close a hospital, and that was a difficult political decision. It was the right decision, but it was difficult to close a hospital in order to make us more efficient. Despite all that, we will be overspent next year by £1 million, and the situation will get worse. It also means that from 11 December four acute wards will be closed. That means that 20 per cent. of acute beds will be knocked out of the West Essex district health authority, and from that date there will be only emergency surgery for the whole of the district.
  What do I tell my constituents? Do I go through the figures showing how much more money we have put into the Health Service, and do I tell them about cost efficiency and about the pay awards? If I do, they will say to me, "Never mind all that. We see demoralised nurses and wards being closed, and we know that when we want to see a consultant paediatrician or an orthopaedic surgeon we will have to wait seven months for the first consultation." As a result of the cost efficiencies, or the cuts, that we have had to make, the waiting lists are increasing at the rate of 100 people a week. That cannot be right. There are swathes of inefficiency in the Health Service, and it contains incompetent management. It is right that such things should be rooted out, and the last thing that I would ask this or any Government to do is to featherbed such people. However, I suspect that just about every district will have such problems by next year.
  I should like to propose one or two matters that the Government should take into account. First, doctors' and nurses' pay awards are negotiated nationally. District health authorities have no input whatever, and no matter how generous the Government properly are sometimes, they do not always phase these pay awards, and the district health authorities have to pay a large proportion of those awards on top of cost efficiencies. Next year this will probably cost us about £300,000. If the Government expect us to behave like a business—as the Bill properly expects us to do—and be efficient and cost effective, we should be treated like a business. We should not be expected to go into the market place with both hands tied behind our back. I ask the Government to consider the suggestion that the Treasury should foot the bill after the next pay round.
  There is also the problem of private agencies. All hon. Members must have experience of the difficulty in prosperous areas of getting doctors and nurses. When we cannot get them on the National Health Service, we have to go to private nurses' and doctors' agencies, and they charge three to four times the usual amount. What help are we getting with that? Authorities that are efficient and taking the sort of measures that the Government have asked them to take should be favourably considered.
  May we have another look at the role of the family practitioner committees? I am mystified, as was the Select Committee on Social Services, about why we had them in the first place. Very often they mirror what is done by district health authorities.
  May we also have another look at the role of the regions? I am quite happy to go on record as saying that I am horrified at the way in which my own regional health authority, North East Thames, behaves. Its members are an absolute shower, and the sooner they are all given DBEs and knighthoods, and all of them packed off, the better. I do not think that a region could do any better
  66
  than have a committee of the various heads, general managers and chairmen of district health authorities, because they could make the strategic plans that are absolutely necessary.
  This is a Second Reading debate and we are talking about the principles of the Bill which, apart from the exceptions that I mentioned, I support. However, I will be unable to support it further unless those controversial and very damaging measures to the health of ordinary people are removed. I fear that unless the Government abandon their plan for the charges that have been mentioned in the debate, the Bill, which could be a great landmark in health care, will be nothing but a dusty monument and a graveyard of expectations.
  6.28 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: It cannot be denied that the Health Service is grossly under-funded. When children wait for months for necessary operations and babies die, it is clear to all caring people that more money must be put into the Health Service. What is happening to the wealth of the country that the health of its people should be of so little concern to the Government? Where is all the money going? Where is the £827 million made from the sale of BP shares, the £43 million made from the sale of British Aerospace shares, the £120 million made from the sale of shareholdings in the National Enterprise Board, the £22 million made from the sale of shares in the Suez Finance Company and the £195 million from North Sea oil licence premiums?
  The Bill asks health authorities to become garage and petrol pump attendants and shopkeepers to raise money. Have the Government and the Minister no conception of the strain already put on officers of district health authorities — district general managers, treasurers and other officers—who spend long hours juggling figures and looking at changes in funding, the lack of funding for pay increases and the knock-on effects of every hard decision they have to take?
  I have worked in 23 hospitals and clinics in my time in the Health Service and I have served for six years on a community health council and for four years on a district health authority. I have never known morale to be so low or known so many people to ask, "What is happening to our Health Service? Will nobody do anything to save it?" What has happened to the money from the sale of land and buildings of the New Towns Development Corporation and Commission for the New Towns, £78 million, the money from the sale of land and buildings of the Property Services Agency, £9 million, the £28 million raised from the sale of land and buildings, leases on motorway service areas, the £3 million from the sale of land of regional water authorities and the £72 million from the sale of land and buildings of the Forestry Commission? The Bill extends the provision for charging for dental and eye examinations. Does the Minister not want people to see what the Government are doing? Is there no concern for the health of people's teeth?
  My niece's husband is a dental mechanic and he is very proud of that profession. If I may say so, he is 40 years old today and his wife has ordered him a birthday cake in the form of false teeth. However, it has a large red tongue sticking through the teeth; perhaps that is a comment on the charges for dental examinations. I have often spoken to him about the charges for dental health and he is deeply

  67
  concerned about the increase in his work load and that early provision should be made to prevent so many people from needing false teeth.
  What has happened to the £64 million from the sale of shares of Amersham International, the £97 million from the sale of shares of Associated British Ports Holdings, the £2,703 million from the sale of shares of BT, the £1,053 million from the sale of shares of Cable and Wireless and the £107 million from the sale of oil stockpiles? I could go on, but suffice it to say that from 1979–80 to 1986–87 it is estimated that privatisation proceeds totalled £12·1 billion. With all that money having come in, the Bill restricts the amount that can be spent on some aspects of the general practitioner services. What happens if the money runs out and the need is urgent? Will sick people be told that they will have to wait until the next financial year to be ill? Where is the Tory philosophy of let the market decide; or does that not apply to sick people?
  We are informed that British Steel makes a profit, so it must be sold off, for perhaps another £2 billion. Where will that money go? We can rest assured that it will not go into the Health Service to solve the problems of services to mentally handicapped or the elderly, primary care services, acute services, maternity services or all the other services so desperately in need of money. We all know that the money will go to keep people unemployed and to reduce taxes to the promised 25p in the pound, but at what cost to the health of the nation?
  I remind the Minister that the Prime Minister promised that the Health Service would be safe in her hands, as well as the 25p in the pound tax. The Minister should be aware that there is real public and professional concern about hospital and community funding. The 1986 report of the Social Services Select Committee, "Public Expenditure on the Social Services", pointed out that expenditure in hospitals and community health services has been lower than in the health services. It has grown by less than 0·5 per cent. annually in real terms in the past five years. People are entitled to know how the Health Service will be funded when the Government have sold off everything that makes a profit. Will the Government have to raise taxes? Where will the money come from, and where has the money already raised gone to?
  Mrs. Brown, a constituent of mine, whose small son Andrew is waiting for a heart operation at the children's hospital in Birmingham, told me yesterday that a quarter of all the beds in the hospital, which also caters for children with cancer, are empty due to lack of money, as are one third of the beds in the older children's heart ward and half of the beds in the babies' ward. She told me that only four cots in the intensive care unit were in use last week.
  The Bill does not even pretend to consider the health of the nation. Everyone knows that it is expensive to keep a nation healthy and to care for the sick, but when we see the sale of major Government assets we are entitled to ask how the Government will raise the money to finance the National Health Service. Will the Minister tell the House that the Government are no longer prepared to stand by and see sick people suffer? I make no apology for ending with a special plea to the Minister: the young children who are awaiting heart surgery need our help now. Please listen to them and to the nation and please give them some hope.
  6.37 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am delighted to have been asked to contribute to the debate because I should like to focus attention on the primary health care network, with which most people are familiar, and which is at least as concerned with health as with illness. Debates have been raging in the House and elsewhere about the undeniably dramatic confrontation between technological advance and the public purse, particularly in the acute sector of the Health Service. Meanwhile, the primary health care network continues to deal every day of the week with millions of patients. The review of the network in the Bill and in the White Paper — the first for 40 years and resulting from extensive consultation—was long overdue.
  It was to be expected that the controversy, to put it mildly, about the proposed charges for those more able to pay for teeth and eye inspections would overshadow the many positive proposals in the Bill and White Paper for improving the primary care network. A rationalisation of dental charges, to make them more logical and comprehensible, has been sought by the dental profession for a long time. I do not want to make light of anything, but it is a very long time since I had a free inspection from my dentist. He may be quicker on the draw than many people, but I have always been inveigled into having cleaning, brushing or this or that when I have gone for my free inspection.
  There is much concern on both sides of the Chamber about charges, particularly the eye inspection charges. They could militate against the emphasis on prevention, which is the main thrust of the White Paper and the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give due emphasis to that concern and to the way in which the proposed charges can help to resource some of the other proposals in the Bill. I hope also that she will say that there will be constant monitoring of the effect of the charges.
  Some interesting suggestions have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about how extra resources can be found for the Health Service. I remind the House of the £160 million which is wasted every year in over-prescribing drugs. That money could be used instead to run 40 geriatric wards. I hope that some attention will be paid to that.
  I represent a rural constituency of 1,100 sq miles. A population of 76,000 is scattered rather unevenly throughout it. Some parts of the constituency are 20 or 30 miles from the nearest acute hospital. In those circumstances, the primary health care network assumes an importance that is not experienced by, for example, the populations of Bradford, Bromley or Greenwich.
  Of key importance in rural areas is the quality of service provided by the local general practitioner and the ability and-or possibility that he has to work with other health care professionals. I was delighted to read in the Bill that there will be enhanced incentives for the improved training of doctors and other primary health care workers. Better still is the suggestion in the White Paper that there should be negotiations with the profession on special arrangements for releasing for training practitioners who work single-handed. That is a rare mention of a specifically rural problem. There may be practitioners who work single-handed in urban areas, but patients in those areas have the choice of walking to a group practice. In rural areas there may be no choice.

  69
  The White Paper concerns itself with making services more responsive to consumers' needs and giving patients the widest possible range of choice in obtaining high-quality primary care services. Family practitioner committees will be required to provide more details of qualifications, the success of the doctors and opening hours, for example. That will be helpful, but choice in rural areas will still have to be governed by geography and by the professional catchment area arrangements that are made by doctors. It is entirely reasonable that doctors should create those areas, which are based on how far they have to travel to make home visits. I hope that the information to be provided by FPCs will make entirely clear to patients the rationale for the areas so that there can be no suspicion that an element of professional solidarity may have contributed to their creation.
  As nearly 50 per cent. of medical students are now women, it is not unreasonable to suggest that in the near future all patients should be able to consult a woman doctor if they wish to do so. I hope that the negotiations with the profession will take account of the fact that some patients would prefer not to be registered with a single-handed practice while others would prefer not to be with one that does not offer an appointment system. Single-handed practices and others that do not operate the appointment system are not uncommon in rural areas.
  I believe that greater competition in GP services will result in enhanced services for patients in urban areas, but in rural areas, where a patient's choice may be limited to Dr. X, I question whether rewarding the doctor for the size of his list will improve his performance. Rewards should reflect excellence, and I am certain that they will in due course. They should not reflect a doctor's geographical location. I am sure that this matter will be borne in mind by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when she negotiates with the profession.
  Sometimes the strength of a rural community, especially its close-knit nature, can, in reverse, be its weakness. A good example is complaints. Fortunately, complaints about GPs in my constituency are rare, but they can and do occur. I welcome the recognition given in the White Paper to the great difficulty that most patients would feel in making complaints about their doctor. The deference factor is still strong in areas such as mine. In some instances there is a fear—it is to be hoped that it is without justification—of reprisals or at the very least embarrassment, when there can be no question of an individual changing his doctor because of geographical considerations. I warmly welcome the improved, simplified and strengthened complaints procedure which I believe will be effected by circular.
  Enhanced powers are to be given to FPCs. They and health authorities will be encouraged to collaborate more effectively. The divisions between FPCs and health authorities are utterly meaningless to patients, the average patient not knowing, and not wishing to know, that a general practitioner looks to one while the community nurse looks to the other. The patient wants care when he needs it, and he wants it to be delivered to him in a way that is professionally co-ordinated and effective. That is why emphasis is given in the White Paper to various forms of preventive work such as immunisation, vaccination and screening. That is to be welcomed, and it stems from the fact that this work is already being undertaken in a variety
  70
  of ways in the best practices throughout the country. That has been revealed by the work of the Select Committee on Social Services.
  I have mentioned previously the work that is taking place in my constituency and, in the interests of being brief, I shall not go into it in detail again. In parts of the Norwich health authority there are multi-disciplinary teams of health professionals who are employed by the health authority. They work closely with doctors, or groups of doctors, to provide a complete network of primary health care. These teams include physiotherapists, clinical psychologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists and dieticians, for example. Also included in the team are health educators, social workers and voluntary co-ordinators.
  Artificial divisions between FPCs and health authorities need not be relevant when there is goodwill, as in my constituency, and when the well-being of patients is at stake. It is not the pattern that is proposed in the community nursing review, but it includes several elements of it. It avoids the hazard, as perceived by some, of making all services practice-based rather than community-based. I hope that the circular that was issued last week will encourage health authorities to find their own solutions that are tailored to the needs of their communities.
  I hope, too, that the intention behind paragraph 7.13 of the White Paper to give nurses more freedom to prescribe will be pursued without delay. It can only make sense in a service in which increasing demands are being made—that is agreed by both sides of the House—if all the professionals who work in it are used to the full. Nurses should not have to waste valuable time that could be spent caring for patients in obtaining prescriptions, for things such as dressings, from pharmacists and then taking them to patients. They are capable of using their own professional judgment on the timing and dosage of drugs that are prescribed by a doctor. Many professional emotions can be stirred up by the use of the term nurse-practitioner, but she exists already. She certainly exists in the mind of the patient.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will note some of the matters that I have raised. I cannot emphasise enough the vital importance of primary health care networks in rural areas such as the one that I represent.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. David Young: The Bill is part of the Government's overall strategy towards the National Health Service as a whole. That strategy means the imposition of financial cuts under the guise of lofty aspirations that lie behind the NHS. We should be concerned with whether the necessary resources are being made available to meet the needs of the NHS and not with exactly how much more money is being spent upon it. We have a sick service because the necessary resources have not been forthcoming, not a health service. When the required resources are not available there is much more that is adversely affected than patient care. For example, the morale suffers of those who look after the service.
  We have the cheapest comprehensive Health Service in the Western world. About 6·2 per cent. of our national wealth is devoted to it, but much more is spent by other countries on their health services. We spend 50 per cent. less than Sweden, Holland, Germany and France.

  71
  My district health authority has managed to balance its books this year, but three out of five district health authorities have run into financial difficulties. However, the Bolton district health authority tells me that next year it will be unable to balance its books, although there is a legal requirement for district health authorities to do so. One of the reasons is the underfunding of pay increases by the Government. Moreover, whatever money the Government may save by this Bill will be lost by the employment of agency nurses. In the last year for which figures are available, Bolton spent £115,000 on agency nurses, and I am told by the authority that it will spend £200,000 on agency nurses in the next financial year.
  The Government say that 100,000 NHS patients were treated privately last year, with the result that they came off the waiting lists. Private health service hospitals operate at a profit, but it is a parasite service because it is based on resources that are largely provided by the NHS. Private health services do not contribute a penny towards the training of the doctors and the nurses whom they poach from the NHS. My district health authority, which is a very responsible authority, says that that is intolerable. If one is seriously ill or terminally ill, it is soon made clear that private health insurance will either be offered at a prohibitive premium or that it will not be offered at all. Such patients therefore have to be treated by the NHS.
  The Government are actively discouraging eyesight and dental care by literally fining those who want to have such regular eye checks. That will affect in particular young workers. The proposals will discourage them from having such checks. My constituency secretary had glaucoma, but because he had an eyesight test the condition was picked up and his eyesight was saved. Had he gone to his optician two months later, he would have lost his eyesight. My father told me that before the NHS was set up he went to Woolworths where there was a test card that he used when he tried on spectacles. He did that to save the cost of a visit to an optician. We are being dragged back by Government to practices of that kind by the terms of the Bill.
  The Government argued that fluoride should be added to water to prevent tooth decay in young people, but the Bill does away with the mandatory requirement to carry out school inspections.
  Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Young: No. The hon. Lady can deal with that point in her speech.
  Mrs. Currie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal now with the point that he has made about fluoride.
  Mr. Young: Very well.
  Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I remind him that included in the White Paper proposals, and also covered by what we are attempting to do in the Bill, is increased expenditure on fluoridation that will assist areas such as the hon. Gentleman's area.
  Mr. Young: Is it not, then, even more necessary to carry out dental inspections in schools? I did not resent the fact that the hon. Lady was trying to intervene, but those on the Front Bench will have their own time in which to reply. I did not think that I ought to take up the time of other Back Benchers by giving way.
  72
  As for AIDS, Bolton is in receipt of a Government grant for AIDS training. Largely because of the expertise of Mr. Curtiss and his team, there are 32 HIV patients, 19 of whom are HIV positive and come from outside Bolton: four from Merseyside, 14 from Greater Manchester and one from Lancashire. However, the cost of drugs is about £14,000 a year per patient, which puts further pressure on the district health authority that is trying very hard to balance its books.
  Last week I put down a question in which I asked about the cost of employing agency nurses in England and Wales. We shall run into long-term difficulties over that. Bolton is not unique; many of the difficulties that it faces are mirrored all over the country. I got the go-ahead some years ago for the building of a general hospital in Bolton. The building was delayed several times, but at last that hospital is about to be constructed. However, my district health authority tells me that it will not be able to employ sufficient nurses to run it.
  In Bolton, 36 per cent. of its nurses are on part-time contracts. It is 186 whole-time equivalents below the funded establishment. The psychiatry department is short of 18 whole-time state registered nurse equivalents and it is short of eight whole-time state enrolled nurse equivalents. The cost of agency nurses in some departments is very high. That is particularly true of the elderly and the acute services. In Bolton there is a shortage of 60 whole-time equivalents for those services.
  We must plan for the long-term provision of nurses. Apart from pay, status and fringe benefits are very important. Many nurses prefer to be agency nurses, not just because of the pay but because they have families to look after and can choose the hours that they work.
  At the moment, 25 per cent. of student nurses are girls who have left school with four or five 0-levels. By 1995, partly because of a falling birth rate, we shall need 50 per cent. of girls with that kind of qualification. We must ensure that, apart from a good salary, nursing is looked upon as a long-term career by both men and women.
  At the moment our problem is not one of recruitment, although we are running into difficulties. Our problem is wastage, and we must stem that. It is no good saying that we could bring in people from the youth training scheme, which is one of the ideas that is being considered to solve the backlog. We must make nursing a career as attractive as Marks and Spencer makes its business to its employees. That company does not deal with its employees as simply so many pairs of hands. I use that expression because it was used to me by one of the senior officers of my health authority when he was talking about what we are doing in psychiatric nursing. He said that auxiliaries were brought in simply on the basis of "pairs of hands", but that they were not experienced and trained staff who could do the job that is required. That is the battleground on which we are fighting.
  Finally, the whole problem was summed up in yesterday's newspapers in which attention was drawn to the palatial premises that the Ministry will occupy at Richmond terrace. I do not know whether what was written was true, but if one compares the descriptions of the bathrooms and the chandeliers with the conditions in which the nurses in my authority work, one can see why they feel that morale is at its lowest-ever ebb. True or false, it is typical of the way in which the Health Service works. I justified the Ministry because I am not a vindictive man. I said that, like Lady Macbeth, Ministers may feel that

  73
  constant ablutions would salve their consciences. Perhaps I am mistaken but I have never thought that the Government lacked a heart. However, sometimes I wonder whether, in dealing with my constituents, that heart has been bypassed.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Churchill: There is much that I welcome in the Bill, especially those parts that are aimed at encouraging health screening and preventive medicine. Therefore, I particularly regret that I shall be unable to support the Government in the Division Lobby tonight. However, by deciding to charge for dental examinations and eye tests, which have hitherto been free, the Government will directly undermine their claimed objective of encouraging more people to go for checks. Indeed, the reverse will be the case.
  I am foremost in acknowledging that no Government have done more for the funding and staffing of the National Health Service than the present Government. The Government have undertaken the greatest capital spending programme that has ever been seen in the Health Service in the post-war years. I should like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for the improved investment that has taken place in my Davyhulme constituency at Park hospital, where we have an excellent £5 million new geriatric unit and a £1 million coronary and intensive care unit, as well as massive improvements in community care facilities. All that is of enormous benefit to my constituents.
  Opposition Members are in no position to criticise this Government's actions on health. No Government imposed such constraints on the funding of the Health Service as did the Labour Government in the late 1970s. No Government treated the nursing profession more shoddily. Therefore, we do not need any sermons from the Opposition's Front Bench, let alone their Back Benches.
  The demands on the National Health Service are colossal and seemingly open-ended. In many ways, we have become the victims of our own success. It is rather like building an urban motorway into the centre of the city. No sooner is that done than one finds that more traffic has been generated and that the jams are worse than ever. A similar situation confronts us in health care today. At the moment we have 750,000 more pensioners than a decade ago. What I would describe as "new technology operations" impose an enormous cost burden on the Health Service. Hip replacements have increased 50 per cent. compared with 1978–79. Heart bypass operations take place at four times their rate in the late 1970s. Babies today have a greater chance of survival. All that is due to the expensive care, techniques and equipment that have been developed. The fact that we have a far greater throughput in the Health Service for both in and outpatients also imposes a great burden. On top of that, the cost of high technology equipment, such as scanners and lasers, is enormous and drugs certainly get no cheaper.
  The revenue expenditure for the north-west area has increased from £386 million in 1978–79 to £970 million in the current year, which is an increase of 27 per cent. in real terms. That is undoubtedly a massive increase in resources. It is thanks to this Government, who have got the country's economy moving in such a way as to generate those massive resources. We should not have had those extra resources had the Labour party been occupying the Government Front Bench.
  74
  The problems of funding that confront the north-west region as a whole, and Manchester in particular, with its large number of regional specialties in its hospitals, are enormous. In the south Manchester area, which covers much of my constituency, hospitals are told that they are overspending. They are convinced that they are underfunded.
  Many of our hospitals in Manchester are second to none in the calibre of their work, the skill of their staff and the efficiency of their operation. The Christie cancer centre, for example, treats twice as many patients relative to its resources as does the Royal Marsden in London. Likewise, the Manchester Royal Eye hospital is twice as efficient in its use of resources as Moorfields Eye hospital. That is all the more reason to regret the fact that we are unable to use those facilities to the full because of lack of funding. The Department recently offered us £450,000 for a new cataract day centre at the Manchester Royal Eye hospital. That would have been backed by a further £350,000 from private industry. However, we had to turn down that £800,000 package because we did not have the revenue funding to operate it. Understandably, such facts cause enormous alarm and concern. The waiting lists at the Manchester Royal Eye hospital have trebled since 1983. So far as I am concerned, that is a wholly unacceptable state of affairs.
  We have been told that 220 acute medical and surgical beds at Withington and Wythenshawe hospitals in the South Manchester area health authority are threatened with closure in the coming months. Work at the excellent lung cancer unit at Wythenshawe is also under threat. I must say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that those threatened closures and the threat to patient care which they imply are unacceptable to my constituents and me as their representative in Parliament. I will not stay silent while damage is done to my constituents' interests.
  The wild spending of the loony Left council in Manchester has done nothing to help. The total rates bill in Greater Manchester district health authority has increased from £3·2 million in 1979–80 to £9·3 million in the current year—a £6 million increase in rates on our hospitals. It is no wonder that we shall have to close wards and get rid of nursing staff if those sorts of increases are implemented by local government. I look forward to the introduction of the community charge and the unified business rate which, I hope, will moderate those impositions on the Health Service.
  My right hon. Friends have made an error of judgment on the optical and dental charges. Naturally, many people can well afford a tenner, but for many others £10 will not be an insignificant sum. Indeed, for some of my elderly constituents it represents more than 12·5 per cent. of their total weekly income. My fear and belief is that the Department will save little in cash terms and what it will save will be at the expense of the health of those who feel that they cannot afford the new charges and so neglect their health.
  I fully share the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who spoke so eloquently earlier, that if these charges are implemented, a significant number of people will not have those tests which give early warning of so many diseases, including glaucoma. It is wrong to charge for such examinations and I hope that in the coming weeks

  75
  my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will reconsider this provision, which damages a Bill that in other ways is so commendable.
  New sources of funding must be found urgently for the NHS. Part of the solution may be a national lottery. Why not? I would certainly have no objection to that. Part may be to encourage the expansion of private health insurance still further. Those who take out such insurance undoubtedly take an enormous burden from the shoulders of the NHS because in effect they are contributing twice to their health care — once through private insurance and once through taxes. But part of the additional resources must be found from the Exchequer. The Treasury must be told in no uncertain terms that it cannot and must not look to the NHS as a source of funding.
  I plead with my right hon. Friends to be rather more imaginative and radical in their approach. Our objectives must be, not to ration demand, but to satisfy it. Under the present system that desirable position will never be obtained. I urge my right hon. Friends seriously to consider introducing the system which seems to work so well in France. There NHS patients have a choice. Yes, they have a choice. What an unthinkable idea in the British NHS! Yet in France NHS patients have the choice whether to seek treatment within an NHS hospital or from a private clinic or hospital at the expense of the NHS, providing that the private clinic's charges are within the scale approved by the health ministry. That is an important proviso. There is no extra cost to the patient.
  The consequence of introducing such a freedom in Britain would be twofold: first, waiting lists would be slashed and, secondly, although in the short term the volume of operations would undoubtedly increase, in the long term there would be a reduction in the cost of individual operations. Clearly, anything that can be done by a nationalised organisation can be done far more efficiently and at less cost by the private sector. That would lead to an increase in the effective and efficient use of resources in the interests of both patients and taxpayers.
  I strongly urge my right hon. Friends to examine that proposition closely. It would give greater freedom of choice to patients, while securing the most cost-effective use of NHS resources for taxpayers. Both aspects are in line with our party's philosophy. Our people are entitled to a more efficient Health Service in which they do not have to suffer the agony of queuing and in which they can get the treatment that they need when they need it.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: We are both imaginative and worried. We do not have to be members of the medical or legal profession to understand that the Bill is not about health or medicine, but is about profit and greed. Moreover, it takes the first steps towards privatising the NHS.
  The meat of the Bill is in clauses 4 and 8. The Minister said that the Government had decided to increase dental charges from £115 to £150 because they had not been increased since 1985, but he did not say that since 1979 there had been more than a 350 per cent. increase. That provision should obviously be removed from the Bill.
  The Minister spoke about the half billion pounds that should be spent on the Health Service, but he did not emphasise that nurses were dealing with an enormous
  76
  number of cases which they had never dealt with previously; for example, hepatitis A and B, non-hepatitis A and B and the human immuno-deficiency virus. If the Government refuse to spend money on that new problem, we shall have an AIDS epidemic on our hands. The disease is spreading, and the Greater Glasgow health board gives reports every month on the problem and the Government must take heed. Last year the BMA warned the Government that to keep the Health Service at a standstill it would need an increase of 7·8 per cent., not the 6·5 per cent. which the Government were proposing.
  The Minister also said that £170 million would accrue from dental charges, which would resource some other need, but he forgot to admit that £1,700 million is needed to bring our hospitals up to acceptable standards.
  The Minister spoke about cervical cancer. I am most concerned about it, as my constituency is one of the most deprived areas in Britain. A report by the Greater Glasgow health board talks about the standardised mortality ratios for previous health districts within its boundaries. The mortality rate in the Greater Glasgow health board area in the age group of 40 to 69 years is 70 per cent. higher than it is in Japan, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. It is on places such as my constituency that we should be spending money.
  I read the epitaph of somebody who had passed away from a very deprived area when I listened to the Minister speaking about the extra money that was spent on fluoridation of the public water supply. That really concerned me, because the Bill contains only one clause about medicine. I wonder whether the Minister realises just how many medical products go into the market without passing through the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Hon. Members should consider the amendments to the National Health Service Act 1946 and section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 which defines a medicinal product. I wonder whether it will be legal for the Government to give money to every health board throughout the country to fluoridate its public water supply. Fluoride in its raw state becomes fluoroacetic acid as soon as it hits water, and I am concerned about that.
  It is time that we looked at some of the medicines that are coming on to the market, and at some of the pharmaceutical companies that produce them. There is Temarcpam which is known on the streets as the yellow peril, and Librium, Valium and Pethidin are making their way on to the streets. There is also that famous drug that the doctor prescribes when patients tell him that they have had a bout of depression—Ativan—which ensures that they are depressed for life. The Committee on Safety of Medicines should consider such drugs.
  The National Health Service has had crisis after crisis. We are losing 30,000 nurses a year because of low pay, as the Minister said earlier this afternoon. It is nonsense for him to say that £600 million will deal with the Health Service's problems, since £280 million was needed for the nurses' pay increase last year. There are about 668,000 people on waiting lists in England and 81,000 on waiting lists in Scotland. We must do something about that. In Scotland we have lost 750 nurses and 1,600 people who work in the National Health Service. I hope that the Government will invest more money and will realise that we need a Health Service for deprived people living in poverty who can ill afford to pay for any of those services. We know about prescription charges, which have seen a twelve fold increase since the Government came to power.

  77
  We want a Health Service that is free for all and paid for by the taxpayer, whose shoulders are best able to bear the burden.
  I hope that the Minister for Health and the Under-Secretary of State will examine my constituency, where there is great poverty, where people live in squalor and where the environment is so deplorable that Prince Charles talked about it for 10 minutes on the radio. Those are the problems that the Government should try to solve, and one way of doing it would be to spend more money on the Health Service.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Chris Butler: I wish to strike a new note by talking about clause 13, and specifically the reimbursement of general practitioners for their practice expenses. I shall home in on the use of computers in general practice. Some hon. Members—perhaps many— will have invested a great deal in new technology, including computers, in their constituencies. Some hon. Members may even have used their computers. Perhaps fewer have used them effectively. I do not know how many pieces of hardware there are in constituency offices —there are probably 57 varieties or more, all doing their own thing — but the real power and dynamism of new technology comes from, to use rather trendy words, inter-operability and interactivity. The dramatic synergy that one can get from new technology comes when computers talk to each other and talk back to their users. There is a new realisation of that in Conservative central office. There is, too, in the European Community, with the INSIS programme. There may even be a realisation among the cloth caps of Walworth road—if they have not yet been made redundant.
  Only two paragraphs of the White Paper that gave rise to the Bill are devoted to that important point. The White Paper believes that new technology is a good thing and it notes that
  "a variety of computer-based systems already exists."
  That is as far as it goes, except to say that in Scotland things are rather more advanced, as they usually are.
  General practitioners are ready and willing to use new technology. They are already discovering the value of new technology in their practices, in making up practice accounts and repeat prescriptions, in setting up call and recall systems for immunisation and in noting visits. But the quantum leap that they could achieve has yet to be perceived by the health authorities and by the Government simply because they are all doing their own thing. We must have some pre-planning if we want the radical change about which I am talking. I envisage a data network linking general practitioners, chemists, family practitioner committees, health authorities and hospitals. That would have great advantages in speeding the process of clinical trials, so that the process of getting approval for a drug can be telescoped. It would be of immense benefit to our pharmaceutical companies.
  I envisage many other advantages. A general practitioner could discover immediately whether beds were available in the local hospital or further afield and thus make use of unused capacity in the system. That could have a dramatic effect on waiting lists. A patient visiting his doctor could go to the nearby chemist and find his prescription already made up and available simply because of the exchange of information. A general practitioner could obtain immediate information on the cost of drugs,
  78
  on their side-effects, and on their administration. Family practitioner committees and health authorities could have timely warning of the build-up of epidemics quicker than we have under the notification system. General practitioners could report much more speedily the side-effects of any drugs, and this could replace the creaking yellow card system. New technology could achieve all this and more.
  But there is one condition. We must begin to move away from an ad hoc response to our problems to an overview of the position. Only the Government can do that. It is no good leaving it to general practitioners, family practitioner committees or health authorities. To obtain the overview, the Government must take the lead. They could use clause 13 to do that by reimbursing general practitioners for expenditure on equipment that is interoperable and interactive. It need not be expensive. There is a parallel with urban regeneration, where the Government have the vision and provide the pump-priming funds, and then the private sector responds and we obtain a multiplying factor of the public sector funds involved. In this case, the private sector could be the pharmaceutical companies. They would benefit from being on the inside track of such a data network. I hope that we shall make the correct choice between muddling along as we are and the quantum leap that I have described.
  Of course, the debate today and all debates on the matters that I have mentioned take place against a backdrop of pressure for more resources for the NHS. The British Medical Association has asked for more. It said:
  "For some years now the money allocated by the Government for the service has been quite inadequate to meet the demands made upon it by the public."
  That is strong stuff. That was the evidence of the BMA to the Merrison committee, which reported in 1979, after five years of Labour Government. What was the response in that report, which was commissioned by a Labour Government? It was:
  "Whatever the expenditure on health care, demand is likely to rise to meet and exceed it … To believe that one can satisfy the demand for health care is illusory."
  A signatory of that report was the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who is not here today. This is a tightrope that Governments of all colours must tread, and it ill behoves Opposition Members to have the screaming abdabs about us when their performance was so clearly inferior to ours.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: To keep up the latter points made by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), I think that it is a cheek for Conservative Members to try to ignore the fact that without a Labour Government after 1945 we would not be discussing a National Health Service. The establishment of the service was opposed by many Tories. Indeed, the late Sir John Anderson thought that welfare was likely to be a running sore in our economy. Conservative Members probably believe that it is a running sore in the economy now.
  The Government have missed a golden opportunity when introducing this Bill. They had a marvellous opportunity to address important problems facing the National Health Service. The Bill could have encouraged recruitment of more nurses, particularly intensive care unit nurses, about whom much discussion has taken place in

  79
  recent weeks. It could have improved the position of other staff in the Health Service, such as speech therapists and medical laboratory scientific officers. It could have addressed the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) regarding the dangers of dry Lorezepam, still popularly known as Ativan, which is regarded as mind-bending and about which we now have ample evidence. I asked questions about that drug in October 1984, but the Government have done nothing serious to exercise adequate control over the drug and to prevent its over-prescription, which creates doctor-induced drug addiction among people.
  I wish to deal mainly with the charges for eyesight testing which was not mentioned in the Tory party manifesto. Conservative Members need not fear being called to account by their local Conservative associations on the grounds that they were elected on a manifesto which embraced this idea, because it was not there. It could be argued that this is a mere detail, but I can assure the Minister for Health and his colleagues that it is not a detail to those thousands of people who, each year, require attention to their eyesight. The Government have committed yet another fraud against the electorate by introducing this measure. They would not have introduced it just before June 1987. They had every opportunity, but they did not introduce it then. I shall refer to the time when they had the opportunity to do so.
  The Government set great store by competition. Free market forces and competition are the gods worshipped by the present Administration. In the White Paper the Minister for Health said that the reason for abolishing free eyesight testing was that
  "The Government had decided …to extend the principle of increased competition to sight testing".
  The Minister argued that we should be discussing whether or not that charge will deter people from visiting an optician for a consultation and an eye test. The report of the Select Committee on Social Services, which took the evidence of the General Optical Council, stated:
  "The evidence we have received has not been so ebullient. The BMA is worried by the lack of reference to Ophthalmic Medical Practitioners' (OMPs) invaluable support service to hospital ophthalmology departments, reflecting the opinion of their Ophthalmic Group Committee that OMPs are 'a sadly underused and undervalued resource in primary health care'."
  The important section states:
  "The General Optical Council are keen to draw a distinction between a full eye-examination and a sight-test. The former would pick up many defects and abnormalities which a simple sight-test would not be able to detect, enabling the optician to prescribe corrective or ameliorative treatment. Thus waiting lists are kept down in hospital ophthamology departments, and the examination can also be used to monitor diabetes and screen for glaucoma. The GOC claim that there is a growing trend towards the quick eye test as a result of commercial pressure on registered opticians and the employment of unqualified sight testers by unregistered sellers of spectacles."
  I would argue that that is precisely the kind of scenario that we shall see on a much larger scale if charges are introduced. The Minister for Health in his speech in the House on 25 November referred to the fact that opticians can still provide a free test. However, there seems to be a difference in attracting custom to an optician by providing
  80
  a free test or by issuing free stamps. Commercial profit is uppermost in the Minister's mind, not the better health of the people. He is applying a commercial criterion.
  Of course, an optician can offer a free test and hope that the person being tested will come along as a patient and purchase spectacles from the optician. We could almost call this a loss leader. The optician may make a loss on the sight test, and hope to gain through the sale of spectacles. What is really uppermost in the Minister's mind? Is he primarily concerned with commercial profit or people's health?
  Again on 25 November, the Minister referred to the need to secure additional resources for development
  "by asking those who can afford it to pay for sight tests and to meet somewhat more of the overall cost of dental care." —[Official Report, 25 November 1987; Vol. 123, c. 260.]
  He referred to NHS sight tests remaining free for children and certain others on low incomes. He has not adequately answered the question from the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) who asked how low an income would be before tests were free. Will the exemption be confined only to those who qualify for income support? In the opinion of most of us, many people of meagre means would qualify for free treatment.
  All that is intended to save a mere £170 million. Of course that is cheese-paring, but that is all of a piece with other Government legislation. The same thing is happening in the Social Security Bill in regard to the decision to reverse the Moran judgment on attendance allowance. That will save precious little, but it all adds up to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the promised tax cuts for richer people come next April.
  There can be no justification in denying a free eye test to poor people simply to help those who can well afford to pay more in tax. We are always told that the Government want those who can well afford it to pay for this and to pay for that. They can pay higher taxes and the Government have the option next April to ensure that public opinion in this country, which is overwhelmingly in favour of maintaining our National Health Service free at the point of treatment, is unchanged.
  The stance of the Secretary of State for Social Services is different from the stance adopted by some Tory Ministers in the past. The present Minister for Health was a member for Standing Committee A which considered the Health and Social Security Bill in 1984. The Committee was responsible for going clause by clause through the Bill. The Minister may well recall that his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), one of his predecessors as Minister for Health, stated when the Government were scrapping free NHS spectacles for most people:
  "It is the health of people that we are, above all, prepared to, and must, protect. The desire to protect the health of individuals is the only legitimate interest of Government in what otherwise is a free transaction between the optician on the one hand and the client on the other".
  The right hon. Gentleman was talking about free eye tests. The Minister went on to say:
  "We have continued to provide, under the NHS"—
  and I want to emphasise this—
  "the most important service, an eye test available to everyone free of charge."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 January 1984; c. 13.]
  On 26 January the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe returned to this point:
  "We have retained all the essential requirements that we think that the public need—in particular"—

  81
  and I emphasise this again—
  "the free eye test for everyone and the legal prohibition on anyone selling glasses unless there has been a recent eye test,". —[Official Report, Standing Committee A,January 1984; c. 53.]
  What has changed between January 1984 and December 1987? Should it not be fundamental to health that people should have the chance of a free eye test?
  The Minister for Health has argued that the eye test will not cost all that much and he cited a figure of £10. Indeed, he has said that it might be less. Who knows? Who can say? After all, the Minister also said, when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), that opticians can charge any price. The Government will not put a maximum price on the tests. There will not be a ceiling. The sky could be the limit. There will be no Government control because they believe in market forces. Market forces means the free play of demand and supply. The price is at the point of equilibrium, not at the maximum amount of demand.
  In other words, some people will not be able to afford the price. The Minister for Health may not believe me, but not everyone carries the price of a particular type of medical service in their heads. Many people would not be able to tell us the price of a prescription. After all, prescription charges have gone up about 20 times under this Government, so people can hardly be blamed if they cannot remember the price of a prescription. That charge may be £5, £10 or whatever, but many people, knowing that they will have to put their hands in their pockets—very often there will be little in those pockets—will be deterred simply because they know they will have to pay a sum of money for the test and follow that up by paying for the spectacles. Not everyone is a civil servant from the Department of Health and Social Security capable of carrying statistics around in their heads. Ordinary people do not act in that way.
  The result of the proposed changes will be that far more people will be put off going for treatment. The Bill will not necessarily mean that public expenditure will be reduced. Many people who would go for a free sight test today and who would perhaps be the one person in 20 who, after that test, is referred for medical treatment will miss such medical treatment at that time. The result will be that they will be pressed into eye hospitals or into the eye departments of general hospitals at a later stage. There will be a knock-on effect and waiting lists, already high for many conditions in many places, will increase. The result will be more public expenditure and not less. It is not a pun to say that, in terms of public expenditure and patient care, this measure is short-sighted. In terms of savings it is likely to be counter-productive.
  The police tell us that many driving accidents are due to bad vision. Such people are in need of eye tests and should go often to have their eyes tested. However, even under the present system of free examinations, they have failed to go for such tests and, as a result, have caused accidents on the road. I suggest that there will be more road accidents as a result of people not having those examinations because they are no longer free.
  This is not the first time the Conservative Government have come forward with proposals to introduce charges for eye testing. It was proposed in a new clause presented by the Government when we were considering the Health Services Bill in 1980. At that time, the then Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G.
  82
  Vaughan), withdrew that clause because there was considerable pressure from both sides of the Chamber and from outside of the Chamber. It would be rather interesting to know—perhaps the Minister for Health or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be able to tell us — how many letters have been received since 25 November when the Minister announced the proposed charge. How many letters of support has he received? How many letters opposed that measure? I suggest that he has had none from the medical profession supporting the proposed charge. However, if I am wrong I should be interested to hear.
  In 1984 when the Minister and myself served on the Standing Committee to consider the Health and Social Security Bill my hon. Friends argued that the Oglesby report was likely to be the basis for Government health policy in the near future. That report advocated all sorts of charges for people who may be attending hospital, attending the doctor and so on. At that time we were told that the Government had no intention of implementing that report. However, in 1979, when the Conservative party took office, a document was published by the Adam Smith Institute that said that patients should pay for their spectacles, for the eye tests, dentures, dental examinations, for attendance by a general practitioner, and should pay to be in hospital. All those things were advocated by the institute. I suggest that the people likely to be in favour of the present Bill are perhaps the crackpots of the Monday Club and also members of the Adam Smith Institute. Certainly most ordinary, decent people are not in favour of this Bill.
  The Bill appears to be the thin edge of an extremely dangerous wedge. Unless certain political events take place as a result of public action—by-election defeats or the defeat of Conservative candidates in local elections—I foresee the day, before the next general election, when the Government will introduce charges for attendance at hospital and for attending the GP. They will get us back to where they really want us to be, in the days before the NHS.
  I hope that the Minister can prove me wrong. I hope that he will join with all in this House who have expressed their reservations about this proposal and do as his predecessor did in 1980: withdraw the clause from the Bill. I promise him that the Labour party, and, I suspect, one or two others elsewhere, will fight this clause every bit of the way and publicise what takes place in Committee after the Bill has unfortunately been read a Second time. I can only hope that there are people with guts on the Conservative Benches who will see that the Bill does not reach Committee. However, experience tells me that I am expecting far too much.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has predicted a disaster if the charges for eye tests — he concentrated on those, but I assume he also means the charges for dental checks — are introduced. Such predictions are based on the assumption — he did not spell it out in great detail—that the charges will act as a massive deterrent to patients seeking eye tests and dental examinations.
  All the evidence that we have shows that when charges are introduced or increased there is a check or even a temporary reduction in the number of patients seeking

  83
  such examinations or treatment, but soon the position recovers and the upward trend is resumed. The hon. Member for West Derby will know that from the experience of his own party. In 1951 the Labour party introduced charges for false teeth and spectacles. Ever since then, every Labour Government have found it necessary to increase charges to patients of one sort or another. If the hon. Gentleman considers the history of his party, he will discover that, yes, there is a temporary falloff, but the trend generally recovers. I am certainly confident that after the Bill has been enacted and the charges have been in operation for a short time he will find that the number of people seeking eye tests and dental examinations will resume an upward trend. The numbers will certainly remain very much higher than they were eight or nine years ago when his party was last in office.
  Charges for these examinations are wholly right against a background of constantly increasing expenditure on the Health Service in general and on primary health care in particular. As the Green Paper made clear, we are set to see a further substantial rise of about 11 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. This money must come from somewhere. Three sources can be identified: first, from internal economies; secondly, and overwhelmingly, from the public sector by way of the taxpayer; and, thirdly, but significantly, from private sources by way of patient charges. People who can afford it should contribute directly towards their health care. I have noticed that very often the most vociferous critics of this principle turn out to be those who are now better off than ever before, whose wages and salaries have risen in real terms over the past few years and who have seen substantial reductions in their income tax.
  I have always supported the concept that people should be allowed to retain more of their own money, but the other side of that coin is that we should, and have a right to, expect those people to provide more of the health care and security of themselves and their families. People whose standard of living has risen and whose disposable income has gone up should contribute towards this very substantial increase in expenditure on the National Health Service, the increase that we have seen in recent years and the increase that is planned for the future.
  Charges also involve the patients more closely in the efficiency and value for money of the Health Service. What we pay for, we value. Any service — and the Health Service is no exception—is likely to improve if lots of people using it also contribute directly to it out of their own pockets. They form an on-the-spot audit every day of the week of the effectiveness and efficiency of the service that they are getting. If we really want a responsive and patient-directed Health Service, charges such as are outlined in the Bill have a part to play.
  Let me strike a note of caution, however, on costs because clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill open the door to some increases in staff. Family practitioner committees will have additional powers to pay for training and education of primary health care staff and also directly to reimburse additional categories of staff — interpreters, computer operators and so on. I have no doubt that these offers will be taken up enthusiastically by general practitioners, and I am sure that most of the staff will be properly employed; but this could quite easily become another engine of expenditure unless we find offsetting economies. Here I
  84
  identify a very large area of potential waste which the White Paper discussed but about which the Bill is comparatively silent, wastage in pharmaceuticals.
  Some doctors still have extravagant prescribing habits. It is conservatively estimated that as a nation we throw away about £160 million worth of drugs a year. The nation's pill cabinets are groaning with pills and medicines which have been prescribed but which are surplus to requirements. Some doctors—and they are not wholly to blame themselves—prescribe two, three or even more months' supply at once. It is not just financially wasteful; it is also unsafe because when the treatment ends or is changed or when the patient dies or whatever it may be, those pills remain in circulation to become muddled up with other pills or out of date, swilling around in the nation's bathrooms and pill cabinets. I would like to go for a 28-day mandatory limit for the supply of pharmaceut-icals—
  Mrs. Margaret Bekett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has spoken very much as someone who has never had to worry about the cost of anything in his life, but he is clearly unaware that many doctors now prescribe larger amounts because so many patients can ill-afford to pay prescription charges; as pharmacists can testify, even in these circumstances many prescriptions are not fully filled.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady flatters me—I must look more prosperous than I really am. What she says does not invalidate the point that I make because, as she should know, there are many exemptions from prescription charges, and anyone who is genuinely unable to pay them is exempt. I agree that I am not one of those people.
  Mrs. Beckett: Rubbish.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Moreover, what she says does not invalidate my point that we are not just financially profligate but we also endanger patients' health by doing it. Some say that we should go for generic substitution. The White Paper skirts around that. I am attracted to it and have always felt that if pharmaceutical companies need a longer period for paying back their massive investment in new drugs the patent period should be extended. Instead, the White Paper draws attention to the problem and points to a greater role for family practitioner committees.
  There still remains, however, a confusion between the regional medical services of the Department of Health and Social Security, which, by and large, hold the information on their computers, and the family practitioner committees which hold the contracts with the doctors. The two should be brought together, and the FPCs should have not just the information but the duty, the responsibility and the power to follow up and take action against that minority of doctors who are unsafe and extravagant in their prescribing habits, because the potential saving here dwarfs anything else disccussed in the White Paper, and there are these additional health benefits.
  I approve of the overall tone of the Bill. Prevention is certainly better than cure. In passing, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not forget the libertarian tradition in our party, to which I subscribe, which says that responsible adults, if given the right information, are capable of making their own choices. That includes the right to make their own mistakes.

  85
  Of course, it must be right to point out to people incontrovertible links between, for example, smoking and lung cancer; but I hope that we do not go way beyond that and adopt a hectoring and disapproving attitude towards things which medical fashion may from time to time decree are excessively unhealthy. A balance must be struck. Let us not have too many bans and prohibitions. Let us instead rely on persuasion and education.
  The Bill introduces provision for additional medical training of ancillary staff, but there is a bigger training challenge ahead. Increasingly, medical technology is pushing back the frontiers of what is possible, on the one hand, but, on the other, we know that resources are limited and that doctors are in consequence being forced all the time into making implicit judgments when having to allocate priorities. That would remain true even if we doubled expenditure on the NHS. It would be possible to design an NHS that would bankrupt the country, but patients could still be found who could claim legitimately that they were being denied a course of treatment, a wonder drug, an operation or a bit of machinery that they heard or read about and was available in some country.
  Therefore, it is inescapable that choices must be made. We must try to maximise the health and happiness of patients with the resources available, which, by definition, are always limited. We must make difficult cost-benefit calculations. My point is that administrators alone are not capable of making them. We must train doctors and other medical staff so that they appreciate the problems involved and share the management burden.
  I welcome the Bill and believe that it can be a springboard, so that we can face the challenges ahead, to guide us not just towards a more expensive Health Service — that would be easy — but, much more difficult, towards a better Health Service.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Dennis Turner: When I listen to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I wonder whether he perceives that today there are people who are not enjoying an increased standard of living and whose disposable income is not gaining appreciably. Millions of people find the day-to-day and week-to-week grind to maintain and build up standards for their families a real problem.
  The hon. Gentleman said that people might temporarily become consumer resistant, but that things will start to level out. Let me tell him what the first test will be when a mother with children is confronted with having to pay the £10 charge, or when a husband who is working out the week's expenditure finds that there is no £10 left at the end of the week for a dental or eye test. Those people will decide their priorities and, as a result of the charges, might neglect to do what is suggested by the Government and not go for a test. If they do not go for a test, their health may deteriorate and give rise to additional costs on the NHS. I suggest that the charges will prevent many people from taking the course that we know is in their best interests and, in the long term, of the NHS.
  The Bill cannot in any way inspire confidence in the claim that the NHS is safe in the hands of the Conservative party. Indeed, it does just the opposite. As has been said by many hon. Members, great opportunities have been missed which could have been taken in the Bill.
  The great arguments on the major issues involved in the NHS were effectively dealt with and the myth demolished
  86
  in our debate on 26 November. The arguments were demolished equally by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and by the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe), who showed clearly what has happened over the past few years to our Health Service and where the myths have arisen, and we shall hear them again tonight. We know that all is not well with our NHS.
  I am privileged to represent Wolverhampton, South-East. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), said a few days ago that the Black Country had "nothing to moan about." At the moment in the Black Country, in Wolverhampton, Birmingham and throughout the west midlands, as the Minister knows, there is a mounting crisis in the NHS. It is not doing that word an injustice to say that it is a crisis. Over the past few months, in my district health authority, three people have died. They lost their lives because they could not be admitted to any of the hospitals in my area, when they were in a serious health condition. Over the past 12 months, 400 people who were seriously ill have had to be refused admission. They were turned away because no beds were available.
  In all our acute bed specialties, with the exception of ophthalmic, there are bed shortages, and in some the figure is the equivalent of 50 per cent. General practitioners in Wolverhampton tell me that the heartache and ordeal of picking up the telephone at 5 o'clock at night to try to find a bed for a seriously ill patient is distressing. General practitioners spend hours trying to find a bed.
  We have a renal unit, where the machines are provided by the community. Trade unions and voluntary bodies raised funds, doing it in the way that the Conservative party says it likes it to be done. The funds have all been made available externally. However, the unit is housed in small, makeshift accommodation. We were promised capital expenditure to provide proper accommodation in the near future. Each time that we have asked about that, our request has been turned down. We understand that the Secretary of State has said in the past fortnight that he will reconsider that, but we all know that reconsideration may not mean that that provision will be made.
  When I look at my district health authority and listen to the arguments of Conservative Members tonight, a clear message comes through. There is a standard pattern of delivery by Conservative Members. First, quite rightly and defensively, they say, "We appreciate all that the Government have done to assist the Health Service. They have done a marvellous job." They duly give a pat on the back to all and sundry. However, in the second phase of their delivery they say, "But in my constituency I shall stand up and describe all the inadequacies of the service. I shall articulate the needs of our patients, doctors, nurses and the service in general. In that context, the Government are not doing a very good job at all." That is said in enough constituencies to make the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary a little concerned about the vibes on the state of the Health Service that are genuinely coming from their own Back Benchers.
  I believe that for some Conservative Members the Bill is the final straw that will prevent them from going into the Lobby and voting with the Government. That is another sign of how bad we all know the position to be under the surface. It is no good saying that a certain amount of money has been injected, when we know about

  87
  the serious day-to-day problems. I have given instances of those from my own community in Wolverhampton. Our community health council, our medical practitioners committee and my district health authority all tell me of their bad day-to-day experiences, and they are joined by the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority in saying that there is a need for greater resources to be injected into the National Health Service, in the west midlands and throughout Britain.
  It was clear from our debate on 26 November—it will be so in future debates — that the people of this country regard the situation more in sorrow than in anger. However, I give a warning: one can see that sorrow welling up in our communities and turning to anger. Sensitive men and women are identifying as insensitive a Government who fail to respond to the unassailable case that has been presented. Many Conservative Members should vote against the Bill. Let us provide the resources that are needed to start building a better Health Service for all our people. After all, is it not the test of a civilised society to move forward, rather than to introduce legislation that takes us back?
  8.22 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. For the past 15 years it has been my privilege and pleasure to advise members of the dental profession on the financial arrangements and management of their practices. That experience has given me a unique insight into their way of life and the way in which their affairs are financed. I hope to share that insight in a helpful way with hon. Members this evening, as we address the difficult problem of our National Health Service.
  The Bill must be seen in the context of recent trends, especially in dental health. Since 1978–79 there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of dental practitioners and a corresponding 20 per cent. increase in the number of courses of dental treatment. There has also been strong evidence of improving dental health, to which the work carried out by general dental practitioners has contributed admirably. However, the need for change in the general dental services has become more and more obvious.
  Looking back over the past 15 years, one can see that patterns of treatment and dental care have changed dramatically. The need for change was initially reflected in the Government's Green Paper and admirably dealt with in the British Dental Association's response —"Opportunity for Change"—and was further addressed in the White Paper proposals. There is also a continuing dialogue between the British Dental Association, and its general dental service committee and the Department of Health and Social Security on the need for a new dental contract, with which I shall deal later.
  We should also reflect on the fact that the need for increased resources for the Health Service and the requirement for increased charges have obscured —indeed, eclipsed—the many good things that the White Paper contains and that I greatly welcome. Nevertheless, it must be said that the announcement earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health that the proportional charge that we will introduce will be as high as 75 per cent. will be a grave disappointment to many dentists. Equally, I am sure that there will be some relief at my hon. Friend's
  88
  announcement that there will be a ceiling of £150 on the total amount payable. A real fear has been expressed throughout the debate by hon. Members on both sides, that removing the free examination will lead to reduced attendances. I have some sympathy with that point of view, but the issue that must be addressed—it has not been tackled so far in the debate — is what dissuades patients from attending dental practices more regularly.
  A study is now being done jointly by the Department and the British Dental Association into "Barriers to Dental Health Care". When that report is published, I suggest that there will be several possible explanations in it of why there is not more regular dental attendance. Cost is one; fear of pain is another; the possibility that people cannot find a dentist who is prepared to treat them on the National Health Service is a third. But I suggest that perhaps the greatest reason for non-attendance is lethargy. There is no perceived need to see a dentist. It will be interesting to see what the report has to say about the image of dentists and dental practices.
  Much has been said in the debate about costs and charges, but the fact remains that almost half the population do not attend a dentist regularly in spite of, not because of, the free dental examination. I venture to suggest that it would be interesting if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary-Secretary of State looked into what proportion of the population do not attend regularly, and, of those, how many would be entitled not only to a free examination but to free dental treatment on remission if they went more regularly. More regular dental attendance takes place in the southern half of Britain, where the vast majority of adult patients pay a substantial proportion of the cost of their treatment. So, while it would be easy for me to stand here and say, on behalf of all my friends in the dental profession, that I could not possibly support the idea of phasing out the free examination, that is not my conclusion.
  There are two reasons why I say that. First, the proportional charge is lower as a result of the phasing-out of the free examinations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health accurately elucidated the fact that patients who attend dental practitioners the most regularly will pay slightly less under the proposed arrangements. The message must be got across to the public that if they attend their dentists regularly and keep in contact with them they will be spared large bills for dental treatment.
  The second point is that it provides an opportunity for us to concentrate more on prevention. More and more patients when they go to a dental practitioner regularly need less and less treatment. Where did my hon. Friend the Minister for Health first encounter the phrase about a continuing care contract that he used in his speech? That phrase is very much on the lips of many dental practitioners. The general dental service committee has proposed to the Department that there should be a change from the present contractual arrangement and a much greater obligation placed on the relationship between the dentist and his patient by way of a continuing care contract. A proposal has been made for an annual registration fee. This annual arrangement would, one presumes, require funding at a much higher level than the present examination fee of £3·90.
  One interesting point arising from the debate is that there are a great number of requirements, and of possible illnesses and diseases, for which the dentist looks when he is examining a patient. Has any hon. Member thought that

  89
  what we should be addressing is not whether we should ask patients who can afford to do so to contribute towards the cost of treatment, but whether we should ask what is a proper amount to pay a dental practitioner for the work that he does in screening and monitoring dental health? That is the purpose behind the proposal for an annual registration contract. Much research has still to be done about this, but that is the framework within which we can promote much more prevention in dental practice. Dentists have the opportunity and a great obligation to teach their patients more about oral health and about how they can preserve their teeth.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The hon. Gentleman glibly talks about working people paying. In my constiteuncy in the north-east, unemployment is about 20 per cent. and people are living on the breadline, or, as we call it, in the halfway house. They are frightened to go to dentists in case they receive treatment that will cost about £30 or £40. The Government are proposing to promote some sort of advertising campaign to advise people caught in the poverty trap, not only in the northeast, but all over the country. The hon. Gentleman says that he has the answer, but so far he has not told us what it is.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. We want to encourage people to attend dental practitioners more regularly so that they can avoid the £40 bills. Much of the hysteria that we have heard in the debate will not encourage people to go to their dentists because they think that they will have massive bills. That will not he the case if they go regularly, and it is not the case now.
  No costing has been proposed for the annual registration contract, but one assumes that the arrangement would take care of all the screening procedures, X-rays, and possibly even the cleaning of teeth. It would be unrealistic in the present climate, given the need of the Health Service for resources, to expect that the patient should not contribute to that contract. There is an opportunity here for us to do a great deal of good to encourage patients to go to a dentist more regularly.
  I shall now deal with the timetable. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health said that the Government hope to introduce a proportional charge arrangement in April, with fixed fees for those items that require primary legislation. He said that he would seek to introduce the proportional charge for the examination at a later stage. Will he seriously consider the possibility of bringing in a new contract for a continuing care arrangement at the same time as the proportional charge for the inspection is introduced? That would allow people an opportunity to absorb the major change of emphasis and would allow the positive proposals in the White Paper on dental health promotion to take effect.
  I was delighted, and I am sure that members of the dental profession will have been delighted, to hear the Minister say that he is proposing to undertake a major advertising campaign for dental awareness. That is the great priority, because we must increase the priority that the public give to dentistry and dental health. Attitudes must be changed, and I warmly welcome the Government's commitment to promote health education. This must be pursued with vigour and if the funds raised from charges can be used to this effect the money will be well spent.
  90
  There are many other aspects of the Government's proposals, especially those in the White Paper, that deserve warm support. Extra resources for fluoridation will contribute greatly to preventive policy. More post graduate and vocational training will also help. It has been my privilege to be involved in dental vocational training for 10 years since the Guildford experiment started in 1977. There is a need for that, and for more resources to be devoted to it, and I welcome the Government's commitment to provide them.
  We must also review the best means of achieving a more even distribution of dentists. I support the proposal in the White Paper that this should be done, and the review should consider how to make available information to help dentists decide where, when and how to invest in practice projects. We need information about local problems to be available nationally in order to encourage redistribution in a controlled way, so that local practitioners already in-place are not unduly and adversely affected.
  The constitution of the General Practice Finance Corporation is also being changed by the Bill. The Government should consider whether to take the opportunity to include dental practitioners in the provision of finance for the newly constituted body.
  I know that I have touched only on matters affecting dental practice. The Government's plans for family doctors and health promotion generally offer a better deal for patients and greater opportunities for doctors to improve and widen the scope of the health care that they provide. The Government's plans represent, not just a radical shake-up of the family practitioner services, but a long-awaited and much-needed opportunity to create a system of primary health care that the nation will need, not just in the 1990s, but into the next century.
  It is outrageous hypocrisy for the Opposition to say that the Government are not doing enough for our Health Service and then to refuse to support the imaginative initiatives that are contained in the White Paper.
  Finally, I pose one question: what sort of National Health Service will we have in 20 years? Some hon. Members who have just come to the House may be fortunate enough to be returned in future elections, and some of us may have a long and distinguished career. I shall tell the House what sort of National Health Service we will have in 20 years. Unless we pursue a policy of encouraging prevention, and unless we educate the public to the effect that they can avoid preventable illnesses, we will not be able to afford a National Health Service beyond the year 2000.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: We will not have one if the Conservatives are in power.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: We agree with and welcome some proposals in the Health and Medicines Bill and the White Paper. However, like many hon. Members, for all the reasons cited in the debate, we are totally opposed to the introduction of charges for dental checks and eye tests. The proposed changes make a mockery of the Government's announced intention to improve preventive health care. The proposals were not part of the consultative discussions and document and will prove to be more expensive to the NHS in the long run. Diseases and illness previously detected by opticians and dentists

  91
  will remain undetected and in the long run patients will go into hospitals, thus increasing hospital waiting lists. I quote from the document "Primary Health Care: An Agenda for Discussion", in April 1986. At page 32, under item 4, "NHS Services", it says:
  "Free NHS sight-tests and prescriptions are maintained for everyone who needs them. The sight-test can identify health problems as well as a need for spectacles, so it is important that skilled sight-testing should remain readily available."
  We shall not have that when the Bill goes through.
  We are concerned also about the removal of the duty placed upon the Secretary of State to provide dental checks and treatment, where necessary, to schoolchildren. We are even more concerned from our reading of the relevant legislation that the Secretary of State's discretionary power to provide those services extends only to children in schools maintained by local government. If the Education Reform Bill becomes law, children in schools that have opted out will be left without a safety net. Is that what the Government intend, or is it a drafting error? I hope it is the latter, but perhaps the Minister will clarify the point.
  Like much enabling legislation, the Bill leaves many questions unanswered. The proposal to privatise the General Practice Finance Corporation did not form part of the consultation process. The Government obviously envisage some problems with loans being provided in deprived areas. Do they see other problems arising from the constraints of finance and commerce? For instance, will young single or married women doctors be seen as a good financial or business risk? How do the Government intend to monitor the distribution or refusal of loans? Are there plans to require reports to safeguard against maladministration? We must have more details before we can approve the proposal.
  Whether one agrees with the principle of the controversial clause 4, in practice it is not as easy as it looks. It will create administrative and managerial headaches and will add to the overheads and costs, with a corresponding reduction in the income generated. Most importantly, do the Government guarantee that any extra income from those activities will not be offset against allocations by the DHSS? Unless the proposals generate genuine extra cash, they should not be implemented. Does the Minister realise that the subsections of this clause that give him the power to issue directives cover bodies such as the community health councils, and that this may go against the spirit surrounding the setting up of those bodies?
  Much has been said against the introduction of cash limits on family practitioner committees, and we add our voice to those concerns. The Bill does not tell us how they are to be allocated. The House should be aware that such limits could be extended to cover all services provided by family practitioners. We know that funds for training are to be cash-limited, but we do not know what form the training must take before it will qualify for reimbursement. That is important. The training should be of a high standard and should have some uniformity.
  We support some of the Government's proposals, but some should be removed from the Bill and others require far more investigation. My major worry relates to the Government's real objective behind the Bill and the White Paper. Is it the beginning of the slippery slope to the
  92
  reduction of family practitioner services supplied by the NHS in favour of some form of privatisation of the services, an objective that they hope to realise without the true and real consultation to which the electorate has a right? I fear that it is the beginning of the end to a truly national health service, which at one time was for all the people, but as we look at it now will not be for all the people.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I had hoped that in the debate we might have gone beyond the normal exchanges across the Floor of the House, with the Opposition saying that if only there were more money and people it would be all right, and our saying that there are many more people and more money so it must be fine. I should have thought that if Opposition Members believed that only more money and more people were required, they would admit that the hospital and GP services are much better now than they were under the Labour Government, because there is self-evidently much more money and many more people. I should also have thought that they would not turn down any suggestions or good ideas for raising money and bringing more resources into the service, which is exactly what the Bill and White Paper suggest: yet more resources for the service to meet growing patient demands.
  Why is it that with all the extra resources there is still unhappiness and patient demands are not being met? Part of the problem lies in the structure of the very large, top-heavy Health Service that we inherited and are living with. The layers of management are legion. Why do we have one group of civil servants at the centre arguing with another group who run the National Heath Service management board? Could there not be unity and a single organisation? Why do we need over £100 million of regional administrative structures and inter-regional co-ordinators to carry the word down and up from the region to the centre? Why have another level of bureaucracy and administration at the district level before getting to the people who run the service and other things for patients in hospitals and general practice clinics?
  Why is it, also, that in a money-oriented culture the answer is always more money? If the administrative structure does not accept its responsibility to run the service in the interests of the patients, from a senior level, the answer will always be more and more money because it is the easy way out, avoiding difficult management decisions. Conditions should be placed on the granting of new money to the Health Service to develop a sense of responsibility within it, so that senior people in the Health Service management feel that if a baby is going without an operation, that is their problem and their responsibility. They have £20,000 million to manage their affairs, so such things should not become matters for the national press and the House of Commons but should be dealt with at the local level.
  It ill behoves people in the Health Service to grumble about recruiting nurses and other skilled staff when very often the labour organisations oppose the flexibility on pay which is needed to get nurses into the places as required. Why has there been so much delay in getting regional divergencies in pay and extra pay for special skills? Much of the problem lies with the Opposition and the unions, not with Conservative Members.

  93
  Who answers for the National Health Service? Managers must have powers and responsibilities to answer for the service delivery. I feel that within the administrative structures of the NHS there lies a deep hatred of the small hospital. Why does the NHS always go towards the large and the new, never supporting small community hospitals which are much loved by all hon. Members? It is not a matter of money; it is a matter of management style and it is high time that they were told that the small hospital is valued—
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not have time to give way. It is not a matter of money and resource; it is a matter of management. We need the Bill, which is an important step on the road to providing a service with choice, management responsibility and a variety of sources of money and resource.
  I welcome clause 4, which gives hospitals the opportunity to raise money and provide better services by bringing in private capital and skills. Why should patients and visitors not have the chance to get access to a different range of retail activities, types of food and drink and other necessary services? It is high time that hospitals were modernised, and we should encourage private capital and management to do it.
  We need a system at general practitioner level to ensure that referrals to hospitals are made on good information about where waiting lists are shortest and where the patient can go, if he chooses, to have his operation performed quickly. There are glaring anomalies and a huge range of differences in standards of patient care that are entirely unrelated to resources and completely to do with management.
  It is time that the GP had the power at his desk to help the system and the patient by reducing queues and waiting times by knowing where the shortest waiting lists are to be found. Why are out-patient clinics about the only places left where one can arrive for an appointment only to find that 30 or 40 others have been given the same time? It is not cuts that cause that to happen. That is the result of administrative decisions, and it is a disgrace. It is high time that out-patient clinics had sensible appointment times and that consultants adhered to them. That would greatly improve the standard of service and people's perceptions of it.
  Throughout the service we need an ethos that is friendly to patients and marshals the huge resources of the NHS in the best interests of its patients and for no one else. We do not wish to see a producers' cartel. Nor do we wish to see a huge amount of resources going in at the top, and leading to expensive management games, endless rows and pieces of paper passing between regions, co-ordinators and the centre shifting the blame. We want resources to be directed to the bottom. The White Paper and the Bill offer choice and scope for additional funding. The Bill should be warmly welcomed. I hope that it is the first step of many.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I was not surprised by the contribution of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is one of the whizz kids of the Conservative party. He was working outside the House—
  Mrs. Currie: Of course.
  Mr. Haynes: I do not need the Minister to say "Of course". The hon. Gentleman was working outside the House on behalf of the Conservative party before 1979 when the policies that the Government are now putting before us began to be formed. I well remember what the Tories were saying during the pre-election period in 1979. I remember also what they did after the 1979 general election. It seems that all Conservative Members in the Chamber are laughing except one or two who were Members before 1983. The great majority of them are new boys.
  During the 1979 election campaign the Conservatives were saying that if they formed a Government they would reduce public expenditure. They won that election and they have reduced public expenditure.
  Mrs. Currie: That is right.
  Mr. Haynes: I do not need the Minister to confirm or deny what I am saying. I am making a speech, not the hon. Lady.
  The Government have made across-the-board cuts throughout the land. All services have been cut —[Interruption.] This is no joke; it is a serious matter. Before 1979 the Under-Secretary of State was implementing Conservative policies as the leader of the Birmingham health authority and cutting services. It is no wonder that the Health Service is in a mess when people such as the Minister were involved in health authorities. The hon. Lady is now a Minister and the actions that she is taking these days are even worse than those that she took when in Birmingham.
  The Government have imposed cash limits and told health authorities that they cannot exceed them. They are warned that if they do they will suffer the consequences in following years. The message is, "Save your money and cut services." Everyone is scrimping and scraping within the Health Service to provide necessary services for the people, who are our constituents. We hear Conservative Members criticising some of the cuts in the NHS—some of them agree with the criticisms of Opposition Members— yet they vote to support the Government. I do not know how they get on when they return to their constituencies. They probably say that they did not vote to support the measures of which their constituents complain. I do not know what they say, but I know that the Government have created a begging society.
  Ms. Harriet Harman: Quite right.
  Mr. Haynes: I wish the Minister would keep quiet and listen. I never interfere when the hon. Lady is on her feet, so shut up!
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Member for Peckharn (Ms. Harman) interjected.
  Mr. Haynes: There is evidence of the begging society in my constituency. The state should provide a heart scanner and yet the people of Ashfield and Mansfield have had to beg on street corners for donations to provide this necessary piece of equipment. There are people in desperate need who cannot afford the private sector, unlike so many Conservative Members. I have received a letter from the mayor of Eastwood town council in my constituency in which he refers to the Nottinghamshire kidney fund. I know of a chap who has worked his soul case out for 15 years to provide money for the fund. Tony

  95
  Higgins has begged on street corners and worked like a Trojan to raise money for kidney machines. Good luck to him, but this equipment should be provided by the NHS. In other words, it should be provided by the state.
  When people are in work they contribute to the NHS by paying their national health stamp. The more one earns, the more one pays. There are billions of pounds being paid into the Government that should be used through the NHS to provide kidney machines and other vital items of equipment. Unfortunately, the money is not being used in that way. It is being used to pay for the advertising of share offers when public undertakings are being privatised. It is used to acquire weapons of destruction. By gum, we shall change all this when the Labour party forms the next Government.
  It is sometimes necessary nowadays for individuals to lodge appeals when they need social security benefit. Benefit is often denied to them because of the regulations that the Government have introduced. Some of my constituents are on appeal because they say that they are entitled to benefit and the Department says that they are not. The hearing of an appeal can take as long as eight months. This is shocking. This has happened only since the Conservative Government—that lot on the other side of the Chamber — came into power. Under the Labour Government, those who were entitled to benefit received it. The present difficulties are related directly to public expenditure cuts.
  We have been told by a Conservative Member that individuals value that for which they pay. That is true, but we are paying through the nose for the NHS without getting the value to which we are entitled. That is the problem, and that is what we must put right.
  Every year the Nottingham Evening Post runs a scheme to raise money to keep the elderly warm. This leads to begging on street corners. The front page of the Nottingham Evening Post carries a headline which asks readers to contribute to enable the elderly to keep warm during the winter, and copies of it are sold by lads on street corners. It is the Government's responsibility to keep the elderly warm, but they are denying that it is. More and more people die each winter under the present Administration. Why is this? They are dying of hypothermia.
  The end result is that we get kicked in the constituency and asked, "Why are you not doing something about it?" We are doing what we can in this place, but the Conservative Government have a majority of 101. They can get anything through. Conservative Members say that they do not agree with some of what the Government are doing, but they troop through the Lobby to approve it and to put it on the statute book.
  Nottinghamshire county council and my district health authority are falling over backwards to try to provide additional chiropody services, but the county council — which, incidentally, does a marvellous job—is hampered by rate support grant cutbacks, and the chiropody services are suffering as a result. Not so long ago, the Minister talked of providing a decent service in the community, but what happens? People simply do not receive it.
  Many doctors tell a retired man who has given a lifetime of service to industry to keep himself active. However, if that person requires a chiropodist—which is
  96
  often the case in my constituency—he will not be able to get about, because of his bad feet. He sits in a chair, day after day and week after week. Of course, such people can obtain a chiropody service if they pay for it, which is what Conservative Members want. However, because of rate support grant cuts and Health Service cutbacks in my district, a proper, full chiropody service cannot be provided.
  It goes on and on. The poll tax is coming next. People will be asked to pay more and more — in particular, many of my constituents who are in the lower income bracket and who cannot afford chiropody in the private sector. They will be told that they must pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. That means more and more money coming out of their pockets or their purses—if they can find it. That is what the Conservative meant in 1979—"Let us have cutbacks in the public sector. Let us make them pay." And, by God, that is what they have done. Well, once we are given the opportunity to sit on their side of the House and put things right, we shall really look after the people of this nation.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Michael Irvine: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said at one point in his speech that Whips should keep quiet. All that I can say after the high-decibel hellfire sermon that we have just heard is that he is one Whip who certainly cannot be said to whisper his message.
  What the hon. Gentleman said was more or less what we have been hearing from Opposition Members throughout the debate, although it was delivered at a rather higher volume and in a more declamatory manner than most of the other speeches. On the face of it, it fits in with the strongly expressed criticism from the eminent presidents of three senior medical colleges which was announced today.
  Surely, however, the point is this. By its very nature, the National Health Service will always be short of resources. It will always be up against an ever-expanding demand. I am sure that, at any time during the 40 years since the NHS was set up, we could have found three eminent medical men to come forward and declare it to be in a state of crisis. We could also have found, on either side of the House—depending on which party was in power at the time — hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Ashfield declaiming the state of the NHS in pretty violent terms.
  The fact is the better that the NHS does, the greater the expectations that it raises. The wider the range of treatments that it introduces, the greater will be the pressure on its resources. Forty years ago, for example, hip replacement operations simply were not available. Today, the NHS not only provides those operations, but provides them in ever-increasing numbers. Does it receive the credit for that improvement? It does not. Still less does the Government of the day. Expectations have been raised; the demand for such operations increases; the waiting lists are attacked as outrageous. That is likely to continue for as long as the NHS exists.
  Obviously, taxation is always likely to play an important part in the funding of the NHS. I, for my part, hope that, in the years to come, insurance will play an increasing part in funding medical treatment. However, it is absurd not to look at other ways of raising finance. In particular, it is absurd for Opposition Members to dismiss

  97
  charges out of hand as a means of raising finance. If medical services are provided free — indeed, if any services are provided free — there will be waste, and where there is waste less money is available to be used where it is most needed. Charges have a very important part to play in making sure that such waste does not occur.
  Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Irvine: I should like to give way, but I know that another Opposition Member wishes to speak after me.
  Charges reduce waste. Resources can then be better applied in other directions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) made the point that an important merit of charges is that they involve patients much more in improving the efficiency of the National Health Service. If we pay for something, we try to ensure that we get good value for it. Furthermore, charges provide a useful additional source of finance.
  There is scope for argument about exactly what the level of charges should be and exactly how and on what items charges should be applied. There is also scope for argument about the level of income above which charges should become payable. If sensible charges are imposed on those who can afford them, they are not merely unobjectionable; they are positively desirable.
  The other main way of raising money is embodied in clause 4, which to my mind is the most encouraging part of the Bill. It is high time that hospitals were encouraged to make greater use of their commercial potential. There are large numbers of staff, patients and visitors in hospitals. This makes hospitals very attractive as premises to retailers.
  There is other commercial potential too. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but he highlighted one of the other revenue-raising elements that, apart from the attraction of hospitals to retailers who might want to set up shop there, is available to hospitals. He referred to commercial deals with drug companies. In exchange for research and assistance, hospitals could strike advantageous deals with drug companies. That is specifically provided for in clause 4(1)(e). The potential is enormous.
  During the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) in an intervention highlighted the fact that each hospital or at any rate each regional health authority must be allowed to retain the benefit of its commercial success. That must be right. It would be absurd and counterproductive if the benefits of the commercial success by individual hospitals and regional health authorities that is made possible by clause 4 were to be nullified by a subsequent corresponding reduction in central funding.
  The Bill has met with much undeserved criticism. By and large, it is a very good Bill. I shall vote for it with enthusiasm.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). He claims a special interest in practically every debate. He last spoke in a debate on Scotland, which is strange for a Member who represents a constituency in East Anglia.
  Conservative Members have made great play of the fact that they are seeking to reform the Health Service. Indeed, one Conservative Member posed the question: "What sort
  98
  of Health Service will exist in 20 years?" It is obvious, not only from the Bill but from the debate that was held two weeks ago, that in 20 years' time we shall have a private health service because the National Health Service will have ceased to exist.
  Some comments, especially those by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has now left the Chamber, are based on fantasy recollections about the natural consumers of the Health Service. When one considers that the hon. Member for Wokingham happens to be a former investment consultant for N. M. Rothschild, one realises that such Conservative Members have no understanding of the needs of the people who seek medical and dental help. Indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), seems to operate on the basis that if the Ministry issues a directive to tell people not to be ill, they will cease to be ill, and that if a directive is issued telling everyone in, for example, Leicestershire that they do not have any health problems and have no need to seek a dentist or optician, suddenly, by some miracle, all their problems will disappear. Of course, the reality is quite different.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) referred to the state of the Health Service in his area. I should like to give briefly some statistics relating to the Health Service in Leicestershire. About 8,300 people are on the waiting lists in Leicestershire and about 1,300 are waiting for urgent operations—that is almost 13·6 per cent. of the total.
  Even before the provisions of clause 4 become enacted, we have been operating a jumble sale Health Service. The Lord Mayor of Leicester recently launched an appeal for support to build a special unit at the Leicester general hospital. The appeal reached £50,000 but everyone has now discovered that an extension will not be built at that hospital in which to put the new endoscope unit. When clause 4 becomes law — if it becomes law — we shall indeed have a jumble sale Health Service in which the managers of health authorities will, no doubt, hold television game shows and jumble sales to raise funds.
  A recent report in Leicestershire stated that the Towers hospital, which is a regional hospital that helps patients with mental disorders, is recommended for closure. I raised that in a question to the Minister, but she has not even seen the report. However, we have been told that it will close in five years. I understand that consultants in Leicestershire are furious about what is happening and about the fact that beds that are needed for operations are not available. Those consultants are to lead a delegation to the Minister in the near future.
  We have heard reports in Leicestershire that funds from the National Health Service will be allocated to private hospitals. Indeed, there has been rumour that £240,000 of National Health Service money would be spent on private services in Leicestershire. That is the state of the Health Service in Leicestershire and it is wrong for the hon. Member for Wokingham to say that everything is all right with the Health Service and that it is getting value for money.
  In a recent article in a local newspaper, Mr. Paul Bates, the administrator of the family practitioner committee, quite controversially for an administrator in the Health Service, criticised the Government because of the cuts that will be made in the local FPC. It is being told that it cannot circulate vital information to doctors and dentists, that it

  99
  should slash £50,000 from its budget, that it should not write to 60,000 people a year to tell them that their doctor has retired or died, and that it should not write to 13,000 "season ticket" holders to tell them that their annual permit for regular drugs has expired. It is not allowed to send out annually updated drugs lists to doctors, which give them vital information when they need to prescribe for their patients.
  At present there is so much scope to introduce a Bill which will provide resources and a more efficient NHS. No one is pretending that the operation of the NHS is perfect; obviously, there are tiers and layers of management which need to be examined carefully. It is fundamentally wrong that the Government should be allowed to appoint managers from Sainsbury's or other high street firms to become general managers of acute hospitals. That practice must be stopped.
  I should like to see a Health Service in Leicestershire, particularly in Leicester city, which provides for the outer estates, such as Netherhall, Thurnby Lodge, Rowletts Hill and Northfields, where there are large council estates and no general practitioners. During the past year, there has been a campaign in Rowletts Hill to set up a baby clinic because mothers cannot take their children into the city centre to have them treated. Recently, a campaign was started to try to provide general practioner facilities in the neighbourhood centres that have been provided by the Labour city council.
  We are talking about the erosion of fundamental rights.
  Dame Jill Knight: I was fascinated and wondered what significance there was in the fact that the hon. Gentlemen removed his shoes before he made his speech. Is he having problems with the chiropody service in Leicester?
  Mr. Vaz: If the hon. Lady were to visit Leicestershire health authority she would discover that there are severe problems with the chiropody service and that people cannot get the treatment that they need. But that intervention was not particularly relevant to what I was saying.
  During the past 20 years, there has been a consensus that the NHS should be supported by both the Government and the Opposition because it is a fundamental right. That right was accepted by the previous Conservative Administration between 1970 and 1974 under the previous Conservative Prime Minister, who is now attacked and humiliated by Conservative Members. We believe that the Health Service is a fundamental right, free at the point of entry and available for all.
  The end of the long road on which this Bill embarks is people being charged for a visit to their GP, just as it is proposed that they will be charged when they visit their dentist or optician. The Bill is appalling. It does not serve the needs of local people and those who rely on the NHS, and I hope that it will be opposed.
  9.17 pm
  Ms. Harriet Harman: The Bill is introduced by a Government whom no one in the Health Service trusts any more. That is not surprising because they are presiding over an awesome restriction on our health services, but they do not even have the integrity to admit that that is the case. Therefore, people will, rightly, not
  100
  take at face value the suggestions and powers in the Bill, including, for example, the supposed additional powers for financing the Health Service.
  The Minister said that the legislation was about bringing extra funds into the Health Service, but it is absolutely clear from our remarks that we simply do not believe him. The Government's dogged refusal to recognise that there is a problem of underfunding is also absolutely clear. Less than two weeks ago they tabled a motion congratulating themselves on the adequacy of their NHS funding. They do not believe that it is underfunded, and they have shown great anxiety to bring about a major reduction in public spending. That is what the Bill is about. It should have been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not by health Ministers. It is shameful that health Ministers are, in practice and in fact, doing the dirty work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Bill is about reducing further the funds to health authorities.
  The Minister said that health authorities must take time off from easing suffering and curing diseases, and must set about the task that the Government think is much more important, which is making money. Health Service managers are rightly cynical about the proposals, and they are convinced that any money that they raised in addition to their existing budget would be clawed back by the Government. They believe that the reward for raising an extra £1 million would be that the following year they would have £1 million taken off their budget by the Government. They believe that, if they raised £2 million, the Government would take back £2 million the following year. Worse, they fear that the Government will make some sort of arbitrary assumption about how much money it is appropriate for each district health authority to raise, and will cut their budget in advance irrespective of whether they raise that amount of money.
  It is not just that we fear that the Bill will not involve extra resources for the Health Service. It will also provide a considerable distraction from the job that the Health Service should be doing. Health Service administrators will have to set about leasing Health Service land for camping and caravan sites, running shopping malls and health clubs.
  The Minister should make it quite clear tonight what the Government will ask the Health Service to do to try to raise that money. Will they really ask district health authorities to sign deals with undertakers and to set up hotlines for bereaved relatives? We should like to hear the answer tonight in the House. Will he force district health authorities to put up the prices of welfare food? We should like to hear about that tonight as well. Will they make health authorities put up the price of meals in staff canteens and make staff pay for car parking facilities? If they adopt that measure, they will further undermine the standard of living of nurses which will lead to a greater exodus of nurses from the Health Service.
  Will the Government ask health authorities to insist on charges for relatives who stay with a sick child in hospital? I should like a specific commitment that the Minister will not ask district health authorities to do that. It is important that, when a child is in hospital, parents are encouraged and enabled to stay with the child to assist the speedy recovery of that child. It would be quite wrong to implement charges for relatives of children in hospital. If there were already charges for relatives, David Barber's

  101
  mother would be receiving a bill from the health authority in two weeks' time. We must have an assurance from the Government that they will not introduce such charges.
  Perhaps the Minister will inform the House which of the 75 suggestions in the leaked report in The Independent they will approve and which they will not be going forward with. It would be helpful if a copy of that report, which was leaked to The Independent, were placed in the House of Commons Library so that Members could scrutinise it. Tonight, we need to know exactly what district health authorities will be forced to do to raise money. Instead, district health authorities should be directing their energy and initiative to improving health care. Already there is a considerable diversion of energy and initiative towards basic fund raising. We want consultant paediatricians to be treating sick children, not spending hours on fundraising committees or telephoning round local companies trying to raise money for basic services.
  We are talking about fund raising for basic services, and not just for some additional extras. For example, I received a letter from a consultant at Haringey hospital which was sent to all local organisations asking for money for the appointment of a senior registrar in the microbiology department. That is a department in Haringey hospital, in north London, which obviously has a key role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases such as hepatitis B and AIDS. It is scandalous that, when its work is increased, it has to write to local organisations to try to drum up the £20,000 needed to fill that post. The letter states:
  "I think it is imperative for this community to benefit from such a post and I am therefore writing to appeal to you to seriously consider whether this might be a possibility with your assistance. We are looking to find the sum of £20,000 a year ongoing."
  That is how the Health Service is having to operate already. If district health authorities have to put even more effort into trying to raise money in that way, the position will deteriorate even more.
  The Bill talks about extra resources for the National Health Service, but the underfunding of the Health Service is already choking off and having a chilling effect on voluntary and charitable fund raising. What is the point of spending all one's spare time raising funds to buy the local hospital a special care baby cot if it lies unused because of the nursing shortage? What is the point of raising money to establish a kidney unit if the hospital in which it is to be based is later closed?
  The efforts of hospital leagues of friends to raise thousands, hundreds of thousands and even millions of pounds are increasingly swallowed up in the widening black hole of NHS underfunding. That is demoralising them and undermining their will to help to raise funds for the Health Service. Charities are becoming angry. The fact that the Government are undermining existing opportunities to raise money—
  Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Lady said that she wants better and more equipment in the National Health Service, more money for staff, more staff and more buildings. How many billions of pounds would a Labour Government invest in the Health Service?
  Ms. Harman: The British Medical Association, the Institute of Health Service Managers and the Royal College of Nursing have said that, to escape from chronic
  102
  underfunding, the Health Service needs an extra £200 million a year. Later in my speech I will discuss how the Government are wasting Health Service assets.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Lady accept that £200 million a year is a small sum? Is she aware that next year the Government will put an extra £700 million into the Health Service? Why is that inadequate? If she means billions of pounds, why does she not say so? But how would that agree with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said that a few hundred million pounds would do?
  Ms. Harman: Those organisations say that we need £200 million on top of what the Government have said that they will put into the Health Service.
  Charities are becoming angry that the Government are increasingly pulling out of key areas in the Health Service and leaving charities to carry the can. Last week, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund bitterly attacked the Government, saying that charities must increasingly prop up the Health Service and that money intended for research into cancer is being sucked into supporting basic services. The fund is sustaining the children's ward at St. Bartholomew's hospital. That should be funded from the mainstream budget; it should not be left to a charity to fund. The fund is supporting most of the cancer treatment, not just the research, at the unit being set up at the Churchill hospital. The shortage of funds is delaying new treatment for cancer patients.
  But all this does not seem to bother the Government. Indeed, 10 days ago the Under-Secretary gave the game away when she complained that every new medical treatment created a new waiting list. The Government sees this as a problem. They would be much happier if medicine had not much progressed beyond Victorian times, so that they could say to people, "I am sorry, but we can do nothing for you. You will have to go home." In that way, they could save a great deal of public money.
  The Government's obsession with cutting public spending has led to their being the enemy of progress. It has led to their being the enemies of life-saving treatments and of the medical breakthrough. Like most normal people in this country, we want to see medical advance. We see the Health Service as a marvellous asset towards that end. The Government see the National Health Service as a greedy obstacle in the path of their plans to cut public spending.
  The Government speak of selling spare capacity to the commercial medicine sector. We see this in clause 4. They talk about it as a way of bringing income into the Health Service, but my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is right when he says that we must scrutinise this notion of spare capacity being available for selling to the commercial sector. The cheerful talk of spare capacity will cut no ice with the 162,000 people who have waited over a year for medical treatment and who continue to wait. Spare capacity is not a concept which would be understood by the parents of David Barber or by eight-year-old Emma White who waited eight months for an operation. When she finally came to the head of the queue and went into hospital, she waited 17 hours and was sedated for her operation in the Royal Berkshire hospital, only to be told, "Very sorry. You'll have to go home. Your operation can't go ahead." It is odd for a Government who like to talk of the insatiable and

  103
  escalating demands of the Health Service to start talking about spare capacity. They are not really talking about spare capacity. They are talking about asset-stripping the Health Service for the purpose of commercial medicine.
  There is in the Health Service not so much spare capacity as much-needed assets which are locked up and underused because of underfunding. The Government urge the Health Service to be more efficient and to cut out waste, but their under-resourcing and underfunding of the Health Service are leading to inefficiency and waste.
  The Government rightly talk of their concern about taxpayers' money. We are also concerned about the fate of taxpayers' money in the Health Service. Taxpayers have invested millions of pounds in operating theatres and yet they are used for only half the time for which they could be used. They lie idle for the rest of the time. This is not so much spare capacity as a valuable resource which is underused and lying idle. Those operating theatres are not used, because operations are cancelled in a bid to save money and because there are not the nurses or beds available for people when they have had their operations.
  Mr. Churchill: I sympathise with some of the hon. Lady's points, but I fear that she does her case no good by her exaggeration. When her Government were in power, constituents of mine had to wait more than a year to get an X-ray for their stomach. For one of my constituents, the notification that he could go for his X-ray came the day after he died.
  Ms. Harman: I am not exaggerating. The statistic about operating theatres being used for scarcely half the time comes from a report written by the National Audit Office which was published the week before last.
  Taxpayers also invest millions of pounds in training doctors and paying their salaries, but they are then banned by the district health authorities from operating on patients on the waiting list for fear that the budget might be overspent. All the resources and taxpayers' money that go into training doctors and keeping them on the NHS payroll are then underused as they remain idle and frustrated.
  Millions of pounds are being lost to the Health Service through theft and underfunding of security measures means that easy pickings are available. Millions of pounds are also lost to the Health Service through the exodus of nurses. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) was right in his explanation of the problem.
  The replacement cost for nurses to the Health Service is something like £100 million a year. Another £40 million a year leaves the Health Service with the nurses who do not complete training. The Minister has said that that has nothing to do with resources. It has everything to do with resources. Who thinks that we would have an exodus of 30,000 nurses a year from the Health Service if they were better paid, if there was a sensible grading structure, and if they were offered flexible hours and child care provision for pre-school age children? If nurses had better conditions such as those, they would stay with the Health Service and that would be a much better return on taxpayers' money. It would also mean that the nurses could be where we want them to be, and where they want to be—at the patient's bedside instead of leaving the Health Service in frustration and desperation.
  104
  With regard to nurses, the Government have much in common with first world war generals whose attitude was that it did not matter how many soldiers did not return from the front, because there would always be more recruits. But there are not enough nursing recruits. The Government's attitude is a huge drain on the training and investment on nurses.
  Millions of pounds are invested in beds, wards and equipment which are wasted because they lie idle as a result of service cuts. In any hospital in any town or city, equipment is piled up and lying idle. That is a shameful waste of resources that could be utilised. The Government are also generating inefficiency. Doctors are involved increasingly not so much in treating patients, but in spending hours on the telephone trying to find beds for patients. That is not what they were trained for or what they should be doing in the Health Service. Towards the end of every day doctors scour the wards looking for any patient who appears to be perky enough to be sent home so that they can free a bed. That is not how we should be running the Health Service. There is also a booming administration industry. Letters are sent to patients booking them in for operations, and letters are then sent cancelling the operations.
  Great inefficiency is also generated as a result of the recruitment freeze which is now beginning to bite in district health authorities. Providing health care is team work. There must be a complete chain to make the system work properly. If there is a freeze on the recruitment of nurses, the doctors and lab technicians will not be able to do the jobs that they were trained for and that we need them to do. If there are not enough lab technicians, the doctors cannot do the work that they should be doing and the nurses will not be able to do their work.
  The irony is that, because of the district health authorities' underfunding, many district health authorities have to implement recruitment freezes. We have not heard a squeak from the Government about recruitment freezes. Are the Government unaware of the present position? Are they unaware that many more district health authorities are threatening not only to introduce recruitment freezes in an attempt to meet their budgets, but to extend that recruitment freeze to nurses? The Government have remained absolutely silent on that matter.
  It is also clear that the Government's concern to improve services in primary health care takes second place to their anxiety to cut public spending. They say that they want to gear the service to prevent ill health and promote good health, yet they cast a shadow across those objectives by planning to introduce charges for eye tests and dental treatment. The hon. Member for Birminham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was absolutely correct when she set out those arguments. It is obvious that there will be a reduction in screening and preventive treatment.
  The Government are also taking powers to cash-limit the family practitioner committees. The BMA echoed the fears of many when it called for the relevant clause to be removed from the Bill. It said:
  "GPs know only too well the consequences of the application of cash limits to the hospital sector and the difficulties created for their patients."
  If the clause is included and if the Bill is passed, we will see the same crisis hitting the primary care system as we see developing in hospitals.
  The Government's plans to improve GP services are also undermined by their failure to fund the family

  105
  practitioner committees, which should represent a powerful watchdog to plan and supervise an improvement in services. Unless there is proper planning and supervision of such improvements, the improvements that the committees seek in the GP services will not occur. The committees' attempt to argue for such improvements will be nothing more than a pious hope.
  The Government are distorting our hospitals and blighting our primary care system by their desire to pull the plug on the Health Service. However, a growing number of people are working together to try to prevent the Government from doing so. Doctors are worried. We have seen the report issued today from the three royal medical colleges. Nurses are angry and are demonstrating. In Cornwall 1,000 nurses have been demonstrating on the streets against the cuts that face a hospital in that region. Health Service managers are growing hoarse from complaining and predicting dire problems. The Government are not listening to any of those people.
  The Opposition are listening to the doctors and nurses and to patients who are waiting anxiously for treatment. We will be working to try to prevent the deterioration of the Health Service that is represented by the Bill. It is a pity that so many Conservative Members are afraid to stand up for their constituents by trying to defend and protect the Health Service in their areas.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): This has been a thorough, wide-ranging debate on primary care and the provisions of the Bill.
  Large parts of the Bill have received a fair measure of support. I am most grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) and a number of others. I am sure that they will understand if I do not answer all their points in detail.
  The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) asked a number of questions, especially regarding the items in clause 4. I must tell her that we have no such plans as she has outlined. The hon. Lady asked that we place the internal report that we have received in the Library, but the answer to that request is no. Quite simply, the reason for that decision is that the report contains some batty things—which she has described—with which we do not agree, such as a hotline to funeral parlours. The hon. Lady also asked about the price of meals in staff canteens. I must confess that one of the things that I did in Birmingham when I was chairman of that health authority was to investigate the biggest subsidy of all for staff dining—the consultants' dining room at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. I tried to do something about that.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a most interesting speech. In many ways it was an excellent speech for a different purpose—an excellent speech for the deputy leadership of his party. It was a pity that so few of his Back-Bench colleagues were present to hear it at 5 o'clock. We counted 12 of them and we wondered what had happened to the other 200. I listened carefully to his comments, especially those concerning the General Practice Finance Corporation and his comments regarding clauses 4, 8 and 10. I do not know who is advising the hon. Gentleman, but he is not very good. The GPFC will have
  106
  a much easier time in future when it will be able to raise money outside Government funding. In any case, many GPs already raise a substantial amount of money to fund their activities. That has been done exceedingly well in Stratford where the GPs are only too pleased to show off what they have done.
  The hon. Members for Livingston and for Peckham gave us quotes to show that the British Medical Association does not like the proposals in the Bill. I wonder whether they saw the letter from Dr. Wilson, chairman of the general medical services committee, of the BMA, printed in Today on 4 December. That article was headed:
  "Doctors had the best ideas first."
  I will not quote the whole letter but he clearly stated:
  "The BMA committee which represents all general practitioners proposed most of the innovations which the Government has put forward."
  I am more than happy to accede to that. The hon. Member for Livingston asked whether clause 8 will allow charges to be made in respect of general practitioners. If he is asking whether clause 8 will allow for the imposition of a charge for a GP's consultation, the answer is no. Similarly, there are no powers in clause 4 to make patients pay for basic health care. We are concerned with income generation, not income replacement. That answers the point raised by another colleague. What it will allow for is charging for special services, just like the old amenity beds which the legislation is to replace. But nothing will get in the way of giving basic health care, and that is clearly set out in both the Bill and the White Paper.
  I note the remarks of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith). I will try to do what the doctor tells me in future. He asked me about payment for domiciliary visits and merit awards for doctors. I will convey his views to the British Medical Association. Whether it will take any notice is another matter.
  I also note his comments about drug companies and whether we should charge them for the research that we do on their behalf. I take his point, but will merely say that all their research is done on our behalf because we do not fund pharmaceutical research in this country. The Health Service, the Government and the public benefit considerably from the research and the trials that are done under properly controlled conditions in our hospitals.
  The hon. Member also asked about charges for private patients in private hospitals. He and his colleagues ought to read clause 4 a little more carefully; I think that they will find that they agree with it. The whole idea is to free our hospitals through clause 4 to enable local managers to charge whatever they like. At the moment, they cannot make a profit and are not allowed to charge for some of the services which Labour Members identified. So we hope that they will vote for the clause. This applies also to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), who called private patients parasites. One of the reasons is that we cannot charge them as much as we ought to.
  Mr. Galbraith: I thank the Minister for taking my advice. If she sticks with me, she will be all right.
  I obviously did not make my point clear. I was talking about the situation in which the patient is seen privately and then comes into the National Health Service as a National Health Service patient, or someone who is in a private hospital and then moves to a National Health Service hospital. Such patients are not charged at the moment. I do not wish them to be charged—they are as

  107
  entitled as anyone else to National Health Service treatment—but I want the private company which puts them into the National Health Service hospital to be charged because we are giving a cross-subsidy to that private company. Will the Government look into that?
  Mrs. Currie: I could not agree more. I assure the hon. Gentleman that clause 4, for which I hope he will now vote, will give us the power to do much of what he wants to do.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) raised a number of points. She said that capitation fees should be adjusted to avoid reducing the time allowed for patient consultation. It is proposed in the White Paper to extend the number of hours that a general practitioner makes available for direct consultation to the patients, which will confer the entitlement to the full basic practice allowance.
  Mr. Young rose—
  Mrs. Currie: This, together with the provisions to improve consumer choice and to make it easier to change doctors, should increase competition among doctors and lead to better services for patients. In other words, if patients are not given enough time by doctors they will now be able to do more about it.
  If the hon. Lady has any further concerns, may I just refer her to an important book written on the subject in 1976, in which it says:
  "The key to the future lies in sensible and realistic planning to ensure that revenue and capital resources are allocated on the basis of objective criteria, that capital developments proceed at a pace consistent with a realistic revenue projection and that revenue costs and manning levels are kept to an essential minimum … No one who works in the Health Service can avoid the need to examine their practices and attitudes with a view to seeing if the overall cost-effectiveness of the service can be improved".
  I could not agree more. That was said by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he was a Labour health Minister, at this Dispatch Box. I would refer the hon. Lady to her leader, if she can find him; he does not seem to take as much interest these days in these subjects.
  That also answers the point made by my very dear—may I call him Friend?—the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who wanted to know what I was getting up to in Birmingham before 1979. The answer is that I was doing my best to resist carrying out the policies of the then Labour Government on the Health Service, when it was being cut to shreds.
  A number of my hon. Friends have raised important points. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) made a thoroughly sensible and distinguished contribution. He asked about average list size. I should just caution him on this. We are keen to reduce the average list size, as he knows, but large numbers on lists are most common in the inner cities, where we also have a high percentage of doctors who are over 70, and many small lists of fewer than 1,000. So we see major changes here, and it is hard to tell exactly what effect the retirement provisions will have on list size. In the end, we are also interested in the output and results that we get. As I am sure my hon. Friend realises, list size is an input.
  We are also keen about the commitment to extra resources. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that some negotiations are going on. We shall have more discussions,
  108
  particularly with the doctors, so I am a little reluctant to put our negotiating position on the table just yet. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that.
  Several of my other hon. Friends made points, which I shall deal with as I make my speech.
  Various hon. Members drew attention to the division between the family practitioner committees and the district health authorities. I have some sympathy with that, but we are stuck with it. The arrangements were confirmed as recently as 1985. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I am reluctant to reorganise the Health Service all over again. I think that it has had enough for the time being. I can see virtue in having the services outside the hospital run by separate bodies, especially as some district health authorities seem to have difficulty running what they have. The aim is to make the family practitioner committees as effective as they can be, so that they do a proper job of monitoring health and the family health services. That is what we intend to do through the Bill.
  Nobody can say that we have been stingy with these services. [HON MEMBERS: "Yes, you have."] Opposition Members cannot say that. I am talking about the family practitioner services, which have been given less attention in the debate than they should have received. In 1978–79, gross current spending on the family practitioner services under the Labour Government was about 1–75 billion. It has trebled since then in cash terms and is over £5 billion now. In real terms, that is an increase of 43 per cent. That expenditure represents 24 per cent. of total Health Service spending, which is an increase on the years under the Labour Government.
  Since 1979, the number of family doctors in the United Kingdom has risen by nearly 4,000 and now stands at over 30,000. Similarly, the number of staff employed by family doctors in England alone has risen to nearly 30,000, and that is in whole-time equivalents. That is probably about twice as many people.
  The number of dentists in the United Kingdom has increased by nearly 3,000 to over 17,000. The number of retail pharmacies in England and Wales has gone up to 10,500 now, and we have 38 per cent. more ophthalmic opticians in England and Wales—around 6,000 of them. I shall come back to them in a moment.
  Mr. Morgan: Before the Minister is overcome in a paroxysm of self-congratulation and requires medical attention herself, does she accept that there is genuinely a problem of incentive in the NHS, for surgeons and other medical practitioners who attempt to eliminate the waiting lists and find themselves up aganst the cash limits? When they are trying to do that, their general unit manager tells them half way through the financial year, "Sorry, you have done enough operations now. You've got to stop."
  Mrs. Currie: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but we have been increasing the incentives for general practitioners, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. As a result, we have many more of them. That is what happens when one gives incentives.
  Similarly, the number of courses of treatment has risen dramatically. The number of eye tests now stands at nearly 11 million. The number of courses of dental treatment has gone up in the past 10 years from 26 million to over 31 million, of which 10 million are children. Nearly 3 million pairs of spectacles were issued last year, 209 million visits

  109
  were made to doctors, and 34 million visits were made by doctors to the home of the patient. Nearly 1 million women went to ante-natal classes in 1985 and the same number of pregnant women had their teeth done at an average cost of nearly £32 each — free to them, of course. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) is right. There is no evidence that teeth deteriorate in pregnancy, but women tend to get gum disease. Therefore, we have no proposals to change that.
  There have been some reductions. There are fewer holes in children's teeth. Half of our children start school with their teeth intact, compared with only a quarter of them when my daughter was born in 1974. About 40 per cent. of those aged 65 to 74 — I am looking at the hon. Member for Ashfield—have their own teeth and expect to keep them. In 1985, 1·7 million pensioners received dental treatment.
  Hon. Members on both sides talked about charges. I share the sadness—the hon. Member for Ashfield is not showing his teeth now — of several hon. Members who said that charges for sight and dental checks have obscured discussion on a wider range of worthwhile proposals. However, I have several points to make in this regard. First, for many people, such checks are free and will continue to be so. No one will be denied the service because he cannot pay. About 15 million courses of dental treatment are free—about 45 per cent. of the total—and 2·25 million vouchers for spectacles were issued last year —25 per cent. of the total—and we have no plans to change the exemptions. The proposed charges are hardly high — less than £3 for the dental check-up every six months. That is less than the price of two packets of cigarettes—not every day, but once every six months. Even after the charges are brought in we reckon that more than 2 million courses of dental treatment will be cheaper than they are now. Of course, the idea is to help those who look after their teeth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale pointed out.
  As for the eyesight test, we are convinced that people will not have to pay a fee of the order of £10. The opticians' service is profitable and competitive. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should have a look at The Optician magazine. With the permission of the House, I shall read out some of the recent advertisements for opticians working in the private sector. This one comes from Haywards ophthalmic opticians in Derby, Oadby, Thornaby-on-Tees, Bournemouth, Gateshead, Shrewsbury and Coventry. It offers a salary package in excess of £30,000 for a four-day week, a company car, a pension and a private health scheme. A similar advert earlier in the year states that the private car is a
  "new 2 litre petrol injection Sierra."
  An advertisement for an ophthalmic optician in Exeter offers a salary package of £35,000 plus. I can well understand—
  Mr. Robin Cook rose—
  Mrs. Currie: —that under these conditions opticians do not like what we are up to. I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston thinks that we are being offensive; but we think they will manage somehow.
  Mr. Cook: The Minister will appreciate that we are concerned not about optometrists who earn in excess of £30,000 but about the 6 million pensioners existing on
  110
  much smaller incomes, who will be faced with a charge to which the hon. Lady is exposing them. Will she admit that she is leaving them open to whatever the market charges them?
  Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman was not here for most of the debate. If he had been, he would have heard some of the answers to that.
  I am prepared to extend the hand of friendship to the Opposition and to invite them to stand by their principles — that they care about prevention and good health, women's health, more women doctors and the inner cities —and I invite them to vote with us tonight. If they join us in the Lobby, they will show that they know what they want and what we need for primary care, and are willing to pay for better-trained staff in doctors' surgeries, for interpreters and link workers for ethnic minorities, for staff working with the housebound and the disabled and for the health of our own people. If they do not, one can only conclude that they are more interested in playing politics with the sick than in supporting change to improve health. That is our policy. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 220.

  Division No. 106]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Butler, Chris

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Allason, Rupert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amos, Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cash, William

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Atkinson, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Curry, David

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Devlin, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dover, Den

  Bowis, John

  Dunn, Bob

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Durant, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bright, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Farr, Sir John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Favell, Tony

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  111

  Freeman, Roger

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  French, Douglas

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gale, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Goodlad, Alastair

  MacGregor, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maclean, David

  Gorst, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gow, Ian

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Madel, David

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marland, Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Miller, Hal

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Hayes, Jerry

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayward, Robert

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Heddle, John

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Newton, Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Irving, Charles

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Janman, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Jessel, Toby

  Raffan, Keith

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Redwood, John

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Key, Robert

  Riddick, Graham

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knapman, Roger

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knox, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ryder, Richard

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lightbown, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  112

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Sims, Roger

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Viggers, Peter

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Squire, Robin

  Walden, George

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Walters, Dennis

  Stevens, Lewis

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Watts, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Sumberg, David

  Wheeler, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Whitney, Ray

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Wilshire, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Yeo, Tim

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Thorne, Neil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbett, Robin

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Donald

  Crowther, Stan

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Darling, Alastair

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Battle, John

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Dewar, Donald

  Beith, A. J.

  Dixon, Don

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobson, Frank

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Doran, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Douglas, Dick

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Blair, Tony

  Dunnachie, James

  Boateng, Paul

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Boyes, Roland

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bradley, Keith

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Buchan, Norman

  Fatchett, Derek

  Buckley, George

  Faulds, Andrew

  Caborn, Richard

  Fearn, Ronald

  Callaghan, Jim

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flannery, Martin

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Foster, Derek

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foulkes, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Fraser, John

  Clay, Bob

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Clelland, David

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Cohen, Harry

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Coleman, Donald

  George, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  113

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Graham, Thomas

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)

  Murphy, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Nellist, Dave

  Hardy, Peter

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  O'Brien, William

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Haynes. Frank

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Parry, Robert

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Douglas

  Pike, Peter

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Prescott, John

  Holland. Stuart

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Home Robertson, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hood, James

  Radice, Giles

  Howarth,George (Knowsley N)

  Randall, Stuart

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Redmond, Martin

  Howells, Geraint

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hoyle, Doug

  Reid, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Hughes. Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Illsley, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Rowlands, Ted

  John, Brynmor

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kennedy, Charles

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Short, Clare

  Kinnock. Rt Hon Neil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lambie, David

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

  Lamond, James

  Soley, Clive

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leighton, Ron

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Stott, Roger

  Lewis, Terry

  Strang, Gavin

  Litherland, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Livingstone, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Livsey, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Turner, Dennis

  McAllion, John

  Vaz, Keith

  McAvoy, Tom

  Wall, Pat

  McCartney, Ian

  Wallace, James

  McKelvey, William

  Walley, Ms Joan

  McLeish, Henry

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wareing, Robert N.

  McWilliam, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Madden, Max

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Marek, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Winnick, David

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martlew, Eric

  Worthington, Anthony

  Meacher. Michael

  Wray, James

  Meale, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take a point of order now.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 ( Questions on voting of estimates &c.), to put at that hour.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1987–88
  Resolved,
  That supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,196.459.000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 123.

  ESTIMATES 1988–89 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Question put,
  That a sum, not exceeding £47,440,004,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1989, as set out in House of Commons Paper Nos. 94, 104 and 105.
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 1.

  Division No. 107]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Alexander, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Amos, Alan

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkins, Robert

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Atkinson, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Beith, A. J.

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cran, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Curry, David

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Day, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boswell, Tim

  Dover, Den

  Bottomley, Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Durant, Tony

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Fallon, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Farr, Sir John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Favell, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bright, Graham

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Forth, Eric

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Gale, Roger

  Butcher, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butler, Chris

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  115

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McCrindle, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gorst, John

  MacGregor, John

  Gow, Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gregory, Conal

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maples, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marland, Paul

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hannam, John

  Miller, Hal

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mills, Iain

  Harris, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Hayes, Jerry

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hayward, Robert

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Heddle, John

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hill, James

  Neubert, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Newton, Tony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irving, Charles

  Portillo, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert

  Price, Sir David

  Janman, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowe, Andrew

  Knapman, Roger

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Knox, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lightbown, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lilley, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Livsey, Richard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lord, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  116

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Squire, Robin

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Viggers, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stevens, Lewis

  Walden, George

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wallace, James

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Waller, Gary

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Sumberg, David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Summerson, Hugo

  Watts, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Whitney, Ray

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thorne, Neil

  Wood, Timothy

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Yeo, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Tracey, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trippier, David

  Mr. Richard Ryder and

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. David Maclean.

  NOES

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mr. Max Madden, and

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1988 and 1989: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just voted through £47 billion of expenditure, plus a further £1 billion on the Supplementary Estimates. According to Standing Order No. 52, it would be in order for the House to refer the expenditure in the Bill to a Select Committee for further consideration.
  This afternoon the Leader of the House said that that would not be possible because the Select Committees had not yet been set up. However, under Standing Order No. 53 there is a deadline of 6 February for committing a Bill to a Select Committee. This would allow this third of public expenditure to be properly scrutinised by the Committee and a report to be made to the House on a substantive motion.
  Will you, Mr. Speaker, give us your opinion on whether the Standing Orders could still be so interpreted, so that this vast sum, instead of going through on the nod, is properly scrutinised by the House?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him, that I am bound by Standing Orders Nos.

  117
  52 and 53. If this motion is on the Order Paper on any day —and it was on the Order Paper today—I am bound to put the Question at 10 o'clock.

  HEALTH AND MEDICINES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Medicines Bill it is expedient to authorise the following—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with the vesting in the successor company (within the meaning of the Act) of any property, rights and liabilities to which the General Practice Finance Corporation is entitled or subject;

  118

  (b) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in fulfilling a guarantee or indemnity in respect of a loan made in connection with premises used for the provision of general medical services (within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978);

  (c) any sums payable by the Secretary of State by way of compensation under the Act for the removal of a person's name from a list maintained under section 36 of the National Health Service Act 1977 or section 25(2) of the National Health Service Act (Scotland) 1978;

  (d) any expenses of a Minister of the Crown attributable to the Act;

  (e) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of the Consolidated Fund;

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Darrell.]

Cinematographs and Cinematograph Films
10.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I beg to move,
That the draft British Film Fund Agency (Dissolution) Order 1987 which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.
The draft order provides for the dissolution of the British Film Fund Agency, once it has completed its outstanding business and, following dissolution, for the application of any surplus moneys of the agency for purposes connected with the British film industry.
The BFFA is the body responsible for distributing the proceeds of the Eady levy on cinema admissions. That levy has already been abolished and the draft order, therefore, is simply a consequential piece of legislation which ties up the resultant loose ends.
As hon. Members will recall, our intention to abolish the levy was announced in the film policy White Paper in 1984, the main aspects of which were subsequently embodied in the Films Act 1985. The purpose of the levy was to recycle money from cinema exhibition to British film production. By 1984 there was almost universal recognition within the industry that it was no longer serving the purpose for which it had been created. It had become a financial burden on what was then a struggling and declining cinema exhibition industry which was providing little money for film makers.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Minister said that there was universal recognition in the industry that the Eady levy was a burden. Could he say to which section of the industry he was referring? The Association of Cinematographic, Television and Allied Technicians, the National Association of Television, Theatrical and Kinematographic Employees and the Electrical Electronic Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, for example, did not hold that view, nor did the Association of Independent Producers. Several individuals of eminence within the industry felt that the Eady fund was playing a useful purpose.
Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that the exhibition industry felt most keenly that the levy had not done its best to encourage the increase in cinema attendance. It felt that the levy was an imposition and involved bureaucracy, and that there were better ways of achieving the objective of the levy. I would not contest the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the trade union views at that time, but I am on fairly safe ground in saying that the levy was universally disliked by the exhibitors.
In view of that, we considered that the levy should be abolished as soon as possible and it was duly terminated from 25 May 1985, almost immediately after the Films Act 1985 came into force. In normal circumstances the levy period would have continued until October 1985.
We recognised, however, that the ending of the levy represented a loss of income to recipients of the funds that it created and, accordingly, provision was made to deal with the impact of abolition on these bodies. Arrangements were made for the National Film and Television School, which received about £500,000 a year
120
from the levy funds to receive £600,000 annually for five years from the cinemas, the BBC and the independent television companies. We also approved special additional support for the British Film Institute production board, from the final, shortened, Eady levy period.
The other film body that received money from levy funds was the National Film Finance Corporation, which received an annual sum from the levy funds of not less than £1·5 million to enable it to support the production of low and medium-budget British films. As hon. Members will recall, the intention to transfer to the private sector the highly valued work of the NFFC was another of the major strands of our film policy announced in the 1984 White Paper. The Films Act 1985 provided for the dissolution of the NFFC, which took place later that year, and for the provision of annual financial assistance of £2 million for five years to its private sector successor, British Screen Finance Limited. With private sector finance in addition to the Government's funding, British Screen has been operating successfully now for nearly two years.
The remaining recipients of Eady levy moneys were the makers of those British films that qualified to receive payment under the Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1982. Each producer received a proportion of the residue of funds available for disbursement in a particular distribution period after the sums to be paid to the NFFC, the BFI and the school had been subtracted. As the order which terminated the levy reduced the final distribution and levy collection periods from the normal 52 weeks to only 32 weeks, we recognised that producers who qualified to receive payment in respect of that period would clearly suffer a loss of income as a result of the timing of abolition. We decided, therefore, that the net assets of the NFFC, after costs of dissolution had been met, should be passed to the BFFA for distribution to those producers, following which the BFFA itself would be dissolved. Accordingly, section 3(3)(a) of the Films Act enabled the Secretary of State to transfer the surplus moneys of the NFFC to the BFFA, and section 4 provides for the mechanics of disbursement by the BFFA.
The NFFC was dissolved on 30 December 1985. Winding up the affairs of the corporation raised several difficult legal and financial issues which delayed the transfer of its surplus moneys to the BFFA. However, those moneys are now with the BFFA and have been added to those already held by the agency in respect of the final distribution period. The agency has already made an interim distribution to eligible producers and is likely to have completed its final distribution by the end of January 1988.
During the Report stage and Third Reading of the Films Bill, the former Minister with responsibility for films, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, announced that it was the Government's intention that payment would have to be taken up within two months of the final distribution being made. Accordingly, I have decided on a cut-off date of 31 March 1988. This will be widely publicised to ensure that those who are eligible to receive payment know that they will forfeit the money if they do not cash their cheques by that date. I do not expect any problems on that front as the deadline for submitting claims for payment has passed and the procedures for verifying claims have been completed.
Once the cut-off date has passed, the BFFA will pass to the Secretary of State any moneys which have not been cashed, together with any of the moneys set aside to meet

121
the agency's administrative expenses which have not been spent. Section 3 of the 1985 Films Act provides that those moneys shall be used for any purpose connected with the British film industry. At present, we cannot say how large or small that sum may be, and I cannot say how it will be used. I am sure, however, that there will be no shortage of suitors for it.
Finally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the BFFA members and staff. Under their guidance and management, the agency has performed its functions smoothly and effectively. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in expressing appreciation for their work.
I invite the House to support the order.
10.39 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: I willingly join the Minister in congratulating the people at the BFFA on the work that they have been carrying out. I only wish that they could continue to carry out their functions. The list of Government policies that have been imposed against the advice of all sides of the film production industry is now very lengthy.
We are debating in the short time allowed to us virtually the last remaining vestige of any Government support for or intervention in the British film industry. We have already seen the abolition of the quota and the Eady levy. We have also seen the abolition of the Cinematograph Film Council and the replacement of the NFFC with the BSFC and the additional uncertainty about the role of screen entertainment and we have seen the phasing out of capital allowances. The order is virtually the final nail in the coffin.
I want to consider the way in which the Government have abandoned their role as the principal architects or partners in funding or helping to fund what in my view and the view of the Labour party is an essential part of British life—the British film industry.
Successive post-war British Governments have introduced measures to give some support to British feature film production. Those measures are replicated in one form or another in most European countries. However, the Government's 1984 White Paper on the film industry, which preceded the Films Act 1985, presented arguments for the dismantling of the existing support for the industry. We have just heard the Minister repeat that this evening. The White Paper stressed the benefits of a free market policy in the film industry and predicted benefits from aspects of that market that were then being stimulated by technical changes such as videos, cable and direct broadcasting by satellite. The assumption was that the new distributive mechanisms would be beneficial to producers as they would expand the market for films. That was a very attractive hypothesis, but one which I believe confused distribution with exhibition.
In the film industry, distribution is a source of finance for production whereas exhibition is a source of revenue following production. However, the new distributive mechanisms are not yet sources of major production finance and are unlikely to be so for the foreseeable future. They will act as consumers of library material of existing films, thereby getting some additional post-cinema revenue, but that is all. They are unlikely, except in the marginal areas, to make any crucial difference in the provision of feature film finance. Only in the United States
122
are the markets sufficiently developed for pre-sale revenue to be available as a significant element in the production finance.
A year ago the then leading source of film finance in this country, Goldcrest, released three very expensive films — "Absolute Beginners" "Revolution" and "The Mission" two of which received extremely disappointing reviews. The combined effort led to that company virtually withdrawing from production finance for the whole of 1986, with only limited signs of resurgence in 1987. In the same year, 1986, TESE was sold to Cannon which has not been able to live up to its promised commitments to United Kingdom full production finance because it has been plagued by internal financial problems. It has sold the valuable library and there are considerable questions over the future of the studios at Elstree.
It is deeply disturbing that the control of the British film industry has largely passed into foreign hands, particularly given the limited commitment to production shown by the Rank Organisation, the only major British cinema-owning group. That major reduction of finance for film production by leading companies has been mirrored among the smaller backers such as Virgin, United Media and Rediffusion which have also scaled down investments or withdrawn completely from the industry.
The combined effect of the coincidental market shift and Government film policy, has been the virtual collapse of the United Kingdom feature production. Let us consider the years from 1975–85. The average number of feature film starts per year was 49. In 1979, the last year of the Labour Government, the figure rose to the peak of 61. In 1986 that figure had dropped to 37 and this year feature film starts are down to around 10. That is a depressing picture for the British film industry, which has done so well in the past.
The Finance Act (No. 2) 1984 phased out capital allowances. Therefore, by 1985, that Act had stopped the inflow of non-industry money that had become a significant element of the United Kingdom production finance. In 1983 the screen quota was suspended. The Films Act 1985 resulted in the privatisation of NFFC and the Eady levy was phased out. According to the Government's White Paper and the subsequent Bill, those measures were designed to free the industry, but rather than buoying the industry up they have weighed it down. It may be too early to conclude that the present downward trend will continue or will result in a permanent reduction in feature film production, but I am sorry to say that the signs are most discouraging.
I am aware that if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) manages to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will endeavour to contrast our efforts with those of the EC and other countries to support their indigenous film industries. Other major European countries have recognised the link between state intervention in the market place and the health of the national film industry. Britain has not. The recent decision not to participate in a European consortium of cinema and television production has isolated Britain from the rest of our EC partners.
The problem that any United Kingdom Government must tackle is how to encourage original United Kingdom production in the face of the unending flow of feature material from the United States. In addition, there are

123
overwhelming cultural reasons for Britain to keep its own voice in the same way that our European partners have kept their voices in their indigenous film industries.
It is ironic that the current recession that the British film industry is suffering has occurred just when film attendance figures are on the upturn. As a result of initiatives and developments in 1985, the British film year, the number of people who went to the cinema increased between 1984 and 1985 by 11·75 million or 20 per cent. The ground was held last year with a further increase of 2·4 million. Therefore, the Government's argument in the White Paper that the decline in cinema-going was irreversible no longer has a basis in truth or logic. When halls have been refurbished, new pricing policies introduced and multi-screen theatres with car parking facilities and restaurants built, people have wanted to see films in the cinema rather than at home on television. Our production companies will not benefit from the renaissance of cinema-going if we cannot maintain the level of British film production.
A well-developed film policy, which of necessity would include an attitude to television — the two are inextricably linked — must consist of financial and cultural elements. There must be adequate provision for training, and adequate system of support for industrial activity and a constructive mechanism for the bridging of training and professional work.
At present we have various parts of that infrastructure in place. However, what is lacking is an overall policy that permits development and expansion — including job creation—without sacrificing the quality that has been associated with British film and television production.
Talent once developed needs nurturing over an extended period. The top foreign film earner in the United States last year was "A Room with a View", which was developed by the National Film Finance Corporation and financed by a consortium which included the NFFC, Goldcrest, and Channel 4. It demonstrates how an integrated infrastructure can work. The NFFC has assisted Merchant Ivory with previous productions, and has also assisted people such as David Puttnam and many other successful British producers. If the BBC and the ITV companies were allowed, as part of the process of admitting independent producers, to invest funds through the British Screen Finance Corporation, which replaces the BFFA, or a central Government-sponsored film agency, such as a British screen authority, in film production, the risk of destabilisation would be avoided and the British film industry would be underpinned to a significant extent.
The whole question of independent access highlights the problem of the policy emanating from the Minister's own Department and from other Departments. It seems to show a classic degree of non-co-operation in the way in which we support our film industry, because Departments as diverse as Trade and Industry, the Office of Arts and Libraries and even the Home Office are all technically concerned with the film industry. I say "concerned", but I do not believe, on the evidence so far, including what we have heard tonight, that they are really concerned.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a document produced by the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. It organises within the film and television industry and its
124
members have a great deal of experience. They work in that industry, they are extremely talented and able and they perform a very good job for Britain in the artistic sense. So they can be said to have a vested interest, and I do not doubt that for one moment. What they have been doing for a number of years is putting to Government a creative strategy for the film industry, and what we have seen from the Government is their refusal to consider any of the ACTT's suggestions.
The ACTT has put forward a whole series of suggestions, such as tax concessions, and being able to have 30 per cent. written off during the first year of release, 10 per cent. during the second year of release, 60 per cent. from the commencement of production to first release— a whole range of financial packages which would help stimulate British film production. Unfortunately, the Government have been utterly unreceptive to any of those suggestions.
Government intervention is required if we are to achieve the objectives of an integrated films policy that I have listed. It would not be pouring funds down the drain of an extinct industry to maintain a work force; it would be investing in the expansion of a highly successful one in achievement at all levels of enterprise. The industry is handicapped only by external forces. Such intervention would allow it to reach a plane of stability which it has never reached hitherto. It would enable it to play a most important role as the major proponent of British culture at a mass level, both at home and abroad, with all the export potential that that implies.
My hon. Friends and I and the ACTT are proposing a policy that will dynamically regenerate the British film industry, with enormous benefits not only to the workers in the industry, but to the viewing public as a whole, to the Government and to the country, increasing revenues both at home and abroad, and increasing Britain's status throughout the world.
The British film industry has huge potential. The men and women involved have a highly developed expertise and a worldwide reputation for technical excellence. What we do not have is a Government who are prepared to assist it, and that is a profound disappointment to me and my hon. Friends.
10.55 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, has drawn the attention of the House to the instrument. I should like to refer to the instrument itself and its merits, and I should be grateful if the Minister would answer my questions when he winds up the debate.
He will appreciate that the Joint Committee does not consider the merits of an instrument, but considers only the powers that the Minister has used.
The House will be interested to know that this is the second order because rather a mess was made of the original order. In our report to the House we say that the current draft contains amendments to articles 1 and 5, to take account of points raised by the Joint Committee on the earlier draft. The date when article 1 came into force was less than clear. Article 5, covering the powers of the Secretary of State in applying the residual moneys, was couched in such a way that it might be thought that the Minister might be able to dispose of the moneys in connection with the British film industry, whereas the legislation requires him to do so. Those points were

125
recognised and a fresh draft laid. The Joint Committee is grateful to the Minister for taking that action, but it was necessary to do so.
The Minister has close at hand a former member of the Joint Committee, the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who appreciates its work and the fact that it is not exactly the most glamorous part of the activities of the House of Commons, but that it is necessary. I hope that the Minister can give us all an assurance that civil servants in his Department will draft instruments in future with more care than in the past.
I should like to refer to the merits of the instruments, but not in the context of the Committee's report. I am sure that the Committee would not want me to give other than my own views about the merits.
It is sad that the order is being presented. It concerns the last vestige of state intervention in the British film industry, which goes back to the 1920s and 1930s. The reason why it goes back that length of time is that the idea of the market place does not work. The biggest market place is the United States. Not surprisingly, the United States film industry dominates that market and gives it a secure home base from which to export to other countries, such as the United Kingdom.
The Interim Action Committee said in 1979:
"What should be the object of government policy for films? To stimulate an industry for the normal economic reasons — to create employment, encourage productive investment and increase exports? Or to aid an art form? Or to encourage the making of films which reflect British life? We believe that all three objects are valid. We also believe that the barriers between industry and art in relation to film are largely artificial and subjective, and that government policy should cater for films as a whole."
That committee is saying that it should be regarded as an industry for employment and as one of the major mass art forms that our civilisation has achieved.
In every case it has been recognised over the years that Government intervention, through assistance of one form or another, has been necessary to offset the enormous power of the United States industry, which can invest more in production values and in finding the elusive formula that produces feature film success, as well as to counter the power of the duopoly in the United Kingdom, which the Minister did not mention. The duopoly owns the studios and major exhibition circuits. Rank and Cannon —formerly Thorn EMI—have such commanding power in the industry that if they refuse to show a film it cannot possibly obtain even its costs of production in the United Kingdom. That is why, from the 1930s onwards, it has always been felt that the Government should have some sort of power.
It is sad that the Minister should place such weight on exhibitors only. Exhibitors need the production of films, and the Eady levy was designed to remove some of the revenue from exhibitors, to ensure that there was a continuous production of indigenous British films. The removal of the Eady levy places that in great peril.
The Government are concerned about violence in society, but the private sector will finance films of sex and violence. It will not so easily finance films that reflect the aspirations, the cultural advantages and the development of ordinary people. It sounds rather highbrow, but I am talking about the way of life of our nation. Such films are less likely to meet with favour from the private sector,
126
which can make a fast buck out of "The Lusty Vicar" and the soft — increasingly hard — porn films that it has financed in large numbers in the past few years.
The policies that the Government have foisted on the industry have been shown in what has happened to Pinewood Studios, for instance. Until recently that was a proper studio, employing 500 people full time and able to sell its services to the rest of the world. It sold them to the United States, for example, for the production of all the Superman films but the last one, which was partly produced at Elstree. The Bond films, too, were made there. The studio provided standards of excellence and production that were unequalled anywhere in the world. Pinewood Studios is now a four-walls operation, in which a handful of people are employed. That means that the apprenticeship system, in which people learnt their craft so as to provide those standards of excellence, has been eroded at one fell swoop because of the uncertainty engendered by Government policies.
It is ironic that a visit by the Parliamentary Labour party films industry study group in 1983 received assurances from Pinewood management about providing an employed service, which film producers found of advantage because that employed staff represented the level of crafsmanship that had gained an enviable reputation throughout the world. The National Film Finance Corporation provided finance for films that might otherwise have been lost. They included "Gregory's Girl", a runaway financial success, produced for £350,000, about a local lad in a modern town in Scotland going to a local comprehensive school. What sort of private sector entrepreneur would respond if presented with that sort of script? He or she would reject it out of hand, but the film was an enormous success. It made a great deal of money and brought credit to British film producers and the British film production industry.
The National Film Finance Corporation is now defunct, as the Minister correctly said. The order winds up its residues. However, it produced controversial films such as "Britannia Hospital", "Local Hero", "Babylon" and a whole range of films, including "The Europeans", which was a cultural landmark. Although it did not receive big audiences, it was still an important production. All that has gone.
The Eady levy was successful—not completely, but to some extent—in eradicating the problems that genuine film producers who wanted to make films about our way of life faced in obtaining money so to do. The "Hot Wheels" syndrome was eradicated by the publication of the Eady levy returns when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was at the Department of Trade and Industry. That meant that producers could no longer add rather mediocre shorts to successful feature films and buy up the Eady returns in advance.
That was the "Hot Wheels" syndrome. I do not have time to go into the details, but "Hot Wheels" was a modest production about skateboards and it earned a lot of money because it was coupled with a good feature film. Publishing the returns and putting an upper limit on the amount of Eady money that could be earned on a film helped to eradicate some of the problems.
The Minister says that he will spend any residual amounts on purposes connected with the British film industry. Will he spell out in a little more detail what that means? He may have some money in his hand, but if, because of his policies, he were to launch a gigantic wake

127
for the British film industry, that would be purposes connected with the film industry. I hope that he has the serious intention of helping British film producers and that he will provide seed money for scripts. Perhaps he could help the National Film School or do something like that. I am sure that he will say something about what the money should be used for.
This is a sad debate, but I am sure that the British film industry has a residual will to survive. It is an important mass art form, both in its theatrical form and in satisfying the voracious appetite of television. After the next general election the Labour Government will have a policy to ensure that British films about our people will continue to be made.
11.7 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall not detain the House because many of the observations that I would have made have been forcefully made by other Opposition Members. It cannot be contentious that the British Film Fund Agency falls to be dissolved by this order, because that is a necessary consequence of the abolition in 1985 of the Eady levy. In the last few minutes that levy has enjoyed some support, but prior to its abolition it is fair to say that, at least in some quarters, it had become discredited. Criticisms had been advanced against it that frequently most money went to films that already had substantial earnings and that frequently money went to foreign companies that qualified by using British casts, crews and facilities.
It is contentious that nothing effective has been put in place of the Eady levy which in 1983–84 raised about £4ô6 million. On the figures of the Department of Trade and Industry, investment in the United Kingdom's film industry fell by about 20 per cent. between 1985 and 1986. It is no understatement to say that now the United Kingdom film industry is in a critical condition. It is an important industry that employs over 20,000 people, and it contributes substantially to export earnings. Perhaps more than that, it plays a central role in our cultural life, both popular and, perhaps, exclusive. It is an important measure of how we and our society are seen abroad. In recent years the successes of British films and British film makers, of whom Mr. Bill Forsyth is but one, are eloquent testimony to that.
The support that the Government presently offer to the British film industry is poor in comparison, for example, with France where the annual amount is £30 million, Italy where it is £26 million, and Canada where it is £16 million. There is an urgent need for the Government to take action to preserve the United Kingdom industry. Any funds that may be realised as a result of the effects of article 5 of the order will hardly be sufficient for that purpose.
A number of measures might be considered. First, there should certainly be stronger and effective action against piracy. Secondly, further consideration sho:uld be given to a levy on blank video tapes, the proceeds of which could be used to assist our film industry. Perhaps more substantial and more radical, it is time for a thorough rethink on the nature of Government support for the United Kingdom's film industry. If those or similar measures are not swiftly taken, irreparable damage may be done. The Government have an obligation to act now, before it is too late.
11.9 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: When the Films Bill was being debated in 1985, some hon. Members warned the Government of the likely consequences of the abolition of the Eady levy and the abandonment of any realistic support for the production of British films. Sadly, those warnings are now being proved correct. The Minister, in his opening of the brief debate, emphasised that the exhibitors were in favour of the abolition of the Eady levy. They would have been, as it was a levy on their takings. During the passage of the Films Bill, the entire production section of the industry — not just the trade unions, but producers and managers—banded together and, in a unique statement, condemned the Government for their proposals to withdraw all support for the production of film. It is sad that the predictions made at the time are now beginning to come true.
The year 1986 was one of the worst ever for British film production. According to Screen International, only 37 theatrical features were made in 1986, compared with 55 in 1985 and an average of 48 over the past decade. There is only a slight improvement in 1987. The seed money generated by the activities of the various organisations charged with distributing the Eady levy, which acted as a catalyst for private enterprise to seize the initiative and take off on production, is now no longer there.
It behoves the Government, now that we are in the closing stages of their support for British films, to start thinking about what will be put in its place. If nothing is put in its place and the Government rely entirely on the private sector, which seems to be their intention, I do not see any future renaissance for the production of British films, no matter how much talent, enthusiasm and desire for production may exist.
The old nitrate film stock, which exists at the moment, may not exist for very much longer. Before 1952 much film was made on nitrate stock, which deteriorates. If the film is not copied on to safety stock, it will be gone for ever. Much of our history and heritage is contained on film taken before 1952, which has not yet been copied on to safety stock from nitrate. During the passage of the Films Bill I asked the Government to take this problem seriously and to establish a scheme of support to save the film on nitrate, but they refused to take up that issue.
The Nitrate Project 2000 has now been established, on a cross-industry basis, which is making the Government and the private sector aware that only 13 years are left in which to save the existing deteriorating and highly unstable nitrate stock. The cost of saving it will be about £13 million —£1 million a year — and in terms of Government expenditure that is not such a great deal. That expenditure would save much of our heritage, history and tradition. It would save much of the wealth of the early years of British film making.
I hope that the Government will take this initiative on board. I hope also that they will respond positively to the proposals that are being made by those who are involved in the Nitrate Project 2000. If the Government cannot see a way of using any of the residue of the Eady levy for such a purpose, they might consider other possibilities. For example, they could use a greater proportion of the national heritage memorial fund than hitherto to support the saving of nitrate stock. The Minister might persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

129
bring forward proposals in the Budget for tax deductibility for support for the saving of nitrate film stock. There are mechanisms available to the Government, which I hope that they will use, to save that which is part of our heritage.
If, by introducing this measure, the Government cannot support the future of the British film industry, and it would seem that they do not want to do so, perhaps they can play some part in saving its past.
11.16 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I had not intended to intervene in the debate this evening. However, having been a member of the Committee that considered the Films Bill 1985, and having heard certain comments made this evening, I wish to make a contribution slightly longer than you would tolerate in the form of an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
When we discussed these matters in Committee in 1985, it was clear that exhibitors wanted the Eady levy abolished. As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, from the other side of the Chamber we hear the cry, "They would, wouldn't they?" It was the small, independent exhibitors, not those who have been referred to as the big two this evening, who wanted the levy to be abolished. That was their wish because it was placing a tremendous burden upon their margins.
Had any Opposition Members been present late at night a couple of weeks ago—they with their burning interest in the industry — they would have heard a discourse between my hon. Friend the Minister and myself on film exhibition. They would have heard my hon. Friend commit himself and his Department to a review of the barring contract. They would have heard him say also that by the end of January the matter would be resolved, with the result that many more small, independent cinemas would be able to show many more films. It is the outlet for such films—small films that used to be supported by a subsidy—that is so important. It is that which has been denied to them.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gale: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. I shall not give way. I have only a little more to say.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Gale: No, I shall not give way. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will wish to make his own speech.
I wish to develop my argument slightly further —[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central finds it unpalatable. I thought that he might.
Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gale: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not giving way. I hope that I have made that clear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has made it clear that he is not giving way to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).
Mr. Gale: When we discussed these matters in considering the Films Bill 1985, some of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr.
130
Hanley) and I, suggested that one possibility might be a levy imposed on the films shown on television. We felt strongly that although the Eady levy was placing an intolerable burden upon the independent exhibitor, it was raising only little money. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Stott) has referred to the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. I am glad that he did so. I believe that I am the only paid-up member of the ACTT in the Chamber this evening. I do not recall the ACTT making any proposals to abolish the restrictive union practices that destroyed the British film industry. Not only that, but I do not recall the ACTT lending its weight to our suggestion that there should be a levy on films shown on television, the money from which would go to independent production. The reason is that the ACTT has a vested interest in in-house productions made by the major television companies.
Some common sense had been spoken on both sides of the House this evening. However, I suggest that any pretence that the Eady levy was making any realistic contribution to film production in this country when we decided to abolish it, or that it was doing the film distribution industry, in terms of the independents, any good, is sheer humbug.
11.20 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: The House would have been spared humbug in tonight's debate, had it not been for the speech that we have just heard. I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee in 1985, and I do not recall— [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has the Floor.
Mr. Clarke: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. If this were a cinema, people would be stamping their feet because of the problems with the sound quality.
I, too, was a member of that Standing Committee, and I do not recall vicious attacks on the trade union movement — even from his hon. Friends — of the sort that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has just made. Nor, when we think of the real crisis in the British film industry, and when we hear of criticisms from producers such as David Puttnam, can we put our hands on our hearts and say—for instance—that when he fled to America he blamed the trade unions. He did not: he blamed the Government. He said that they were not providing the financial incentives, and he was right. The order that we are debating tonight underlines that view.
Perhaps I should have declared an interest at the start of my comments. I am an unpaid governor of the British Film Institute, and for many years I was an assistant director of the Scottish Film Council — although, in truth, I was not paid all that much more there! Tonight, I should like to say a word or two about some of the points made by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also served on the Standing Committee.
I should like to take up two points. One is the issue of training, which I think is crucial. Secondly, the Government have no strategy for the British film industry.

131
Because of that we are facing many problems, not least in Scotland. Some of those were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
This debate is important, and it is particularly important at the present time, when the Scottish Office is apparently considering seriously the amalgamation of the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Film Council. I know—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will agree—that very few people in Scotland consider that there is any merit in that proposal. I am glad that the Minister of State, Scottish Office is present, and I hope that he will convey my views to his ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). The Scottish Film Council would be smothered, and would not be free, for example, to fight for proper training within Scotland.
As this instrument refers to the right of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to deal with surplus funds, we should remind the Government that some of those surplus funds could reasonably be spent on training, and might be invested in the National Film and Television School. In spending the money in that way, the Secretary of State might remember—let me put it gently but firmly—the discrimination against Scottish students that is taking place at present. That is not because the National Film and Television Council wishes it, but because honours graduates in the United Kingdom outside Scotland are able to complete their studies after three years. However, the Scottish course lasts for four years. Scottish students are thereby penalised during the first year of their studies at the National Film and Television School. For all students, their last two years at the school are considered to be part of the postgraduate course. Why should Scottish students be discriminated against?
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to Bill Forsyth. Ministers and Conservative Members pay tribute, quite rightly, from time to time to "Gregory's Girl", "Comfort and Joy" and "That Sinking Feeling" among other films from Scotland. I pay tribute to Mike Alexander and Charles Gormley who produced "Heavenly Pursuits", despite the fact that there is discrimination against Scottish students. We ought to fight so that the potential of every young man and young woman throughout the United Kingdom can be realised. There might be a young man or a young girl in Benbecula, Glasgow, Edinburgh or Coatbridge who has the same potential as those successful film-makers. We have no right to stand in their way. Unhappily, this Government's policy is reflected in the decisions of the Scottish Education Department. It has the discretion to contribute to the first year of study but it has refused to use its powers to do so.
I initiated an Adjournment debate on the film industry on 25 May 1984. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science used words that are now part of the mythology that is connected with the film industry. He said:
"It is not too much of an exaggeration to describe it as a renaissance."—[Official Report, 25 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 1409.]
We have heard of the so-called renaissance of the British film industry, but what is the truth of the matter? The truth is that after the passing of the 1985 Act the Government's
132
policy has been absolutely disastrous. My hon. Friends have reminded the House of what happened to Goldcrest and Pinewood Studios after the abolition of the Eady levy.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: How many cinemas were there then? How many are there now?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member has something to say he should rise and seek to intervene.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially as the hon. Member appeared to be making a valid point. He is not always so modest. He referred quite rightly to the decline in cinema audiences. There has recently been a small increase, but since the war there has been a dramatic reduction in cinema audiences.
In Committee we argued that the principle of the Eady levy was right, but many hon. Members would have no objection to change. The levy was introduced to encourage those who enjoy films to make a contribution to the producers that they could make even better films. If that principle were to be applied to today's use of films, television would make a sizeable contribution. We should also consider the impact of video films. Very few newspapers now have a film column, but all of them have a video column. Those who are using video films should be asked to make a contribution to future investment and future productivity.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) forgot to remind the House that his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) persuaded the Committee to accept the introduction of such a levy.
Mr. Hanley indicated assent—
Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
The Committee agreed, but when it came before the House on Report the Government used their majority to vote down the logic of that argument.
The truth is that, far from the expanding film industry that the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) had promised the House, we are witnessing an unnecessary decline. That decline is tragic and worrying because the fall in investment, and in the commitment to free enterprise in the film industry — even when it is not succeeding—betrays the tremendous talent and ability that we have in Great Britain among producers, those who work the cameras and actors and actresses.
That is a tragedy and the British people will not let the great variety of talent in our film industry be squandered. In the meantime however, that talent is being betrayed by a Government whose idealism and commitment to the free market does not reflect that talent. That is a betrayal of the British film industry.
11.30 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: As my hon. Friends have eloquently said, this is a black Monday for the British film industry. In winding up the British Film Fund Agency, we are leaving our film production industry without any form of Government support. The House will understand that the Minister has not held his responsibilities for very long, but the House will have been amazed and depressed by the complacency with which he introduced the order and the lack of historical perspective in which he put it. He did not seem to understand the significance of what we are deciding. He did not seem to understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) made clear in his trenchant speech—I hope

133
that the Minister listened to him—that this was the last of the stripping away of all Government support. The quota has gone, the Eady levy has gone, the capital allowances have gone and all tax incentives have gone. They have all finished and our British film industry is left with absolutely no support.
Our quarrel is not with the removal of all those specific forms of assistance. I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who said that there were imperfections with the Eady levy. I suspect—no, I am certain—that I am the only hon. Member to have been a beneficiary of the Eady levy. I know very well that the films with which I was able to benefit were possibly not as distinguished artistically, or in any other way, as some of the films that have benefited from the levy. The "Hot Wheels" system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred, saved some small producers, such as myself, and allowed us to go on to make other films. It was by no means a perfect system. We recognise that, and my hon. Friend with his great experience and knowledge of the industry, put that into a clear perspective.
If we are withdrawing all forms of support, it is important that there is some other way in which the country recognises the importance of the industry and gives it some financial assistance. However, the Government are neglecting it because of an ideological commitment and determination to the concept of the free market. In this industry, in which our small production base must compete with the United States' north American production base, there is no free and equal market.
The Minister told the House that the only support that the Government now give the industry is £1·5 million to British Screen and support through his right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts for the excellent National Film School. It is not surprising that, with that level of support, and contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South suggested, investment is declining catastrophically. Whereas production was held at about £300 million in 1985 and 1986, it looks likely to be down to only £115 million this year.
The decline is accelerated by the Government's fiscal policies. Indeed, they have perhaps been the crucial element in the devastation of our industry. If the Minister can understand only one thing as a result of this debate, it should be the significance of the Chancellor's fiscal policies and their destructive effect on the British film industry through withdrawal of capital allowances, his exchange rate policy and through withholding tax.
The Finance Act 1984 ended 100 per cent. capital allowances. We went to a cost recovery system, which made it possible to recover only 75 per cent. of the cost of a film over five years. The Minister may maintain that that does not make any difference because the receipts from films usually come in slowly. He should understand that "A Room with a View" grossed £70 million in the first six months. He may say that that proves that it is possible to recover the money quickly, but if he takes the trouble to ask British Screen, he will understand that it was an equity investor in "A Room with a View" and was not paid for two years.
The abandonment of capital allowances has made an enormous difference to investors and producers. The Chancellor has thus done a disservice to the industry, but
134
the effects of that are not perhaps as great as those resulting from the imposition, from 1 May 1987, of witholding tax. There was no consultation with the industry and there is confusion about how it will work. In the first six months of operation, it is clear that film companies are not coming here because of uncertainty about our Inland Revenue. It is clear that it is not worth their while coming here. It is not worth important cameramen, producers, directors and actors risking battling with and perhaps falling foul of the Inland Revenue. That process is hardly helped by the Chancellor's new foreign entertainers unit of the Inland Revenue not understanding what it is doing or, if it does understand, applying the rules extremely harshly. There is no fiscal uniformity with other territories. We have a far harsher regime than any other territory.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that he is talking about other territories, the hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the order. Perhaps he will bring his remarks back to the subject of the debate.
Mr. Fisher: I apologise. I was trying to impress on the Minister the importance of his understanding that some form of assistance is needed. If we persuade him of that, he may reconsider the order.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan said, other territories provide support such as the Minister is withdrawing by winding up the BFFA. It is possible to amortise a film by 70 per cent. in one year in France; by 90 per cent. in the first year and to write off from the second year on in West Germany and by 100 per cent. in the first year in southern Ireland. We could continue through Europe. Every other country has fiscal incentives to write off losses. We simply do not have the facility.
The alternative to fiscal assistance is direct investment, but the United Kingdom is withdrawing that form of support, too, and replacing it with nothing, thus leaving us disadvantaged. We put £1·5 million into British Screen. Australia invests more than £18 million, Canada more than £17 million and West Germany £15·7 million a year. Spain, in an interesting combination of fiscal and direct investment at both regional and national levels, invests well over £20 million a year to the benefit of its industry. France, again in a curious combination of incentives, guarantees and deductions, invests more than £70 million a year. I ask the House to contrast that with our £1·5 million a year, at a time when audiences are increasing and the industry has the skills and the production expertise.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North sought credit and referred to his recent Adjournment debate. I pay tribute to him for his skill in raising the debate on barring. But he should understand that the Minister is not yet following up the recommendations of the report; I wish he were. The letter makes it clear that submissions are requested between now and the end of January and I hope that at that stage the hon. Gentleman will give full backing to the ending of the barring system because the whole industry would benefit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that that is not what the Minister is saying; the Minister is being indecisive. I hope that, together, the hon. Gentleman and I can encourage the Minister to press on with that.
We are not meeting to bury the BFFA; we are here to bury the British film industry, which is a far more serious matter. The collapse from £300 million a year production

135
to £115 million in the first year of the new regime is a disaster. Add to that the exchange rate between the dollar and the pound, and withholding tax and we are seeing the fast decline, indeed death, of our film industry.
The Minister is new. He will learn. I urge him to read the BFTPA's report on fiscal incentives, to talk to independent producers, not just in the exhibition industry, but throughout the industry, and to listen to what they say about the realities of tax incentives, withholding tax and the lack of Government support. If he listens and learns, he may join us in trying to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his obsession with fiscal neutrality and uniformity will be the death of the industry. If he does not persuade the Chancellor, the industry will die.
11.43 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister is a little anxious, but I assure him that I shall not take long. I apologise for having spoken in the Chamber twice today, but I feel that I must speak on this subject. I know that I am getting on in years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— but I have been interested in the silver screen since I was a lad and that interest has continued year on year.
This evening's story has been about what is happening to the British film industry. It is tragic, bearing in mind our genuine interest in the industry, and I speak, not merely more for myself, but for other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has appeared on the silver screen. His father made a marvellous contribution to the British film industry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who usually sits at the back of the Chamber making a bit of noise sometimes.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman should not forget my mother.
Mr. Haynes: I must not forget the hon. Gentleman's mother. In this speech I shall not mention the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I often talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, because many of his films appear on Channel 4. That was the real British film industry, but over the years it has deteriorated. It is tragic. I wish that I had some power to do something about it, because I am very worried about what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who is also interested in the British film industry, and I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the parliamentary film group. We visited many studios and met many actors, and we have seen the studios fall by the wayside because the industry has been run down. A few years ago we visited Pinewood and met Albert Broccoli, who produces the "007" films. He said, "I will play my part in saving the British film industry", and he has kept his word. Had it not been for him, Pinewood would have closed by now.
I cannot understand why the Government have not grasped the nettle. They know that the industry is being run down and that it will soon be producing only B films. Following that will be the complete closure of the British film industry if we are not careful.
Britain produces the finest actors in the world—
Mr. Don Dixon: In here.
Mr. Haynes: My hon. Friend is right, but we are losing those actors to America. Training in the industry is also falling by the wayside. The rundown in the film industry means that training too must go. They go together. With the little training that will be available, all that we will be doing is producing actors and technicians for the Yanks. In the coal industry, where I worked for many years, we trained electricians and fitters who flitted over to private industry after public industry had paid for all their training. The same will happen in films.
In a previous debate on films I named the actors who had left our shores for America and filled their pockets with gold over there, at the expense of British films. However, many British actors stood by the British film industry and made some marvellous films. I want to see the day when the British film industry does that again.
The industry is running down and cinemas have closed right, left and centre across the whole country, but slowly and surely they are re-opening. We must give them support. They must come back. We need the film industry to grow back to what it was. It must grow so that it can provide more of the kind of entertainment that I have enjoyed for many years, especially when I was a young lad.
11.50 pm
Mr. Butcher: With the leave of the House I will reply to this debate.
There is no lack of unanimity in the Chamber tonight that we all want to see a healthy British film industry and a healthy British production side to that industry. I very much enjoyed the tour d'horizon of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). However, he went a little too far when he implied that the ending of a defunct levy through the BFFA would mark, to paraphrase the hon. Gentleman's comments, the death knell of the British film industry. That is surely not the conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman wanted to lead us when he began his speech. Perhaps we should understand that the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric got the better of him and that the excellent analysis in the earlier parts of his comments did not lead to an appropriate conclusion when he went over the top in the way that he did.
The abolition of the Eady levy can be used to prove anything. If one were to take an exclusive set of phenomena and apply a particular conclusion to them one could state that while the Eady levy was applied, attendances went down, and since it has been abolished attendances have been moving upwards. I do not claim that the trend occurred simply because the levy was or was not there. However, Opposition Members have overplayed the levy's role. I want to show, in the few moments available to me, that not only have they over-played the levy's role, but that there were a number of major errors in fact when they implied that there was no help for the industry in training—and that is a very important issue— or by way of production support, whether one is talking about the so-called artistic section of the industry or that part of the industry referred to with a capital "I". The dichotomy was debated by Michael Winner recently as the debate between the "gentlemen and the players".
For the record I should state that my Department gives support for the screen film industry through British Screen Finance Limited by providing, as was accurately reported by Opposition Members, an annual grant of £1·5 million for five years for the production of medium and low budget films, and a further sum of £500,000 each year for

137
project development work and the production of short films. With that financial support, British Screen has been able to invest in 18 feature films, 13 short films and support 19 applications for project development assistance in less than two years. I have a selection of the films so supported and I am bound to say that they reflect a variety and quality that anyone interested in the cinema would find wholly commendable.
The Government also provide assistance to support the artistic and cultural aspects of films. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts who has been in his place throughout the debate has recently announced a three-year programme of arts funding which will result in increases of about 50 per cent. for the National Film and Television School over three years — the sums being £1·;13 million rising to £1·7 million, an increase of nearly 20 per cent. for the BFI over the same period, rising from £10·03 million to £12 million.
I cannot accept that the commercial film industry needs wholesale subsidy in spite of a fall in exports for British films from £260 million in 1985 to £209 million in 1986. Our overall export performance in films has remained strong in recent years. That is primarily due to the widely acknowledged—it is recognised on both sides of the House — excellence of our film-making talent coupled with the industry's continued ability to make films that sell overseas. The English language confers a major advantage to British film-makers in the important North American market.
I have had discussions with most parts of the film industry—the distributors, exhibitors, producers, studios or whatever—and I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting those various representatives. It is to the credit of all of them that they have focused on the production question. A number of common themes emerged when representations were made to me. Let me say straightaway that even without the hon. Gentleman's seminar—
Mr. Stott: Which one?
Mr. Butcher: I am referring to the seminar given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I shall come to the seminar of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), which was equally enjoyable, in a moment.
I accept that the question of the withholding tax does cause a difficulty. Without prejudging the issue, that will be one of the items of discussion that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and will have with our right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
I understand that the difficulty is that agents on the east and west coasts of the United States may be tempted to say to some of their leading artists that they should not go to the United Kingdom because they may be liable to a taxation rate of up to 60 per cent. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and I know that the withholding tax is levied at the rate of about 27 per cent. When difficulties arise or clarification is required, a unit, set up within the Inland Revenue, does its best to deal with anomalies or any lack of certitude that may cause visiting American artists reason to feel uncomfortable or nervous.
138
I wish to satisfy myself that the current system is working correctly. In my discussions at the Treasury I will also seek ways to re-introduce some incentives for the British production industry. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will understand that, tonight, I cannot debate with him what my comments may be in any subsequent conversations. We are agreed that the fall in production is significant. We are agreed to try to find ways to encourage the reversal of that trend. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and start from different philosophical and practical premises. I am not prepared to go to see my right hon. Friend at the Treasury and say that we want to introduce industry-specific schemes. That has not been the thrust of my right hon. Friend's policies in the past few years. I have no intention to try to persuade my right hon. Friend to reverse that policy trend. In the past, industry-specific schemes, no matter what the industry, have tended to feed on themselves and produce more and more anomalies.
Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister confirm that all the people he has spoken to on the production side of the industry have told him that every other country in Europe has industry-specific tax incentive schemes and that the Government are leaving our industry at a fiscal disadvantage compared with other territories?
Mr. Butcher: In answer to the exact terms of the hon. Gentleman's question I cannot confirm that they said that every other European country operates positive discrimination, that is industry-specific. I can confirm that there is a great deal of concern about the level of production. However, the analysis of cause and effect is something that we could debate for a long time.
For example, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the movement of currency. If, for example, I am a big American production company and I am looking at the blandishments which are now coming in from places like Mexico, Spain, Canada and every state in the United States, all shopping for film production work, offering incentives and so on, could the hon. Gentleman tell me —and I am not inviting him to intervene—for example, the impact of the movement in the dollar against the pound, compared with, say, the removal of capital allowances, when one is looking at a location on which one wishes to produce a major film? It is excruciatingly difficult to extract from all the representations made to me those which are, firstly, within my power to do something about and which are significant and, secondly, those which are not. I suspect that anyone standing at this Dispatch Box tonight, or the previous films Ministers, will have gone through exactly those same dilemmas.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft British Film Fund Agency (Dissolution) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.

Offshore Fabrication Industry (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
12 midnight
Mr. Henry McLeish: I am pleased to have an opportunity to bring to the Floor of the House the important question of the crisis facing the North sea oil construction industry in Scotland.
It would be easy merely to criticise the Government's industrial record in Scotland, which is appalling and shows little sign of improving. It would also be easy in this type of debate to concentrate on the construction yard in my own constituency, RGC Offshore in Methil. But I should like to widen the debate and talk about the crisis facing the whole industry in Scotland. That embraces seven major construction yards, which are facing immense difficulties. They are Highlands Fabricators, Kestrel Marine, Lewis Offshore, McDermotts, RGC, Scott Lithgow and UIE Scotland.
It is often said that winning oil from the North sea is very difficult in such a hostile environment, but increasingly in Scotland winning work related to North sea activity is also becoming very difficult in the kind of hostile environment that the Government are creating. Before getting into the substance of the debate, I should like just for a moment, to take hon. Members about 400 miles from here to my constituency on the shores of the Firth of Forth, where, in Methil, we have a major construction yard.
Just to give hon. Members some indication of the type of project that we are talking about, let me give the dimensions of the order currently being constructed in that yard. It is a £52 million contract for the fabrication of a jacket for the Tern oilfield which has been placed by Shell and Esso. To illustrate the scale of such ventures, this jacket will weigh 21,500 tonnes, it will be 587 ft high, its base will measure 328 ft by 262 ft and at the top it will be 239 ft by 95 ft. I say that by way of introduction, because we are not talking about small-scale developments but about significant steel structures.
The context for what I will say next is that, at present, the structure dominates the skyline, and it is hoped that it will be floated out in April 1988. The problem is that in the run-up to Christmas people in this area of high unemployment look at the yard, see the structure and think that it may be the last fabrication order to be floated out, after a distinguished 10-year period.
That brings me to the crisis that grips the North sea offshore construction industry. The crisis is real and immediate and could lead next year to the collapse of one of the most efficient and productive areas of North sea-related activity. I will argue that the activities of the Department of Energy and of the Scottish Office have been characterised by neglect, complacency and a lack of interest, leading to the squandering of enormous potential for creating jobs and consolidating the long-term future of the offshore construction industry.
Let me start by revealing to the House that just two years ago, those seven construction yards employed nearly 12,000 people. We now find that after April 1988 when most of the current orders will be floated out, employment could be less than 1,000. By any standards, that is a dramatic reduction in manpower.
140
That is complemented, and, indeed, caused by a slump in investment. If we look at the investment in what we call top sides and jackets, we see that a total UK share of £1,077 million in 1984 slumpd to £480 million in 1986. Indeed, the UK Module Contractors Association Ltd. predicts that capacity utilisation for the industry could be less than 20 per cent. in 1988, with the prospect of those yards being unable to respond to the upturn in North sea activity that is expected in the early 1990s.
The overall picture is one of gloom and despondency, and great regret that such an industry, still in its infancy, has been ignored so much by the Government that we are talking about a terminal decline in construction capacity rather than looking forward to the next 20 or 30 years when billions of tonnes of oil will come out of the North sea.
More important, the impact will be devastating in three areas. The first is the jobs and skills of the men who produce such sophisticated structures. Secondly, local communities will be devastated. Those yards are mainly located in areas of high, significant and continuing unemployment. But probably more important for the future is the devastating impact on the strategic capacity of the offshore construction industry to deal with demand if an upturn in North sea activity is translated into orders.
If that is not bad enough, I am greatly concerned that the Government have been repeatedly warned about the impending crisis. The third report from the Select Committee on Energy, Session 1986–87, entitled, "The Effect of Oil and Gas Prices on Activity in the North Sea", was a major report which included representations from the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association Ltd., the United Kingdom Module Contractors Association Ltd., major oil companies, such as British Petroleum and Shell, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Development Agency. They all had one compelling message, which was to highlight the development gap in the years 1986, 1987 and through to 1988. They also asked the Government to take action to avoid the crisis, which, sad to say, we are now experiencing.
The collapse in the oil price has merely worsened an already difficult situation. It would be both unreasonable and unfair for the Government to respond by saying that everything could be laid at the door of the market place and the resultant oil price collapse. Despite all that, the Government have been complacent and irresponsible in refusing to take any action that would stabilise the situation in the short term and help build medium and long-term prospects.
In blaming the Government, I should like to mention some factors. First, the Treasury has maximised royalties, petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax at the expense of any serious priority being given to long-term industrial development. Secondly, the Government have relied entirely on the price of oil to sustain development. When the oil price collapsed, the Government had nothing to fall back on. Thirdly, they have ignored advice on the strategic necessity of having an efficient construction industry with enough capacity to respond to changing demands.
Fourthly, the Government's obsession with free market economics has meant that we have no effective energy policy, unlike most of our competitors who see energy as an important resource to be used for long-term industrial development. We have used oil for short-term financial

141
expediency. Few countries, developed or undeveloped, have such contempt for natural resources and the potential that they offer for jobs and investment.
Fifthly, the Government have argued in the past that overcapacity in the offshore industry was the problem. That problem could reasonably be dealt with. We are now, however, moving towards no capacity, with skills, commitment and knowledge all being lost. That is a tragedy for the communities that I have mentioned and for the nation.
Sixthly, the men working in the yards, from the north of Scotland to the central belt, are frustrated, angry, and bitter, and deeply resent the way in which their jobs, communities and futures are being destroyed by a Government who, by surrendering to market forces, have betrayed the national interest. Despite claims by Ministers over the past few months about the anticipated increase in North sea activity in the medium term, prospects for the next 12 months are frighteningly bad. With the exception of a number of major developments, the only one that will be translated into an order is likely to be the Kittiwake field, operated by Shell. The Government have approved a number of others, but the development gap problem will mean no significant orders. That will facilitate the gradual rundown of the industry in the early part of the next year.
When the Government have allowed this crisis to develop, we shall hear that nothing can be done. They will talk of the market—the same old excuse for inactivity. Is it not possible, even at this eleventh hour, to decide on a reasonable notion of where the industry should be going in the next two or three years and in the run up to the year 2000?
I want to suggest some positive actions that the Government should take. First, we need a package of industrial and financial assistance that will allow existing yards to restructure their operations, with a planned approach to rationalising their capacity. We accept the need to rationalise overcapacity. That does not mean that we should kill the industry, as will happen if the present neglect continues. We also need Government assistance to diversification. Ministers speak long and eloquently about the need for the fabrication yards to diversify. They want to, but they need assistance. It cannot be done overnight. The Government can help.
Secondly, the Government need to carry out a construction audit of orders that are likely to emerge from the North sea over the next five years, to ensure that everything possible is done by the Department of Energy to avoid delays and minimise technical problems. The annex B procedure that is required for approvals could be speeded up without affecting safety, and I commend that suggestion to the Government. Thirdly, as we decline from peak production, we must also form an energy policy that will result in the planned development of oil and gas fields, to ensure the maintenance of a suitable size of construction industry in which abandonment programmes and technological modification schemes provide the maximum possible amount of work.
Fourthly, we need Government support to help to maintain an agreed size of industry. When the Government talk about Shell and BP, saying that they cannot do anything about this or that, I must remind them that the people of the United Kingdom did not elect Shell or BP. They elected the Government to intervene on their behalf when they feel, as they seem to now, that their interests are being neglected.
142
Fifthly, we need radical change in Government fiscal policy to encourage investment in Government-sponsored research and development to stimulate new field development. Minuscule progress was made on that in the Budget of March 1987. Much more could be done, and I suggest the Government examine the submissions of the UK Offshore Operators Association Limited and the Select Committee on Energy, which made some excellent proposals about the way forward in fiscal policy.
Sixthly, we must try to ensure that our construction yards are not exposed to unfair competition from European and Scandinavian yards when we bid for foreign orders. There is evidence—it is difficult to quantify—that that is happening already. Why do we have the fifth most productive oil field in the world, lying two or three miles off the Scottish coast, yet seven major fabrication construction yards without work? The public perception is that it is inconceivable that that could be a reality. The basis of my submission to the Minister is that that is indeed the reality facing Scotland and the yards in the next two or three months.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of a Government, even one committed ideologically to a free market, to say that we have a unique one-off oil and gas resource that will not last forever. A balance must be struck between exploitation of these reserves for jobs and industry, community welfare and prosperity and, on the other hand, the massive Exchequer funds gained as a result of the efforts that people in Scotland are making in the industry.
I wish to highlight the need for change and to identify how the offshore construction industry has shown realism and an ability to change to survive. With Government encouragement and support it is willing further to adapt in the years ahead. Over the past few years it has responded to the more difficult commercial conditions that have applied. It has improved its efficiency and has met the "weather windows" for the installation of North sea products. Higher standards of quality control are being achieved, and market forces are ensuring that lower prices are offered while quality is maintained.
In a submission to the Select Committee on Energy the United Kingdom Module Contractors Association Ltd., among many others, highlighted the continuing problems. Those include a lack of work, poor overhead recovery due to intermittent and low-volume work, difficult commercial conditions, and higher standards required by oil companies leading to higher costs for the fabricator.
The offshore industry can survive and adapt only if the Government provide the stability and financial support to see the industry through an extraordinarily difficult period. Workers, managers and customers require the Government to change course and to provide them with the right industrial and commercial environment in which they can all benefit. I am not making a special plea on behalf of one yard. I am making a special plea on behalf of the offshore construction industry. It needs support: if it is to maintain a presence in the six to 12 months that lie ahead. More important, we must ensure that in the year 2000 we have the industrial capacity in this very sophisticated business not only to deal with the North sea but to work from there and to have the export potential for which the Government are always arguing.
12.17 am
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I am glad of the opportunity afforded by the Adjournment

143
debate of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) for the House to consider the prospects of the North sea offshore fabrication industry in Scotland. It is, of course, impossible to do so without looking at the oil industry generally, since the yards depend on continuing activity in exploration, development and production of the North sea oil and gas potential.
We are all conscious of the important role that the oil and oil-related industries play in the Scottish economy. I am pleased to note that all the signs are that they will continue to be major employers in the Scottish economy for a number of years. It is estimated that in mid-1987 over 50,000 people were employed in companies in Scotland wholly related to North sea oil and gas. That figure does not include people working in firms partly involved in supplying the North sea market or those engaged in short-term projects. When these extra jobs are taken into account, along with the effects on consumption, the overall level of oil-related employment in Scotland in mid-1987 is estimated to have been approximately 78,000, which is around 4 per cent of total employment in Scotland.
The majority of oil-related jobs are in the Grampian region, but many other regions also benefit. Throughout Scotland high levels of employment in certain sectors result directly from offshore activity. In Fife, approximately 1,600 jobs in wholly oil-related firms and 350 jobs in partly oil-related firms have been identified. While a proportion of these jobs are at the RGC yard at Methil, there are some other oil-related firms in the region.
With the downturn in oil prices, no one can pretend that the last 18 months have been other than tough for the oil industry and, therefore, for the fabrication yards. This resulting falling off in activity was of course, not limited to Scotland or to the North sea. It has to be recognised that the oil price collapse was a worldwide phenomenon largely influenced by OPEC's attempt to recover its major share of world oil supplies. As we know, this action brought the oil price tumbling from about $34 a barrel to under $10 a barrel. Therefore, it was not a localised problem that could readily be solved by simply seeking a market elsewhere.
The North sea industry was less quickly affected, and this contributed to such problems as a surplus of rigs in United Kingdom continental shelf waters, because some had been moved there from areas which had felt the effects of the fall more rapidly. There was an understandable tendency during that period for operators to retrench and to look for methods of economising in their undertakings. While production was not greatly affected, it is clear that development and exploration have slowed and that orders for new rigs have dropped.
My ministerial colleagues and I readily appreciate that in a period of slim prospects it is understandable that there should be calls for the Government to step in and somehow create work for the yards, but this is simply impractical as a solution to the immediate problem. The nature of the industry is such that there is inevitably a fairly lengthy lead-in period in the consideration of development before fabrication orders can be placed, as the hon. Member for Fife, Central will appreciate. In normal circumstances the oil companies are able to pace development to ensure a reasonably consistent flow of work. The suddenness and the extent of the oil price fall
144
created a hiatus which has to work through the system, and there is simply no practical way of short-circuiting this. Clearly, however, I would look to the oil companies to reduce this period in so far as they reasonably can.
I do not accept the argument that the current downturn in activity should materially alter the Government's general approach to North sea development. The Government's decision to leave the pace of development to the market has proved extremely beneficial to the Scottish economy and the offshore industry, and, in particular, to the fabrication yards. There were few complaints about the pace when development was at its peak and the demand for fabrication was high. While I understand the concern from which it stems, it is less than realistic to demand a new approach because we are now faced with a temporary lull in activity.
It is arguable that because until now we have experienced only the good times, the offshore industry did not anticipate, and has been so hard hit by, the present bad times. As I have said, for many in the North sea support industry this was the first experience of the cyclical nature of their undertaking. The tailing-off in demand came as a shock, and I would not attempt to minimise how traumatic this has been for those who have found themselves out of work as a result. Howard Doris at Loch Kishorn and Kestrel Marine at Dundee have gone into receivership, and I am well aware of the difficult situation in which a number of other yards find themselves at present.
Fortunately, most of the other yards have some work at present. For example, Hi-Fab has recently completed a rig conversion for Amerada Hess and is working on a jacket for Shell's Eider field. Lewis Offshore has also some Eider work, and McDermott's has an order for Shell's Tern field. In general, most yards have work of some description which will keep them employed until early or mid-1988. This is also the case with RGC at Methil, in which I appreciate the hon. Member for Fife, Central has a particular interest. As the hon Gentleman said, RGC has work on Shell's Tern platform and platform jacket. I can readily understand the concern of workers such as those at RGC who, although they have a yard which is equipped to handle a wide range of services for North sea clients, from jackets to modules and other offshore structures, have seen their work force gradually depleted from some 1,200 men to about half that number — with the prospect perhaps of even further cuts. It is a concern shared by some 4,000 workers in the fabrication sector of the industry.
Employment in the oil-related sector in Scotland was hardest hit during 1986. However, the underlying rate of decline in employment in wholly oil-related firms would appear to have slowed considerably this year. The 1·4 per cent. reduction in such employment in the six months to June 1987 was a considerable improvement on the 16·1 per cent. reduction over the previous six months. It would therefore seem likely that the worst effects of the oil price fall on employment have now been felt.
From my contacts with the oil industry I know that over the past few months there is increasing evidence of a pick-up in activity, with a general air of optimism that the greater stability in the oil price will continue. There are solid signs of this. Of course, of particular interest to the yards is the increased level of rig activity, which is now getting back to its pre-price drop level, and there is every sign of it continuing throughout next year.

145
After the depressing sight of rigs stacked in many of our firths it is encouraging to have 49 active rigs, against a low of 21 in February. This is all the more encouraging given that the going rate is some $17,000 a day compared with $14,000 in late 1986. Planned schedules indicate that drilling activity could be up soon by some 40 per cent., taking levels back to pre-1986, and there is every prospect of further rises over the next five years. Analysts forecast that by 1992 rates may have risen sufficiently to produce a demand for new rigs and the conversion of semi-submersibles into production vessels for some of the more marginal fields.
Despite the then depressed state of the market there was an encouraging response to the 10th round of offshore licensing, when 75 applications for 61 of the 127 blocks on offer led to 51 awards. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is currently considering the possibility of an 11th round, with awards in 1989, which would maintain the accustomed two-year licensing cycle. The Government have approved four major projects so far this year. In addition we have before us plans for the development of 11 offshore oil and gas projects, including six new oilfields, most of which should be approved within the next few weeks.
BP is pursuing the development of the Miller field, the largest and most significant North sea development for some years. This £900 million development, involving expected reserves of 300 million barrels of oil and 300 billion cu ft of gas, will create an estimated 6,000 offshore construction jobs prior to first production, which is estimated at the end of 1991. I need hardly say what this will mean to hungry yards, or point out that the competition for orders will be extremely fierce, but I would fully expect that those Scottish yards which gear themselves for survival during the lean early months of 1988, will show their capabilities to be leading contenders in this competition. The development plan for Miller is currently under consideration by the Department of Energy and I understand that signs are hopeful for a decision at the beginning of the year. There will, of course, be the added benefit of an estimated 400 jobs on a permanent basis when the field is in production.
Shell-Esso are also pressing on with their Kittiwake development, which gained approval in September. The construction of the Kittiwake platform and its equipment is estimated to provide a total of 2,500 jobs. The 7,000-tonne deck fabrication order is now out to tender. The order is expected to be placed early in 1988, with work starting in late summer. It will take two years to complete and employ up to 200 workers at its peak. The 6,000-tonne jacket order is due to be placed later in 1988, with work starting in 1989. This work should take about 15 months and at peak employ about 600.
There is also a range of proposals for gas-gathering in the central North sea, including possible further development at St. Fergus. I cannot anticipate what the outcome of these will be, and it is not certain that the successful transportation scheme itself will necessarily involve any major call for new structures. What is important, however, is that when in place it will make much more viable the development of these smaller fields for which a separate transportation system would have been uneconomical. The exploitation of these resources will clearly involve some structure fabrication, which will
146
inevitably improve the longer-term prospects for the yards. All these should have spin-off implications for the offshore supply industry and the fabrication yards.
Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lang: No, I would rather not. I am running rather short of time.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not suggesting that these developments will mean a sudden return within the next few weeks to full employment at the fabrication yards. I wish only that they did. By the nature of the industry there will be an inevitable time lag before orders for new structures emerge. The market for such orders as do emerge will be highly competitive. The operators will of course be looking for the most cost-effective arrangements that they can get. This means that it is essential that if Scottish yards are to make the most of their opportunities they must be in a position to produce top quality work, based on the most modern techniques.
I recognise that some yards have invested heavily in preparing themselves for the new market conditions. Indeed, it is one of the long-term gains of this lean time that the industry has been obliged to react by seeking new cost-cutting technology and adopting new practices and innovative procedures. Many of these changes represent valuable assets which can be exploited in other aspects of industry both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to the great benefit of the economy.
Good examples of such modernisation can be seen in yards such as McDermott's, where a three-year investment programme of some £22 million has provided a stockyard gantry crane for handling plate, an advanced plate-cutting facility, a pipe-mill and spool fabrication facility and a computer-controlled warehouse with automatic storage and retrieval facility.
I realise how difficult it is for some yards to gear themselves in this way when they are striving to stay in existence with a very uncertain order book beyond early 1988. The next few months will be critical for them. There are no immediate short-term solutions to this. The hard fact is, as I have said, that the Government cannot conjure up work for the fabrication yards. That must continue to lie with the operators.
What the Government can do, and have done, is to ensure that the right fiscal climate exists in which operators can continue to develop the North sea's resources. In autumn 1986 we took action on the early repayment of advance petroleum revenue tax, which was expected to inject more than £300 million into the oil economy. In the 1987 Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed two further concessions affecting the development of new fields and oil-related research, which were expected to benefit the industry by over £100 million a year. Much of this is aimed generally at encouraging companies to proceed with projects which would otherwise have been delayed, and this is clearly having the desired effect. In particular, it is encouraging that the industry is increasingly looking at how to extract oil and gas economically from what had previously been looked upon as marginal fields.
The Government will continue to play their role by ensuring that a propr fiscal climate is maintained, and we expect to see a gradual improvement in the fortunes of the fabrication yards as activity in North sea developments increases. I know that the oil companies appreciate that

147
the continuing existence of a variety of modern highly competitive yards is not only important but vital to the cost-effective development of the industry's interests generally.
148
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Emigrant Scheme (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the chairman of social services of Nottinghamshire county council regarding Mrs. Humphries and the child emigrant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Charities
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many charities in England and Wales registered in 1986 are specifically undertaking medical research projects.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information available centrally does not make it possible to identify which registered charities are currently undertaking medical research.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many charities in England and Wales are currently undertaking medical research projects.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available centrally for either registered or unregistered charities.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities are currently exempt from registration under sections 4(4) and (9) of the Charities Act 1960; and if he will list the figures by class of exemption.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on exempt charities is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities were registered in England and Wales in 1986.

  Mr. John Patten
  Three thousand, nine hundred and forty-two.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities are currently registered in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  At the end of October 1987, this figure stood at 161,014.

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the 114 additional police posts for the Nottinghamshire constabulary since May 1979 were granted since May 1981.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None of these additional police posts was approved since May 1981. One hundred and 2
  fifteen additional police posts were approved on 31 December 1979, and an application to decrease the authorised police establishment by one post of sergeant was approved on 19 February 1981.

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to how many times section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which allows fingerprinting after conviction, has been used.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not recorded centrally.

  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lay visitors' schemes there are for police stations; whether he will now seek to put the schemes on a statutory basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Twenty six lay visitor schemes have been approved in the Metropolitan police area, 18 of which are operating. In the rest of England and Wales, 34 police authorities are either operating or have indicated an intention to operate schemes. We have no plans to put the arrangements for lay visiting schemes on a statutory basis.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has as to whether the Data Protection Registrar has used his powers under section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act to report on how the personal data held by the security services affect his functions of supervising the workings of the Data Protection Act;

  (2) what information he has as to whether the Data Protection Registrar has used his powers under section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act to report on how the use of personal data collected for the electoral register affects his functions of supervising the workings of the Data Protection Act;

  (3) what information he has as to whether the Data Protection Registrar has used his powers under section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act to report on how the use of personal data collected for the community charge will affect his functions of supervising the workings of the Data Protection Act;

  (4) what information he has as to whether the Data Protection Registrar has used his powers under section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act to report on how the use of personal data collected in share registers affects his functions of supervising the workings of the Data Protection Act.

  Mr. Renton
  In his third annual report to Parliament in July 1987, made in accordance with section 36(5) of the Data Protection Act 1984, the Data Protection Registrar did not make any reference to the security services but commented, at pages 3 and 4 on electoral registers, community charge registers and share registers.

  Body Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details on a monthly
  3
  basis of the number of body searches, cell searches and cell changes and strip searches carried out on each of the category A prisoners being held at Her Majesty's prison, Durham, between April and November.

  Mr. John Patten
  As the hon. Member knows, records are not kept of the occasions when rub down searching or "frisking" is carried out in prisons and it is not the practice to disclose detailed information about security arrangements such as that requested about the frequency of cell searches and cell changes.

  Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there were three in Durham prison during the period in question. The number of occasions on which each was strip searched in each month from April to November is shown in the table:

  Inmate A

  Inmate B

  Inmate C

  April

  3

  2

  4

  May

  7

  5

  3

  June

  2

  5

  3

  July

  2

  3

  1

  August

  3

  3

  2

  September

  3

  4

  4

  October

  2

  4

  3

  November

  3

  3

  2

  Prisons
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total time taken between announcement and completion of each of the prisons built since 1979.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table sets out the year in which each prison was included in the building programme and the year it was completed. Projects may be admitted to this programme with a view to planning and other preparatory work starting at a later date.

  Prison

  Included in Programme

  Completed

  Wayland

  1978

  1984

  Stocken

  1978

  1985

  Thorn Cross

  1978

  1985

  Full Sutton

  1979

  1987

  Littlehey1

  1981

  1987

  Swaleside1

  1980

  1987

  Mount

  1980

  1987

  Garth1

  1980

  1988

  1almost complete.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the completion of his Department's review of the specification of prison design and construction.

  Mr. John Patten
  The review of the prison building design guides is scheduled for completion late in 1988.

  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to name the members of the Prisons Building Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  We expect to announce the names of the Prison Building Board shortly.

  Firearms
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving firearms have 4
  been committed by gun clubs members in possession of a firearms certificate, in each year since 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information relating to notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" at chapter 3 of the issue for 1986, (Cmnd. 233) copies of which are in the Library. Information on the suspected offender is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to require licensed gun clubs to use pattern targets rather than targets depicting a human figure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The Government's proposals for the reform of firearms legislation are set out in the White Paper "Firearms Act 1968, Proposals for Reform", (Cm. 261) published on 2 December.

  Prisoners
  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are estimated to be suffering from mental illness, as defined by the Mental Health Act.

  Mr. John Patten
  The latest returns from prison medical officers of the number of inmates considered to be suffering from mental disorder of a type or degree such that they would be detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983 show that on 31 March 1987, 95 sentenced and 145 unsentenced inmates were suffering from mental illness. These and numbers considered to be detainable in other categories defined by the Mental Health Act are given on page 69 of the "Report on the Work of the Prison Service 1986–87" (Cm. 246) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Miss Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are estimated to be suffering from mental disorders not falling within the terms of the Mental Health Act, for the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not available in precisely the form requested. Two censuses have been undertaken by prison medical officers of inmates serving sentences of six months and more considered to require specialised therapeutic facilities by reason of mental disorder or abnormality. The censuses showed that on 4 December 1985, a total of 1,583 inmates and on 1 October 1986 a total of 1,340 inmates were suffering from mental disorder that was not of a type or degree such that they would be detainable under the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend by at least six months the date of 31 December by which certain categories of applications to register as British citizens have to be made under the British Nationality Act 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  No. We do not believe we would be justified in seeking the necessary powers.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if, in view of the shortage of
  5
  registration forms for British citizenship and of the delays in acknowledging receipt of completed forms, he will extend the deadline for registration as a British citizen to allow for sufficient forms to be printed and distributed and then completed by those wishing to register;

  (2) how many forms for registration of British citizenship were printed by his Department; what has been the level of demand; and how he plans to make allowance for any shortfall;

  (3) why registration forms for British citizenship are being rationed and orders for forms are only being partially met after delays of several weeks.

  Mr. Renton
  About 850,000 Forms R and W (the two main forms for those eligible to apply before 31 December 1987), have been printed. Nearly 810,000 have been distributed. Stocks are closely monitored. Although on occasions some orders were partially met pending delivery of reprinted supplies, the position now is that adequate stocks are available. We accept that the large number of applications has inevitably led to some delay in acknowledging receipt of completed forms, but the deadline of 31 December 1987 refers to applications, with fees, being lodged by then, not to their acknowledgement.

  I see no need to seek powers to extend the deadline.

  Anton Gecas
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking action against Mr. A. Gecas, a resident of Edinburgh, in relation to alleged war crimes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Around 2,000, mostly in the form of pre-printed postcards. We are now considering the policy and legal implications of the documents provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Africa
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of the names of the officers of his Department based in London who have current responsibilities for each country in Africa; and if he will detail those responsibilities.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Library already contains Her Majesty's Stationery Office publications "The Diplomatic Service List (1987)" and the "Civil Service Yearbook (1987)". These list senior and middle-ranking officers of the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibilities for Africa.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department holds of the number of British subjects currently employed in (i) Benin, (ii) Togo, (iii) Mali, (iv) Niger and (v) Burkina Faso.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have separate figures for those British nationals currently employed in Benin, Togo, Mali, Niger or Burkina Faso, but the following indicate the approximate size of the respective British expatriate adult (over 18) communities in these countries: 20, 45, 62, 44, 41.
  6
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library a list of the maps of Benin, Togo, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger currently held by his Department that are available for reference purposes to right hon. and hon. Members; and if he will indicate the scales on which the maps are available;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a list of the maps of Benin held by his Department that are available for reference by right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office holds the following published single sheet maps of Benin, Togo, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali and Niger, available for reference purposes to right hon. and hon. Members, at the scales indicated.

  Benin: I.G.N. (Paris) scale 1: 600,000 (1984)

  Burkina Faso: L.G.N. (Paris) scale 1: 1,000,000 (1968)

  Cote d'Ivoire: Michelin scale 1:800,000 (1982)

  Mali: MOD Series 2201 scale 1: 2,000,000 sheets 11, 12, 16 and 17 (1969)

  Niger: I.G.N. (Paris) scale 1:2,500,000 (19691

  Togo: I.G.N. (Paris) 1:500,000 (1960)

  The Michelin series Africa North and West (sheet 153), scale 1: 4,000,000 also covers all these countries. They may be inspected in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Library.

  Argentina
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the nuclear weapons capability of Argentina.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have no evidence to confirm that Argentina has a nuclear weapon capability. We remain, however, concerned that Argentina has neither signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty nor ratified the treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America.

  Mr. J. A. Smith
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British high commission in Harare has yet received the doctor's certificate sent to them by Mr. J. A. Smith of Newmarket in connection with the disablement pension to which he is entitled in Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes. The medical certificate dated 22 September was forwarded by the British High Commission in Zimbabwe to the Zimbabwe social welfare pensions office on 15 October.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the Belize/Guatemala territorial dispute.

  Mr. Mellor
  The territorial dispute is a matter for bilateral settlement between Belize and Guatemala. We should like to see the problem resolved at an early date and are willing to assist the parties directly involved by being present as observers at negotiations if both sides so wish.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of relations between the United Kingdom and Guatemala.
  7
  Mr. Mellor
  We have normal diplomatic relations with Guatemala, whose return to democracy in late 1985 we warmly welcomed.

  Falkland Islands (Fishing)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the criteria used in awarding fishing licences in the Falkland Islands conservation zone.

  Mr. Mellor
  Representations have been received from a number of governments and commercial organisations requesting clarification of the licence allocations for 1988. Licences are allocated by the Falkland Islands Government in accordance with the conservation requirements of the fishery.

  RMS St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made to ensure that no further expense is incurred by Her Majesty's Government after the handing over of the recently ordered vessel to replace the RMS St. Helena, in the event of Hall Russell of Aberdeen going into liquidation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The contract for this ship has not yet been finalised, but will require Hall Russell to provide a post-delivery guarantee backed by a bond equivalent to some 2 per cent. of the contract price. Manufacturers of major items of equipment, such as engines, will provide separate warranty cover in accordance with normal commercial arrangements.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases there have been of legal aid money being recovered from law firms acting without a certificated solicitor since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not available, but the legal aid head office's practice is to recover all legal aid moneys paid in respect of a solicitor who at the relevant time did not hold a current practising certificate.

  Uncertificated Solicitors
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General how many firms of solicitors have been proved to have been practising uncertificated in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENERGY

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what encouragement of, and support for, the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency is being given by Her Majesty's Government.
  8
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  In his address to the general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in September, my right hon. Friend stated that the agency's work was of vital importance for world peace and international nuclear safety. The Government contribute both to the agency's regular budget and to its technical assistance and co-operation fund. Support is also given in a number of practical ways including the participation of experts in meetings of technical and other groups.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has on talks the Central Electricity Generating Board has had with entrepreneurs concerning the reopening of electricity generation of Connahs Quay power station, Deeside, Clwyd; what is his estimate of the cash value of Connahs Quay power station as an energy producing unit; if he will direct the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the implications of renewed energy production at Connahs Quay with the Alyn-Deeside and Clwyd county council; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the United Kingdom coal-fired power stations which are currently closed but which could be refurbished to begin production of electricity again in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England; and what is his estimate of the total capital value of such power stations with a capability to produce energy;

  (3) what information he has on the current estimated cash value of the Central Electricity Generating Board's Connahs Quay power station site.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter which falls within the management responsibilities of the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Connahs Quay Power Station
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will meet the leaders of Alyn-Deeside district council to consider the future of the Connahs Quay power station site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I shall be meeting the hon. Member and a delegation from the local authority on 16 December 1987.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report columns 447–48, he now expects to publish the information on plutonium production in civil reactors referred to therein.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As I said in my answer of 30 October 1987 to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) at columns 447–48, I shall publish the information as soon as possible.

  Sizewell B
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made on the implementation of each of the 13 recommendations made in the report of the Sizewell B public inquiry by Sir Frank Layfield.
  9
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) dealt with the recommendations contained in Sir Frank Layfield's report in his letter to the chairman of the CEGB of 12 March 1987. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Further action was relevant to only some of the recommendations:Recommendations 2 and 3: The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate advises me that these have been implemented through appropriate conditions attached to the nuclear site licence.
  Recommendations 4 and 7(b): The HSE advises me that it plans to publish in the new year a discussion document on tolerable levels of risk. Work is also in hand on the other items covered by these recommendations.
  Recommendation 6: The Government's thorough review of nuclear emergency planning, being carried out in the light of the Chernobyl accident, has taken full account of this recommendation. In relation to paragraph (f) of this recommendation, the CEGB advises me that it has recently revised its local consultative arrangements for all nuclear power stations. Parish councils adjacent to the site arc now invited to nominate representatives to attend the newly established local community liaison councils. In addition, these liaison councils may agree to appoint additional members, being local representatives of other organisations who, in the opinion of the liaison council, may be able to contribute to its deliberations.
  Recommendation 7(a): The CEGB advises me that the version of the pre-construction safety report on which the NII issued the site licence for Sizewell B will (apart from matters of commercial sensitivity) be made publicly available before the end of the year.
  Recommendation 10: This is a matter for Suffolk county council in consultation with the CEGB. I am informed that a study of alternative routes for heavy goods vehicle traffic has been carried out and is under consideration by both parties.
  Recommendation 13: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 30 October at columns 447–48.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Forces
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 761, if she will give a detailed breakdown of the statistical evidence on which she based her statement about the comparison between Trident, Polaris and the Soviet Union's nuclear forces; why she chose 1970 as the baseline; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The answer I gave referred to strategic nuclear warheads. The first part of the comparison assumed 192 United Kingdom Polaris warheads and approximately 1,800 Soviet strategic warheads. The Trident part of the comparison assumed a maximum of 512 United Kingdom Trident warheads and 6,000 Soviet strategic warheads. The figures give ratios of 11 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively. 1970 was used as a convenient baseline because this was the year in which the fourth United Kingdom Polaris submarine first became operational.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her answer of I December, she will make it her policy to notify the House when any new contract for the export of equipment or know-how to make weapons-grade plutonium is approved by Her Majesty's Government; and if she will make a statement.
  10
  The Prime Minister
  No. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 27 October 1987 and 6 November 1987 at columns 217 and 903, respectively.

  Sir Philip Woodfield
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister how she intends that Sir Philip Woodfield will be able to make known to right hon. and hon. Members the scope and nature of his work as staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services.

  The Prime Minister
  The staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services will report to me, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as appropriate. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment publicly on security and intelligence matters.

  Surplus Butter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply of 1 December, if she will place in the Library or otherwise identify the financial rules which led the Commission of the European Economic Community to the view that the declaration of the European Court of Auditors on the legality of the transfer of responsibilities for the cost of the subsidised export of butter surplus to member states could be set aside; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  In its opinion, the Court of Auditors expressed the view that deferred reimbursement for the programme of butter stock disposal conflicted with the principal of the annuality of the budget, as laid down in article 199 of the treaty and articles 4 and 5 of the financial regulation. The Commission explained its reasons for considering that there was no breach of this principle in its report to the Council of 15 June 1987 on the financial impact of this measure on Spain and Portugal (document 7124/87). A copy of this document is in the Library of the House.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Dalyell
  : To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will specify the criteria and considerations which have led Her Majesty's Government, in the latest guidance on the duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers, to place greater emphasis as specified in paragraph 8, on the possible use of civil legal action to enforce the duty of confidentiality owed by officials; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if, for each difference of (a) substance and (b) emphasis as between the latest guidance on I he duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to Ministers and the last such guidance issued, she will specify the reasons for making the change; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The only change of substance is the inclusion of a provision for appeal to the Head of the Home Civil Service on fundamental issues of conscience, which the Government accepted in principle in their response (Cmnd. 9841) to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's seventh report of 1985–86. Other changes are for the sake of clarification or completeness.

  European Council, Copenhagen
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library details of the proposals made by Mr. Pohl Schlueter, Prime Minister of Denmark, concerning the proposals to be discussed at Copenhagen on 4 and 5 December, and her response thereto.

  The Prime Minister
  The working papers circulated by the presidency as the basis for discussions between the member states are confidential. I shall be making a statement on the outcome of the Copenhagen European Council shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Questions
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Lord Privy Seal if, for each of the last five years, he will give the total number of questions tabled for oral answer.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total number of questions tabled for oral reply during each of the last five sessions and for the present session to week ending 27 November 1987 is as follows:

  Number

  1982–83

  6,125

  1983–84

  13,386

  1984–85

  14,800

  1985–86

  18,139

  1986–87

  12,766

  1987–88

  14,255

  1 To 27 November 1987.

  Mineral Waters
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord Privy Seal which English, Welsh and Scottish still and carbonated mineral waters have been selected for consumption in parliamentary refreshment facilities; how much of each he estimates will be consumed during the coming year, based on last year's consumption figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A decision on the selection of mineral waters has not yet been taken by the Catering Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, since it has not had an opportunity to meet. The estimated consumption of still and carbonated mineral waters during the coming year is expected to be between 10,000 and 11,000 litres.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Primary Schools (Technology)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to technology in primary schools to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Dunn
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 14 December to Friday 18 December.

  Foreign Language Teachers
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many native Spanish speakers are currently teaching Spanish in maintained schools;

  (2) how many teachers of French nationality are currently teaching French in maintained schools;

  (3) how many teachers of German nationality are currently teaching German in maintained schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. In maintained schools in England in 1984 there were 1,834, 19,694 and 5,890 teachers of, respectively, Spanish, French and German. It is not known how many of these were of Spanish, French or German nationality or were native speakers of those languages. There are also 163 Spanish, 1,760 French and 481 German language assistants currently in England and Wales, most of whom are teaching in maintained schools and are native speakers.

  O-level Passes
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of school pupils in(a) England, (b) the shire counties and (c) Essex, respectively, succeeded in securing five or more O-levels passes at the higher grades in the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dunn
  The percentages of pupils in 1985–86 leaving maintained schools in Essex, the shire counties and England respectively with five or more higher grades at O level/CSE (O level grades A-C/CSE grade 1) were 26.0, 25.4 and 23.6.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has received from Her Majesty's Inspectorate about the standard of secondary education in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has not received advice about the general standard of secondary education in Essex. Reports of inspections of a number of individual schools have been published in the usual way.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action the National Environmental Research Council is taking to study the natural development of mature British woods in southeast England in the circumstances created by the hurricane of 16 October.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, a component body of the Natural Environment Research Council, undertakes research on the ecology of woodlands, including work on natural regeneration and conservation. The institute has not instigated new work since 16 October. It has, however, a wide knowledge of developments following natural disturbances to woodlands, and this is available to authorities concerned with the replanting and natural restoration of woodlands, including those damaged recently in south-east England.
  13
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities from the south and east of England about storm damage to education buildings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dunn
  My right hon. Friend has received no written representations. In his statement on 21 October, at column 731, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced limited additional allocations for capital expenditure incurred in the current year by authorities restoring buildings damaged by storm. His Department wrote on 23 October to the chief executive of a number of authorities inviting applications for all services direct to that Department.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students entered courses of initial teacher training in England and Wales in 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  About 19,160 students entered courses of initial teacher training in 1987, an increase of some 2,271 over 1986. Recruitment to primary training has exceeded target by 3 per cent; and intakes to secondary training are 14 per cent. higher than last year.

  I particularly welcome the major increases in recruitment to courses in the key subjects of mathematics, craft, design and technology, and physics. Intakes to mathematics and CDT courses are some 33 per cent. higher than last year; recruitment to physics courses has increased by some 50 per cent; and in all these subjects recruitment is much closer to targets, which themselves have increased.

  I am placing in the Library the principal findings of my Department's survey of this year's recruitment.

ENVIRONMENT

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to how many trees were destroyed in (a) Essex and (b) the Basildon area as a result of the storms in October; and how the figures were calculated.

  Sales of dwellings by London Boroughs

  1All sales April 1979 to June 1987

  Right to buy applications: October 1980 to June 1987

  Number

  of which

  Total

  of which, in quarters ending:

  RTB per cent.

  Vacant per cent.

  Number

  September

  December

  March

  June

  1986

  1986

  1987

  1987

  City of London

  1,091

  65

  8

  3,035

  52

  86

  229

  190

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,245

  100

  0

  11,143

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Barnet

  4,535

  80

  4

  7,883

  391

  263

  407

  620

  Bexley

  2,742

  11

  1

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Brent

  1,798

  96

  3

  4,559

  210

  206

  330

  342

  Bromley

  5,207

  86

  4

  8,083

  276

  291

  577

  672

  Camden

  725

  94

  6

  4,975

  228

  228

  515

  625

  Croydon

  4,952

  70

  4

  7,215

  312

  263

  ֵ

  434

  Ealing

  4,592

  44

  1

  3,978

  ֵ

  ֵ

  0

  0

  Enfield

  4,210

  83

  8

  7,054

  301

  295

  704

  ֵ

  Greenwich

  2,552

  100

  0

  6,329

  295

  ֵ

  ֵ

  0

  Hackney

  828

  96

  2

  3,308

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,029

  59

  25

  4,025

  231

  158

  335

  35

  Haringey

  2,475

  97

  0

  5,977

  295

  256

  485

  516

  14
  Mr. Moynihan
  Essex county council estimates that 72,000 isolated trees were destroyed by the hurricane force winds, and a further 750,000 badly damaged. They have not provided separate estimates for the Basildon area. The Department has commissioned an aerial photographic survey in the affected area by Hunting Technical Surveys Ltd. The sample areas being photographed include 20 in Essex and one in the Basildon area. However the survey is being delayed by adverse weather conditions.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from environmentalist groups in the Essex region in connection with the damage caused by the storm of October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department has received no such representations. However, I understand that the Essex Naturalist Trust and a number of national conservation bodies have been in touch with Task force Trees a unit of the Countryside Commission, about funding for various projects in the Essex region relating to storm damage to the landscape. The Task force expects to announce its decisions on these applications very shortly.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many council houses, flats and maisonnettes have been sold by each London borough between May 1979 and November 1987;

  (2) what percentage of council houses sold in each London borough between May 1979 and November 1987 were sold (a) under the right-to-buy legislation and (b) as vacant possession sales;

  (3) how many applications to exercise the right-to-buy have been received by each London borough between (a) May 1979 and March 1987 and (b) for each month from November 1986 to November 1987.

  Mrs. Roe
  Information on council house sales and right to buy applications has been collected almost wholly in regular quarterly returns and the figures in the table are those reported for the period from 1 April 1979 to 30 June 1987:
  15

  1All sales April 1979 to June 1987

  Right to buy applications: October 1980 to June 1987

  Number

  of which

  Total

  of which, in quarters ending:

  RTB per cent.

  Vacant per cent.

  Number

  September

  December

  March

  June

  1986

  1986

  1987

  1987

  Harrow

  1,943

  85

  2

  3,369

  150

  117

  192

  229

  Havering

  4,921

  53

  6

  4,059

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Hillingdon

  2,693

  16

  48

  1,469

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Hounslow

  2,681

  96

  0

  6,694

  281

  260

  390

  448

  Islington

  1,108

  83

  17

  4,915

  109

  152

  183

  94

  Kensington and Chelsea

  780

  54

  39

  1,653

  101

  65

  197

  233

  Kingston

  1,550

  72

  11

  2,457

  85

  89

  189

  149

  Lambeth

  745

  93

  6

  3,866

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Lewisham

  2,826

  100

  0

  7,800

  414

  317

  687

  746

  Merton

  3,724

  53

  8

  3,348

  ֵ

  146

  92

  0

  Newham

  2,544

  90

  10

  6,577

  484

  268

  517

  685

  Redbridge

  2,868

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Richmond

  1,698

  90

  0

  3,691

  139

  160

  236

  292

  Southwark

  2,117

  76

  19

  4,318

  105

  182

  268

  518

  Sutton

  2,251

  84

  6

  4,163

  225

  182

  263

  274

  Tower Hamlets

  1,010

  78

  22

  897

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Waltham Forest

  2,524

  73

  27

  3,693

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  Wandsworth

  10,673

  40

  55

  10,693

  ֵ

  564

  954

  ֵ

  Westminster

  1,830

  66

  22

  4,209

  287

  154

  750

  ֵ

  ֵ Not available.

  1 All sales include voluntary sales to sitting tenants.

  Waste (Public Houses)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals for new regulations for imposing charges for the removal of waste in so far as these affect public houses.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Our proposals included the classification of waste from properties which cover both household and commercial interests (such as many public houses) as commercial waste, for which collection authorities would have a duty to recover a reasonable charge, unless they considered it inappropriate to do so. Collection authorities would be able to take account of the proportion of household waste in setting the level of charges.

  An announcement about the outcome of consultation on our proposals will be made shortly.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the rules relating to the need to advertise planning applications.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend receives representations from time to time advocating that a wider range of planning applications should be subject to statutory advertisement. I believe that the best approach is that the local planning authority should continue to have discretion to decide, for the great majority of applications, the extent of advertisement which is desirable in the individual case.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's latest assessment of the effect of acid rain on Britain's trees.

  Mr. Moynihan
  We have just received the results of the Forestry Commission's 1987 tree health survey and are studying its results. I will answer the hon. Member's question shortly.

  Wildlife Conservation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be making an announcement following the recommendations submitted to him by the Nature Conservancy Council under section 24 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 about the protection of United Kingdom native species.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on Tuesday 1 December at column 552–3.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to include the Glanville fritillary and the common dog whelk for protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's statutory adviser on wildlife matters, recommended further protection for the Glanville fritillary along with a number of other United Kingdom butterflies, through the sale licensing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A decision on these species has been deferred pending a review of sale licensing procedures in the light of the changes to the protected lists of plants and animals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 1 December. A further announcement will be made in due course.

  The common dog whelk was not included in the NCC's recommendations for protection under the Act. Since it is hoped that the decline of this species will be arrested following the regulations of Tri-butyl tin anti-fouling paint.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the previous financial experience of those appointed to the board of the London
  17
  Docklands Development Corporation; what investigations he made before he made the appointments; and what qualifications or expertise he considers necessary for appointment.

  Mr. Trippier
  Current board members and their relevant background are as follows:Mr. Christopher Benson, JP, FRICS (Chairman)—Vice Chairman and Managing Director MEPC plc—property development.
  Mrs. Jennifer d'Abo—Former Chairman Ryman Group—retailing.
  Mr. Alan Benjamin, OBE—Director CAP Group plc—chartered accountant, advanced technology and computing.
  Sir Andrew Derbyshire, FRIBA, FSIAD—Chairman of Robert Matthew Johnson Marshall London Ltd — architects and planning consultants.
  Sir John Garlick, KCB — Former Permanent Secretary and Accounting Officer of Departments of Environment and Transport.
  Cllr. Jonathan Mathews—Councillor and architectural tutor.
  Mr. Lewis Moss, DBE, DL—Senior partner Moss & Partners—property surveying.
  Mr. Dennis Stevenson, DBE—SRU Ltd—Ex-Chairman Aycliffe and Peterlee New Town.
  Mr. Windham Thomas—Chairman and Chief Executive, Inner City Enterprises—former general manager, Peterborough New Town.

  Inquiries were made of available information.

  The general qualifications for appointment are that members should have relevant experience to the regeneration of urban areas, and the board must include some members with special knowledge of the locality.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the dismissal of Mr. John Mills as deputy chairman of the London Docklands Development Corporation; what financial arrangements have been made following the dismissal; and if he has any plans to continue Mr. Mills' connection with the London Docklands Development Corporation in any form.

  Mr. Trippier
  Mr. Mills was removed from office on 30 November. The Secretary of State considered him unsuitable to remain a member of the LDDC board. He has not been reinstated. No financial arrangements have been made. The appointment of Mr. Mills as a special consultant to the LDDC would be a matter for the chairman and the board.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each member of the London Docklands Development Corporation; how much they are paid; and what is the time of their working week.

  Mr. Trippier
  The details requested are currently as follows:

  Remuneration £

  Days per week

  Mr. Christopher Benson (Chairman)

  27,226

  2

  Mr. Alan Benjamin

  4,535

  ½

  Sir Andrew Derbyshire

  4,535

  ½

  Mrs. Jennifer d'Abo

  4,535

  ½

  Sir John Garlick

  4,535

  ½

  Councillor Jonathan Mathews

  4,535

  ½

  Mr. Lewis Moss

  4,535

  ½

  Mr. Dennis Stevenson

  4,535

  ½

  Mr. Wyndham Thomas

  4,535

  ½

  Drinking Water
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) over what time scale he now plans to implement the European Commission drinking water directive;
  18
  (2) if he will consult the water authorities before he determines the timetable for implementing the European Commission drinking water directive;

  (3) what will be the estimated capital cost of the applications to water authorities of the maximum admissible concentration measurement in the implementation of the European Commission drinking water directive.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The drinking water directive was implemented throughout the United Kingdom in July 1985. In view of the recent change in interpretation of the directive which my right hon. Friend stated in his reply to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on 2 December at column 915, I am not able to provide costs or time scales. However, I can confirm that all public supplies are perfectly safe to drink; improvements being made to comply with the directive will now principally relate to matters such as the appearance of the water. The Department is consulting the water authorities on these matters.

  Footpaths, Bridleways and Byways
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by local highways authorities in complying with the duty to erect and maintain a signpost on all footpaths, bridleways and byways at every point where they leave a metal road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Circular 32/81 emphasised the benefits of sign posting and waymarking and encourages highway authorities to make greater progress in fulfilling their statutory obligations. But, apart from some estimates recently presented to the rights of way review committee, we have at the moment no overall information about progress made since that was issued.

  Nuclear Waste (Drigg)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the low-level nuclear waste disposal facility at Drigg to be full.

  Mr. Moynihan
  With improved methods of waste management and at planned disposal rates, Drigg is not expected to be full until about 2016. BNFL is considering further options for development of the site that could extend the lifetime still further.

  Runcorn (Housing)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision on the successor landlords of new town housing in Runcorn.

  Mrs. Roe
  I cannot add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 2 December at column 629.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet a delegation from the Runcorn Residents Federation to discuss the future of new town housing in Runcorn.

  Mrs. Roe
  My officials met representatives of the federation on 3 December. I am receiving a full report of that meeting.

  Housing Projects (Finance)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate in the Official Report, following the announcement on 30 November of extra finances for housing projects to help the homeless, the amount (a) numerically and (b) as a percentage of the total allocation that has been awarded to each of Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Sutton and Richmond.

  Mrs. Roe
  The information is as follows:

  Allocation £

  Percentage of total allocation

  Southwark

  nil

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1,150,000

  4·5

  Sutton

  nil

  —

  Richmond

  nil

  —

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how often it is intended to update the poll tax register; and what forecast he has made of the number of register changes in the course of a year.

  Mr. Howard
  The community charges registration officer for each area will compile and maintain an up-to-date register. He will update it continuously to reflect changes of address and circumstances within his area as they are notified to him. We have made no forecast of the number of changes in the course of a year.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has decided where to locate the next generation of urban development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I propose to set up "mini" urban development corporations in Bristol, Leeds and Central Manchester. I also propose to extend the area of the existing Black Country development corporation to take in parts of Wolverhampton.

  I have placed maps in the Library today showing the areas which the UDCs are likely to cover. I will be appointing consultants shortly to advise on the development potential of the areas and on the boundaries of the UDCs. Final decisions on the boundaries will be taken in the light of the results of these studies and of the views of the local interests.

  I have chosen these areas because they all have significant amounts of derelict and disused land and vacant buildings. It will be the job of each UDC to bring about the regeneration of its area by bringing sites and buildings back into productive use, to encourage the development of existing and new industry and commerce, to create an attractive environment and ensure that housing and social facilities are available to encourage people to live and work in the area. Each corporation will attract considerable private investment to its area.

  These new UDCs will be modelled on the six urban development corporations already established in England which are already clearly demonstrating the rapid progress which can be achieved with a single minded approach to urban regeneration. These new corporations, however, will be based on smaller areas than their predecessors, varying in size from 250 acres to 1,600 acres. Each UDC
  20
  could spend about£15 million over four to five years. They will also be responsible for co-ordinating expenditure in their areas on urban regeneration grant, urban development grant and derelict land grant paid to the private sector. In some areas this could be considerable.

  I am greatly encouraged by the achievements of the first two development corporations in London Docklands and Merseyside and also by the enthusiastic progress already being made by the four corporations I set up earlier this year on Tyneside, Teeside, Trafford Park and the Black Country. I have every confidence that the proposals I have announced today will lead to similar achievements in Bristol, Leeds, Manchester and Wolverhampton.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the outcome of the Environment Council on 3 December.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My noble Friend the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Water represented the United Kingdom at this meeting. I am delighted to report that the Council finally adopted the directive (known as the "Luxembourg Package") concerning exhaust emission standards for cars. We have already announced our intention to require cars to be able to run on unleaded petrol from the earliest dates permitted by the directive. We are in active discussion with other member states with the intention of harmonising, as far as possible, the dates of mandatory application of the exhaust emission standards for small and medium cars. We also intend to apply the large car standard as soon as practicable, probably in the early 1990s. The Council also adopted a directive dealing with gaseous emissions from heavy vehicles. We believe that these measures will make a significant contribution to environmental improvement.

  The Council reached a common position by a qualified majority on a directive setting limits applicable in 1989–90 for emissions of particulates from diesel cars. The latter directive, which requires the Council to decide in 1989 on a further stage of tighter controls, will now be referred to the European Parliament under the cooperation procedure. Provided the European Parliament agrees, the directive is likely to be adopted next year.

  Agreement was reached on a regulation concerning export from and import into the Community of certain dangerous chemicals. The regulation will ensure that when specified chemicals are exported from the Community the authorities in the importing countries are notified. The regulation requires member states to inform the Commission of notifications from third countries concerning the import into the Community of dangerous chemicals. This measure represents a useful and practical step forward in protecting importing countries from the risks of certain dangerous substances.

  The Council reached agreement on a proposal for limit values and quality objectives for discharges of hexachlorobenzene and hexachlorobutadiene both by-products of the chemical industry and on the list I of most dangerous substances under directive 76/464/EEC, but has to await the opinion of the European Parliament before formal adoption.

  The Council had a general discussion of the presidency's proposed guidelines for future work on the

  21
  proposed directive on large combustion plants. The Council took note of several positive elements and looked to the German presidency to take the ideas further.

  A resolution outlining future Community action to combat environmental pollution by cadium was agreed.

  There was a first exchange of views on a proposal to establish a five-year Communitywide programme of projects illustrating how actions in the environment field might also contribute to employment creation. The Council agreed to discuss this again once the Community's budgetary situation had been clarified.

  The Council also discussed the extension to inland waterways of the Community's marine pollution system as well as a proposed directive for quality objectives for chromium in water.

  270–272 Heathway, Dagenham
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a recommendation from the Property Services Agency in respect of the application by the London borough of Barking and Dagenham to purchase the leasehold interest in 270–272 Heathway, Dagenham.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: I am currently considering the application by the London borough of Barking and Dagenham to purchase 270–272 Heathway, Dagenham. I shall write to the hon. Lady shortly.

WALES

  A55 Expressway
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects work to start on realignment of the A55 expressway at Rhuallt Hill.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The Rhuallt Hill improvement was included in "Roads in Wales 1985" for a start of work in the period January 1988 to December 1990. This is still my expectation, subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and availability of resources.

  Road Infrastructure
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the next financial year to improve the road infrastructure in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Local authority capital allocations for 1988–89 were announced on 30 November. They will enable a start to be made on four major new schemes. Details of central Government expenditure will be announced in the new year. I expect it to enable us to continue with a substantial programme of new work.

  Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many groups of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin his Department helped to fund in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest available year.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Financial support to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin under S26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act is provided on an all-Wales basis. It is allocated by Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin centrally to its county 22
  committees for distribution, according to local need, to individual groups, of which there were 280 in 1979 and 720 in 1987.

  Theatre Nurses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in(a) South Glamorgan and (b) Wales have had their operation cancelled due to lack of theatre nurses; and how many have had their operations cancelled twice for this reason since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

  Industrial Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of regional assistance funds to industry allocated through his Department during the last year for which full figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  During 1986–87, a total of £123 million in regional assistance was paid to industry in Wales through my Department.

  Anglesey Coast (Sewage Sludge)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his response to proposals by the North-West water authority to dump sewage sludge off the Anglesey coast.

  Mr. Grist
  I have received no application from the North West water authority for a licence to dump sewage sludge off the Anglesey coast.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take to cut hospital waiting lists in the Rhondda, in Mid-Glamorgan and in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The prime responsibility for cutting waiting times in Wales rests with district health authorities, and I have asked each of them to submit plans for doing so. The Welsh Office is supporting these efforts in Mid Glamorgan and throughout Wales by improved funding of the NHS, by £1 million of specific funding of local initiatives and by the work of its waiting list catalyst team.

  European Development Fund
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by county, how much money Wales has received from the European regional development fund since 1 January 1985.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  European regional development fund commitments to Wales since January 1985 have amounted to £131 million. With permission, I will circulate the county breakdown in the Official Report.

  Education Reform Bill
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in support of the Education Reform Bill, as it relates to Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Many representations I have received have given support to proposals incorporated in the Education Reform Bill. Copies of the principal responses from organisations in Wales to the consultation exercise are being placed in the Library.
  23
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for how long he will receive representations relating to the Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I am taking account of representations received since the formal deadline for responses to the consultation papers, and I will continue to do so.

  Advance Factories
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what figures he has for the relative take-up rates between advance factories in development areas and those in areas without development status.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  8·5 per cent. of Welsh Development Agency and Mid-Wales Development factory floor space in the assisted areas was vacant and available for letting as at 31 October 1987, compared with 15 per cent. in the non-assisted areas. Separate figures for advance factory units alone are not readily available.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to allocate more advance factories in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I announced in the House on 2 December that the Welsh Development Agency had been given approval to make an early start on a further package of schemes comprising advance factory units with a total floor space of 100,000 sq. ft., including some in Clwyd.

  Speech therapists

  Occupational therapists

  Physiotherapists1

  1979

  1987

  1979

  1987

  1979

  1987

  Clwyd

  12·0

  23·3

  5·0

  25·3

  46·2

  71·5

  East Dyfed

  7·1

  13·3

  6·3

  9·9

  38·0

  35·2

  Pembrokeshire

  7·1

  6·0

  6·3

  5·8

  38·0

  13·6

  Gwent

  10·5

  14·9

  17·4

  46·8

  41·6

  82·1

  Gwynedd

  3·2

  10·0

  5·0

  18·7

  26·7

  48·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  9·8

  17·0

  19·7

  31·7

  62·8

  75·0

  Powys

  3·3

  3·8

  3·3

  10·6

  13·6

  24·7

  South Glamorgan

  11·0

  27·6

  54·4

  64·5

  79·4

  120·3

  West Glamorgan

  7·4

  14·2

  10·3

  27·6

  41·9

  57·0

  1 Includes remedial gymnasts.

  Forestry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the direct cost to his Department of forestry grants in Wales during the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In the period from 1 April 1987 to 1 November 1987, the Forestry Commission's grant payments to private woodland owners in Wales totalled £395, 583.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy with regard to privatising the Forestry Commission, or any part of its activities in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Government has no plans at present to privatise the Forestry Commission or any part of its activities in Wales, but looks to the Commission to continue to rationalise its estate by selling properties that are surplus to its needs or are difficult and expensive to manage.
  24
  When decisions on the aggregate funding for 1988–89 for the Welsh Development Agency and Mid Wales Development have been made, I will give priority to considering their related property development proposals.

  Job Vacancies
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many notified job vacancies there were in Wales, in South Glamorgan and in the area of the Vale of Glamorgan borough council at the latest convenient date; and if he will make a statement regarding job opportunities in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres and careers offices in Wales on 2 October 1987 were 15,640 and 342 respectively. Figures are not available at district local authority area level, but the corresponding figures for South Glamorgan are 1,888 and 67 respectively.

  Therapists
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by each Welsh health district, the numbers of(a) speech therapists, (b) occupational therapists and (c) physiotherapists employed; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on the number of whole-time equivalents as at 30 September is given in the following table:

  Further and Higher Education Trades Unions
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next proposes meeting representatives of further and higher education trades unions to discuss the proposals for reform of the further education and higher education structure in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has received the views of the further and higher education trades unions in response to the consultation paper on maintained further and higher education in Wales; and these have been fully considered.

  Roads
  Sir Raymond Gower
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of motorway and major roads within the responsibility of his Department were completed during each of the past five years.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:
  25

  Miles

  1982

  9·2

  1983

  12·5

  1984

  16·6

  1985

  16·7

  1986

  9·6

  19871

  13·1

  1 To 30 November.

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  1983

  General Medicine

  201·5

  113·4

  280·9

  125·3

  332·1

  55·4

  —

  254·1

  231·0

  General Surgery

  269·6

  188·5

  277·1

  156·9

  339·1

  70·9

  —

  259·0

  266·6

  Other non-psychiatric acute

  928·1

  439·6

  957·1

  388·1

  1,175·0

  137·7

  241·5

  1,351·0

  952·6

  Geriatric

  576·0

  393·5

  632·0

  399·6

  828·5

  139·3

  248·0

  458·1

  464·4

  Younger disabled

  —

  —

  —

  8·2

  19·0

  —

  —

  1·8

  15·6

  Maternity1

  162·3

  62·0

  170·8

  79·5

  242·0

  40·0

  40·0

  152·8

  157·8

  Mantal Illness2

  720·8

  602·8

  933·0

  —

  1,268·3

  —

  345·5

  663·3

  374·1

  Mental Handicap

  92·0

  69·0

  440·5

  356·0

  519·0

  32·0

  213·3

  427·0

  134·8

  Total

  2,950·3

  1,868·8

  3,691·4

  1,513·6

  4,723·0

  475·3

  1,088·3

  3,567·1

  2,596·9

  1986

  General Medicine

  186·4

  129·2

  277·9

  155·1

  391·8

  61·3

  —

  234·7

  261·1

  General Surgery

  259·0

  204·4

  260·6

  165·0

  311·0

  75·8

  —

  243·1

  249·8

  Other non-psychiatric acute

  891·0

  361·3

  850·2

  398·6

  1,110·6

  129·5

  220·9

  1,273·2

  937·0

  Geriatric

  580·6

  385·5

  635·2

  425·1

  858·2

  134·5

  220·3

  463·9

  461·6

  Younger disabled

  —

  —

  —

  9·0

  7·0

  —

  —

  5·6

  11·9

  Maternity1

  134·2

  48·0

  149·8

  82·9

  232·0

  39·9

  37·0

  155·5

  149·0

  Mental Illness2

  631·0

  556·8

  930·4

  61·2

  1,131·0

  —

  328·0

  674·3

  417·8

  Mental Handicap

  86·0

  73·0

  404·7

  333·0

  456·8

  32·0

  208·2

  410·0

  85·9

  Total

  2,769·1

  1,758·2

  3,508·8

  1,629·9

  4,498·4

  473·0

  1,014·4

  3,460·3

  2,574·1

  1 Includes Obstetrics and General Practitioner Maternity.

  2 Includes Mental Illness, Mentall Illness Children, Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychogeriatric and Elderly Mentally Infirm.

  NHS (Agency Staff)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give, for each year since 1983 and for the latest available financial year, for each district health authority, regional health authority and special health authority the

  Revenue expenditure on non-NHS staff (agency etc.)

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  WHCSA

  All-Wales

  Actual expenditure£'000

  1983–84

  57·6

  —

  112·0

  44·5

  3·8

  1·7

  (1·5)

  14·1

  —

  7·9

  240·1

  1984–85

  100·3

  —

  26·0

  58·8

  35·3

  35·9

  15·0

  22·3

  3·5

  7·6

  304·7

  1985–86

  142·2

  9·4

  13·5

  62·9

  14·9

  12·2

  10·1

  49·4

  33·5

  5·7

  353·9

  1986–87

  228·8

  88·8

  17·8

  172·5

  12·7

  198·6

  14·5

  49·4

  95·1

  3·2

  881·4

  Expenditure at constant prices£'000s1

  1983–84

  65·6

  —

  127·8

  50·8

  4·3

  1·9

  (1·7)

  16·0

  —

  9·0

  273·7

  1984–85

  109·5

  —

  28·4

  64·2

  38·6

  39·2

  16·4

  24·4

  3·8

  8·3

  332·8

  1985–86

  146·5

  9·6

  13·9

  64·8

  15·3

  12·7

  10·4

  50·9

  34·5

  5·9

  364·5

  1986–87

  228·8

  88·8

  17·8

  172·5

  12·7

  198·6

  14·5

  49·4

  95·1

  3·2

  881·34

  Expenditure as a percentage of total revenue expenditure2

  1983–84

  0·09

  —

  0·13

  0·11

  —

  0·01

  —

  0·01

  —

  0·19

  0·04

  1984–85

  0·14

  —

  0·03

  0·13

  0·03

  0·24

  0·07

  0·02

  0·01

  0·17

  0·05

  1985–86

  0·19

  0·02

  0·01

  0·13

  0·01

  0·08

  0·05

  0·04

  0·04

  0·12

  0·06

  1986–87

  0·28

  0·17

  0·02

  0·34

  0·01

  1·13

  0·06

  0·04

  0·11

  0·06

  0·13

  1 Actual expenditure expressed at constant prices by revaluation to 1986–87 levels by use of the GDP deflator.

  2 Rounded to two decimal places.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for 1983 and for the latest year available the total number of hospital beds for each of the following services, broken down by district health authorities(a) general medical, (b) general surgical, (c) non-psychiatric acute, (d) geriatric, (e) maternity, (f) mental illness, (g) mentally handicapped and (h) total.

  Mr. Grist
  Information for the average daily available number of beds, is given in the table:

  total expenditure on agency staff, expressed at current prices, constant prices and as a percentage of health authority's budget.

  Mr. Grist
  The following tables set out the information requested.
  27

  Expenditure on agency staff charged to capital—WHCSA only1 Actual expenditure

  £'000

  1983–84

  65·2

  1984–85

  66·1

  1985–86

  78·8

  1986–87

  108·0

  Expenditure at constant prices2

  £'000

  1983–84

  74·3

  1984–85

  72·2

  1985–86

  81·2

  1986–87

  108·0

  Expenditure as a percentage of total capital expenditure3

  Per cent.

  1983–84

  0·13

  1984–85

  0·13

  1985–86

  0·15

  1986–87

  0·18

  Medical and Dental

  Nursing and Midwifery

  Professional2 and Technical

  Administrative and Clerical

  Ancillary

  Total non-medical Staff

  Number1

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Clwyd

  329

  287

  4,116

  3,671

  626

  535

  890

  779

  1,527

  1,221

  7,577

  6,614

  East Dyfed

  240

  197

  2,538

  2,170

  396

  333

  568

  517

  1,010

  795

  4,821

  4,115

  Gwent

  367

  345

  5,221

  4,354

  773

  684

  1,141

  947

  2,183

  1,562

  9,885

  8,103

  Gwynedd

  228

  165

  2,277

  2,031

  439

  367

  618

  560

  1,079

  812

  4,761

  4,116

  Mid Glamorgan

  459

  392

  5,952

  5,160

  760

  686

  1,200

  1,067

  2,680

  1,978

  11,290

  9,578

  Pembrokeshire

  84

  70

  808

  676

  127

  115

  192

  166

  310

  204

  1,522

  1,246

  Powys

  99

  32

  1,380

  1,104

  157

  117

  187

  171

  515

  372

  2,444

  1,959

  South Glamorgan

  829

  674

  5,395

  4,596

  1,459

  1,341

  1,645

  1,424

  2,427

  1,859

  11,520

  9,813

  West Glamorgan

  341

  308

  3,989

  3,425

  664

  590

  895

  798

  1,899

  1,395

  7,878

  6,636

  1 Medical and dental staff who work in more than one authority are included in the numbers of staff for each of those authorities.

  2 Excluding works staff.

  Nurses
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the annual rate of loss of nurses from National Health Service hospitals in Wales; in which categories of nurses have these occurred; and how this rate of loss compares with five years and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Grist
  A special study was carried out in 1986 to obtain the estimated nurse wastage rates given below. Information in not available for detailed categories of nurses or for earlier years.

  Leavers from the NHS in Wales1

  Percent

  Enrolled Nurses

  8·3

  Registered Nurses

  9·4

  1 Excluding South Glamorgan.

  I am pleased to say that there are now 5,900 more nurses in NHS hospitals than there were in 1978.

  Operations
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations in Welsh hospitals were
  28

  1 Figures relate to the Welsh Health Common Services Agency only—information is not available centrally on any agency staff employed by the works departments of District Health Authorities in Wales.

  2 Actual expenditure expressed at constant prices by revaluation to 1986–87 levels by use of the GDP deflator.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each district health authority and special health authority for 1986 the total number of staff expressed as the total number of staff and as whole-time equivalents in the following categories:(a) medical and dental, (b) nursing and midwifery, (c) professional and technical, (d) administrative and clerical, (e) ancillary and (f) total non-medical staff.

  Mr. Grist
  The requested information, which relates to 30 September 1986, is given in the following table:

  cancelled in the most recently available 12-month period for which information is available; and in which medical categories.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is not available centrally.

  Education Policy (Official's Address)
  Mr Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the address on education policy in Wales, given to the St. David's Forum on the weekend of 28–29 November by an official of his Department, represents official Government policy.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The official said nothing which departs from Government policy.

  St. David's Forum
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department is officially represented on the St. David's Forum.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The St. David's Forum is not a representative body.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State of Wales when, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 758, he will publish his statement on his response to the consultation exercise on the national curriculum.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I am today publishing a policy statement, "The National Curriculum in Wales", which sets out my policy on the implementation of the national curriculumin schools in Wales. The statement is intended to inform debate on the Education Reform Bill, now before the House, and to provide greater detail for teachers, parents and others about the Government's proposals as they affect Wales.

  Copies of the statement have been placed in the Library.

  District Health Authorities (Patient Treatment)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each district health authority(a) the total numbers of people waiting for treatment in September 1982, (b) the total numbers of people waiting for treatment in March 1987 and (c) the percentage change represented by (b) over (a), ordering the list so that a district with the biggest increase is first and that the largest decrease is last.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The information is given in the following table:

  Health authority

  1Waiting list

  2Waiting list

  Percentage change

  Waiting for in-patient admission

  Pembrokeshire

  1,828

  2,510

  + 37·3

  West Glamorgan

  4,294

  5,521

  + 28·6

  South Glamorgan

  6,184

  7,876

  + 27·4

  East Dyfed

  1,965

  2,335

  + 18·8

  Clwyd

  4,429

  4,959

  +12·0

  Gwynedd

  1,802

  1,971

  +9·4

  Gwent

  7,542

  7,705

  + 2·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  10,483

  8,483

  -19·1

  Powys

  100

  36

  -64·0

  Wailing for first out-patient consultation

  Powys

  279

  640

  +129·4

  Clwyd

  5,967

  8,352

  +40·0

  Gwent

  8,475

  11,749

  + 38·6

  Pembrokeshire

  1,724

  2,291

  +32·9

  Gwynedd

  3,257

  4,309

  +32·3

  East Dyfed

  4,110

  5,189

  +26·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  15,797

  16,911

  +7·1

  West Glamorgan

  14,631

  14,142

  -3·3

  South Glamorgan

  15,490

  14,381

  -7·2

  1 As at 30 September 1982.

  2 As at 31 March 1987.

  I am, however, pleased to say that the number of cases treated by the NHS in Wales has increased significantly over the same period as the following tables shows.

  In-patient cases

  1982

  1986

  Percentage change

  Clwyd

  51,512

  57,519

  +11·7

  East Dyfed

  28,110

  31,405

  +11·7

  Gwent

  55,099

  65,991

  +19·8

  Gwynedd

  31,227

  34,867

  +11·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  64,489

  80,119

  +24·2

  Pembrokeshire

  11,513

  13,186

  +14·5

  Powys

  5,847

  6,842

  +17·0

  South Glamorgan

  69,852

  81,891

  +17·2

  30

  In-patient cases

  1982

  1986

  Percentage change

  West Glamorgan

  52,583

  62,050

  +18·0

  Wales

  370,232

  433,870

  +17·2

  New Out-Patient attendances

  Clwyd

  63,908

  70,506

  +10·3

  East Dyfed

  35,137

  40,368

  +14·9

  Gwent

  62,254

  75,651

  +21·5

  Gwynedd

  34,483

  37,556

  +8·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  74,440

  80,587

  +8·3

  Pembrokeshire

  12,614

  14,217

  +12·7

  Powys

  7,815

  7,492

  -4·1

  South Glamorgan

  100,020

  109,412

  +9·4

  West Glamorgan

  57,615

  68,971

  +19·7

  Wales

  448,286

  504,760

  +12·6

EMPLOYMENT

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent his Department uses recycled paper or provides paper for recycling.

  Mr. Cope
  The majority of printed material used by the Department is printed on general purpose paper, which may include an element of recycled waste.

  Supplies of British recycled paper suitable for general stationery purposes are limited and prices are uncompetitive when compared with a suitable general purpose woodfree printing paper. Currently, prices are approximately 100 per cent. more expensive.

  Waste paper acceptable for recycling purposes is collected by an authorised contractor for reprocessing.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of unemployed people in the Nottingham travel-to-work area at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the Nottingham travel-to-work area was 38,048.

  Tourism
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he is doing to stimulate rural tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  The English tourist board is encouraging the provision and improvement of rural tourist attractions and accommodation through its section 4 scheme of financial assistance. Further schemes of support for rural enterprise, including tourism, have also been introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Development Commission. The ETB is consulting these and other interested organisations on the preparation of a rural tourism strategy for England. This is intended to provide a framework to assist effective co-operation between the main public agencies concerned with rural tourism and to stimulate joint tourism initiatives.

  New Workers Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why he is withdrawing the new workers scheme from the end of January 1988.
  31
  Mr. Lee
  Resources devoted to the new workers scheme, which does not specifically help the long-term unemployed, can be better used on other programmes provided for this priority group.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were unemployed in May 1979; and what is the number currently unemployed.

  Mr. Lee
  The following information is in the Library. On 8 October 1987, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, excluding school leavers and adjusted for seasonality was 2,714,900. The corresponding figure for May 1979 was 1,152,000.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has on the effect of employment rights for part-time workers on the economic conditions for the creation of part-time jobs.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Evidence from a number of surveys indicates that some employers are reluctant to recruit additional staff because of the employment protection legislation. Although the proportions are small, they represent a significant number of employers and missed employment opportunities.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of part-time workers who currently qualify for employment rights but who would be excluded from these if the proposals in the White Paper "Building Businesses … Not Barriers" are implemented; and how many of these would be women.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not our intention to take away employment protection rights from those who currently qualify for them. Estimates of the numbers excluded in the future depend on factors such as the state of the labour market at the time. However, the latest figures available indicate that in March 1986, 313,300 people were in jobs in the categories which would be affected by the proposal to increase the part-time hours thresholds in employment protection legislation. Of these some 93 per cent. were jobs occupied by women.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now support the adoption of the European Economic Community directive on voluntary part-time work, in respect of non-discrimination between part-time and full-time employees.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. This directive would limit the flexibility which is a major attraction of part-time work for both employers and employees. It would increase employers' costs and have an adverse effect on employment.

  Restart Scheme
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been interviewed in Avon for the restart scheme in 1987.

  Mr. Lee
  Up until the end of September, 19,593 people have been interviewed in Avon under the restart programme in 1987.

  Farm Accidents
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of fatal and other accidents in farming in each category of adults and children for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Nichols
  The number of fatal and other accidents in farming in each category of adults and children for each year since 1985 is given in the table:

  1985

  First quarter 1986

  11986–87

  Fatal

  Adults: Employees

  22

  3

  21

  Self-Employed

  40

  4

  20

  Others

  6

  1

  6

  68

  8

  47

  Children: Employees

  1

  0

  1

  Others

  9

  0

  9

  Total

  10

  0

  10

  Major

  Adults: Employee

  216

  46

  382

  Self-Employed

  32

  7

  67

  Others

  20

  1

  57

  Total

  268

  54

  506

  Children: Employees

  2

  0

  3

  Others

  23

  0

  33

  Total

  25

  0

  36

  1 Fiscal Year: Provisional.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the effect on the retail prices index of the average 8·5 per cent. electricity price increase assumed by Her Majesty's Government for 1988–89; and what is his estimate of the effect on the cost of living of low-income households, in particular.

  Mr. Lee
  An average increase of 8·5 per cent. in the price of electricity would currently increase the Retail Price Idex by about 0·25 per cent.

  I have no estimate of the effect on the cost of living for low-income households.

  YTS
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the number and (b) the percentage of YTS trainees, in each London borough, for each year since the YTS began, who have obtained full-time jobs during or at the end of this period on that scheme.

  Mr. Cope
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Manpower Services Commission has conducted regular follow-up surveys of all YTS leavers since April 1985. The table shows the number and
  33
  percentage of those who responded to the surveys and were in full-time jobs at the time of the surveys, for each London local authority district:

  Leavers from YTS Schemes during the periods:

  April 1985-March 1986

  April 1986-June 1987

  Number of leavers in full-time jobs

  Percentage of leavers in full-time jobs

  Number of leavers in full-time jobs

  Percentage of leavers in full-time jobs

  Harrow

  183

  68

  205

  76

  Brent

  188

  47

  107

  48

  Enfield

  209

  65

  250

  64

  Barnet

  140

  66

  75

  77

  Harringey

  120

  53

  70

  43

  Camden

  279

  66

  93

  59

  Westminster

  348

  72

  274

  80

  Lambeth

  271

  58

  267

  58

  Southwark

  185

  46

  260

  51

  Lewisham

  110

  53

  207

  64

  Greenwich

  167

  50

  197

  58

  Bromley

  361

  67

  445

  70

  Bexley

  304

  59

  415

  68

  Croydon

  317

  65

  363

  71

  City of London

  303

  77

  197

  77

  Islington

  123

  49

  310

  57

  Hackney

  99

  56

  72

  40

  Tower Hamlets

  124

  49

  181

  48

  Newham

  163

  57

  199

  56

  Barking

  166

  50

  251

  67

  Havering

  279

  63

  386

  68

  Redbridge

  367

  66

  418

  77

  Waltham Forest

  190

  57

  219

  60

  Kensington and Chelsea

  50

  53

  40

  63

  Hammersmith

  81

  58

  95

  57

  Hillingdon

  135

  59

  246

  63

  Ealing

  208

  65

  174

  63

  Hounslow

  268

  68

  340

  80

  Richmond upon Thames

  99

  79

  58

  81

  Kingston upon Thames

  106

  75

  150

  75

  Sutton

  151

  73

  236

  72

  Merton

  88

  55

  168

  69

  Wandsworth

  126

  44

  83

  57

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  British Caledonian (Proposed SAS Purchase)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to refer any proposed purchase of shares by SAS in British Caledonian to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State announced on 3 December that he had decided not to refer this proposal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. His decision was in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Electronic Rentals (Granada Television Takeover)
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will refer the proposed takeover by Granada Television of Electronic Rentals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed ac quisition of Electronic Rentals Group plc by Granada plc is being considered by the Director General of Fair Trading. My right hon. and 34
  noble Friend will make his decision whether to refer the proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the Director General's advice.

  Customs Procedures
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes to customs procedures will be introduced from January 1988; and what their effect will be on figures of imports and exports.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The two main elements of the changes are the introduction of the "single administrative document" for freight declaration and an extensively revised tariff and statistical classification based on a new "harmonised system" of commodity classification. The SAD is being introduced at the same time in all European community countries and the HS is expected to be adopted worldwide by most major trading countries. The SAD will reduce the administrative burden on traders; in the United Kingdom alone it will replace 27 existing forms. It is an important step in the creation of a single Community market. The HS is a more up-to-date and useful classification of goods than the present one. It is more detailed and will improve international comparisons of visible trade statistics.

  In the first few months of 1988, some traders may be relatively unfamiliar with the new procedures and system

  35
  of classification. The visible trade statistics, which are derived from freight declaration documents, may suffer a temporary drop in quality — especially at the more detailed commodity levels. Users of visible trade statistics will, where possible, be advised if there are major effects on the figures.

  However, I am sure that all British exporters and their agents, and importers, will co-operate in ensuring a smooth introduction of these quite radical changes—the primary purpose of which is to facilitate trade. The Department of Trade and Industry and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have been involved in an extensive awareness and training programme with trade associations and organisations — and will continue to help traders with questions about the impact of these changes.

  An article in British Business of 27 November provides more details of the changes and their likely effects. A copy is available in the Library.

  Mergers and Takeovers
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will make a statement on the proposals submitted by the Commission of the Common Market on a requirement that Commission approval be required for mergers and takeovers of large United Kingdom companies; and what was the outcome of the meeting on 30 November when this proposal was discussed;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 30 November in relation to the preparation of a directive to give the Commission powers on the control of mergers;

  (3) why he concurred with the Commission proposal on the preparation of the directive designed to give the Commission powers over mergers and takeovers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed EC regulation on the control of concentrations (the "merger control" regulation) was discussed at the Internal Market Council on 30 November, where I represented the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom reserved its position on the principle of such a regulation, indicating that it had substantial difficulties with the proposal.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under what powers the European Economic Community Commission is seeking to initiate a court action on their jurisdiction over mergers and takeovers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The EC Commission has indicated that it may seek to apply articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome to mergers.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if his Department is treating the proposed directive on mergers as one which falls to be considered by majority vote at the EEC Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The proposed EC regulation on the control of concentrations (draft merger control regulation) is based on articles 87 and 235 of the treaty of Rome. Its adoption would therefore require unanimous agreement of the Council of Ministers.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what information he has as to what percentage of the original six members of the European Economic Community's imports of manufactured goods came from the United Kingdom in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what was the comparable percentage in 1972;

  (2) what percentage of the United Kingdom's imports of manufactured goods came from the original six members of the European Economic Community in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what was the comparable percentage in 1972.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The information is in the table.

  Share of United Kingdom imports from EC(6)

  Share of EC(6) imports from United Kingdom

  per cent.

  per cent.

  1972

  34

  6·1

  1986

  49

  7·1

  12 months to October 1987

  48

  ֵ

  ֵ Not available. The share in the 12 months ending March 1987 is estimated to be 7·2 per cent.

  Sources: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics, OECD.

  Accountancy Firms (EC Directive)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the draft directive relating to outside investment in accountancy firms; when the directive will be considered by the Council of Ministers; and if his Department is treating this proposal as one which falls to be considered by majority vote under the Single European Act.

  Mr. Maude
  The eighth company law directive, which has been adopted, sets conditions for shareholdings in incorporated firms of auditors: I shall make an announcement later this week of the Government's proposals for implementing this directive.

  Girobank
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of(a) the turnover of Girobank and (b) the profits of Girobank is derived from (i) social security payments and (ii) other Government transactions; and if he will express the figures in cash terms.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested is commercially confidential to Girobank, as with any other bank.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to respond to the Countryside Commission for Scotland's report "Forestry in Scotland"; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Countryside Commission for Scotland has not sought a formal, public response from the Government at this stage. Discussions are, however, continuing at official level.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of Scottish gross domestic product in the calendar year 1986 was represented by identifiable public expenditure in Scotland in the financial year 1986–87.

  Mr. Lang
  Identifiable public expenditure in Scotland in the financial year 1986–87 was 48 per cent of the estimated Scottish gross domestic product at factor cost in the calendar year 1986.

  Devolution
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations, pursuant to his statement of 23 November,Official Report, column 45, he has received from Scottish industry and commerce about the implications of a devolved assembly with tax-raising powers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I receive frequent representations from industry and commerce expressing concern on this score.

  Specialty

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  1983

  General medicine

  4,912

  357

  266

  63

  87

  175

  200

  431

  1,229

  216

  408

  1,014

  —

  18

  421

  26

  General surgery

  3,789

  361

  248

  67

  124

  170

  151

  296

  780

  221

  388

  519

  41

  44

  343

  36

  Other non-psychiatric acute specialties1

  12,208

  681

  617

  203

  246

  568

  388

  1,200

  3,219

  421

  1,104

  2,245

  18

  —

  1,277

  22

  Geriatric

  10,401

  982

  683

  235

  322

  600

  565

  978

  2,125

  388

  966

  1,429

  51

  87

  885

  105

  Maternity

  2,664

  244

  213

  32

  73

  145

  149

  256

  522

  116

  252

  402

  12

  11

  220

  17

  Mental illness

  16,466

  1,448

  775

  296

  664

  877

  868

  1,617

  3,832

  686

  1,722

  2,096

  —

  —

  1,582

  2

  Mental handicap

  6,479

  327

  116

  32

  24

  478

  1,125

  707

  1,454

  241

  613

  773

  —

  —

  588

  —

  Young Chronic Sick

  376

  39

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  193

  1

  38

  46

  9

  —

  36

  —

  Total

  57,295

  4,438

  2,918

  928

  1,540

  3,026

  3,446

  5,486

  13,355

  2,290

  5,491

  8,522

  131

  160

  5,354

  210

  1984

  General medicine

  4,869

  354

  271

  66

  82

  174

  185

  444

  1,210

  205

  412

  1,000

  —

  18

  421

  27

  General surgery

  3,797

  360

  250

  69

  124

  182

  146

  310

  749

  226

  386

  534

  44

  45

  337

  35

  Other non-psychiatric acute specialties1

  12,068

  679

  694

  198

  252

  567

  394

  1,198

  3,163

  379

  1,068

  2,176

  15

  —

  1,263

  22

  Geriatric

  10,700

  984

  704

  240

  326

  647

  601

  1,026

  2,206

  414

  971

  1,450

  52

  87

  886

  105

  Maternity

  2,633

  246

  203

  33

  69

  145

  146

  257

  521

  117

  237

  401

  12

  11

  219

  17

  Mental illness

  16,500

  1,474

  818

  292

  662

  959

  868

  1,629

  3,793

  692

  1,680

  2,091

  —

  —

  1,540

  2

  Mental handicap

  6,255

  310

  119

  33

  27

  475

  1,096

  711

  1,331

  241

  613

  753

  —

  —

  547

  —

  Young Chronic Sick

  394

  38

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  20

  193

  3

  38

  46

  9

  —

  36

  —

  Total

  57,216

  4,445

  3,059

  931

  1,542

  3,161

  3,436

  5,595

  13,166

  2,277

  5,404

  8,451

  132

  161

  5,248

  208

  1985

  General medicine

  4,897

  360

  272

  70

  88

  174

  182

  454

  1,221

  201

  431

  993

  —

  18

  404

  27

  General surgery

  3,715

  351

  239

  69

  124

  170

  141

  313

  763

  212

  367

  531

  42

  43

  316

  35

  Other non-psychiatric acute specialties1

  11,761

  670

  660

  195

  262

  541

  399

  1,195

  3,085

  361

  968

  2,122

  15

  —

  1,266

  23

  Geriatric

  10,690

  981

  708

  241

  326

  673

  613

  1,010

  2,193

  402

  976

  1,444

  52

  84

  880

  108

  Maternity

  2,563

  241

  191

  30

  70

  135

  139

  255

  523

  115

  211

  393

  12

  11

  221

  17

  Mental illness

  16,307

  1,457

  810

  289

  633

  972

  868

  1,599

  3,718

  684

  1,685

  2,087

  —

  —

  1,503

  1

  Mental handicap

  6,016

  316

  121

  33

  29

  475

  1,066

  713

  1,211

  238

  613

  664

  —

  —

  536

  —

  Young Chronic Sick

  386

  39

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  20

  193

  5

  30

  46

  9

  —

  32

  —

  Total

  56,334

  4,415

  3,001

  927

  1,531

  3,152

  3,407

  5,558

  12,907

  2,220

  5,283

  8,279

  129

  157

  5,158

  211

  1986

  General medicine

  4,900

  373

  271

  77

  84

  174

  176

  454

  1,248

  191

  424

  966

  —

  22

  413

  27

  General surgery

  3,647

  340

  229

  72

  125

  181

  147

  308

  766

  199

  360

  500

  43

  40

  301

  35

  Other non-psychiatric acute specialties1

  11,523

  672

  637

  195

  268

  559

  403

  1,194

  2,932

  353

  966

  2,059

  15

  —

  1,249

  23

  Geriatric

  10,889

  977

  716

  241

  329

  701

  631

  1,039

  2,229

  405

  1,008

  1,486

  52

  87

  879

  110

  Maternity

  2,436

  239

  190

  32

  65

  135

  131

  252

  505

  107

  203

  318

  12

  11

  218

  17

  Mental illness

  16,029

  1,424

  809

  288

  598

  1,026

  862

  1,607

  3,609

  655

  1,576

  2,077

  —

  —

  1,497

  1

  Mental handicap

  5,948

  303

  122

  33

  38

  475

  1,066

  702

  1,210

  233

  592

  637

  —

  —

  536

  —

  Young Chronic Sick

  385

  39

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  20

  193

  6

  34

  46

  9

  —

  27

  —

  Total

  55,757

  4,367

  2,974

  939

  1,507

  3,262

  3,417

  5,575

  12,691

  2,149

  5,164

  8,089

  131

  160

  5,120

  212

  1987

  General medicine

  4,917

  386

  269

  80

  85

  173

  174

  449

  1,255

  190

  426

  969

  —

  22

  412

  27

  General surgery

  3,613

  335

  226

  74

  122

  184

  149

  301

  767

  196

  361

  492

  42

  38

  293

  35

  Other non-psychiatric acute specialties1

  11,365

  621

  634

  194

  266

  562

  403

  1,189

  2,882

  356

  950

  2,027

  17

  —

  1,242

  23

  38
  Any higher tax burden in Scotland, or even the threat of it, would inevitably have an adverse effect on Scottish industry and commerce and, consequently, on employment. These fears were very much in evidence in the responses to the recent survey of industry and commerce conducted by the Scottish Conservative party.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1983 the total number of hospital beds for each of the following services broken down by health board:(a) general medical (b) general surgical, (c) non-psychiatric acute, (d) geriatric, (e) maternity, (f) mental illness, (g) mentally handicapped and (h) total.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The average available staffed beds in the specialty groupings requested in all NHS hospitals in each health board are set out in the table. Data relate to the year ending 30 September in each case except for 1987 which is the year ending 31 March.
  39

  Specialty

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Geriatric

  10,961

  973

  709

  241

  329

  703

  634

  1,040

  2,229

  425

  1,032

  1,512

  52

  87

  881

  113

  Maternity

  2,388

  238

  187

  33

  65

  134

  126

  245

  494

  106

  200

  304

  11

  11

  218

  17

  Mental illness

  15,820

  1,430

  805

  288

  584

  1,046

  857

  1,570

  3,549

  655

  1,469

  2,066

  —

  —

  1,501

  1

  Mental handicap

  5,888

  290

  120

  34

  42

  475

  1,066

  699

  1,191

  233

  571

  631

  —

  —

  536

  —

  Young Chronic Sick

  385

  39

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  20

  193

  5

  34

  46

  9

  —

  27

  —

  Total

  55,338

  4,312

  2,951

  944

  1,493

  3,290

  3,410

  5,513

  12,559

  2,165

  5,042

  8,047

  131

  158

  5,109

  216

  1 Other acute specialties, including supra-area specialites and special categories.

  Note: Components may not sum exactly to totals due to rounding.

  NHS (Agency Staff)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will give, for each year since 1983 and for each health

  Expenditure by Health Boards on Agency etc.1 Staff

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Health Boards

  As in accounts

  As converted to 1986–87 prices2

  As proportion of gross recurrent expenditure3

  As in accounts

  As converted to 1986–87 prices2

  As proportion of gross recurrent expenditure3

  As in accounts

  As converted to 1986–87 prices2

  As proportion of gross recurrent expenditure3

  As in accounts

  As proportion of gross recurrent expenditure3

  £'000

  £'000

  per cent.

  £'000

  £'000

  per cent.

  £'000

  £'000

  per cent.

  £'000

  per cent.

  Argyll and Clyde

  141

  161

  0·16

  185

  202

  0·20

  1

  1

  —

  23

  0·20

  Ayr and Arran

  9

  10

  0·01

  —

  —

  —

  12

  12

  0·02

  10

  0·01

  Borders

  224

  255

  1·26

  265

  289

  1·39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  2,035

  2,321

  1·90

  2,182

  2,383

  1·90

  2,583

  2,661

  2·10

  3,151

  2·39

  Greater Glasgow

  555

  633

  -0·17

  666

  727

  0·19

  1,557

  1,604

  0·42

  1,994

  0·52

  Highland

  109

  124

  0·24

  116

  127

  0·24

  122

  126

  0·24

  31

  0·05

  Lanarkshire

  264

  301

  0·27

  195

  213

  0·18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  4,657

  5,311

  2·36

  5,830

  6,368

  2·79

  3,706

  3,818

  1·68

  6,347

  2·65

  Orkney

  21

  24

  0·66

  27

  29

  0·78

  25

  26

  0·69

  37

  0·93

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  18

  20

  0·41

  40

  41

  0·86

  51

  1·03

  Tayside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  8,015

  9,140

  0·66

  9,484

  10,358

  0·73

  8,046

  8,289

  0·58

  11,644

  0·79

  1 Includes staff supplied by private sector agencies, other casual staff not on NHS payrolls. University staff in teaching hospitals and payments to non NHS hospitals with contractual arrangements with health boards.

  2 Using Gross Domestic Product Deflator.

  3 Minimal percentage figures (ie too small to register as 0·01 per cent. have not been shown.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each year since 1983 and for each health board the total number of staff as whole-time equivalents in the following categories:(a) medical and dental, (b) nursing and midwifery, (c) professional and technical, (d) administrative and clerical, (e) ancillary and (f) total non-medical staff.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is published each year in "Scottish Health Statistics", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has had discussions with the National Farmers Union (Scotland) on the introduction of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A meeting took place on 16 March between the then Scottish Office Minister for local government and the environment and the National Farmers Union of Scotland about the effect of the community charge proposals on agriculture.
  40
  board, the total expenditure on agency staff, expressed at current prices, constant prices and as a percentage of each health authority's budget.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information available is contained in the table:

  Mental Health
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of a general practitioner's surgery time is devoted to matters attributable to mental health issues.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  Glue Ear
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the waiting time for an operation for children with glue ear in the Greater Glasgow health board area has risen from 45 days in 1985 to eight or ten months now.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest information on waiting times held centrally relates to 1985. I invite the hon. Member to ask the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board whether he can provide more recent information and the underlying reasons for the current position.

  Social Work Services Group
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the role of his Department's social work services group; and if he has any plans to review its effectiveness;
  41
  (2) what innovative proposals, policy guidelines or ideas for dealing with delinquency have been published by the social work services group;

  (3) what innovative proposals, policy guidelines or ideas for dealing with alcohol abuse have been published by the social work services group;

  (4) what innovative proposals, policy guidelines or ideas for dealing with drug problems have been published by the social work services group;

  (5) what has been the published contribution of the social work services group to policy development for the mentally handicapped;

  (6) what has been the published contribution of the social work services group to policy development of community services for the mentally ill;

  (7) what has been the published contribution of the social work services group to the development of policy initiatives for 16 to 21-year-old offenders;

  (8) what has been the published contribution of the social work services group to the development of policy intiatives for the care of the elderly in the community.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The main function of the group is to advise and support Ministers in the exercise of the responsibilities laid upon my right hon. and learned Friend by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and related legislation and to implement policy decisions taken by Ministers. Some adjustments were made to the internal organisation of the group following an efficiency review undertaken in 1985. Copies of the report on the review were placed in the library. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans meantime to undertake a further review.

  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible on the question of publications.

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987
  Mr. Millan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give statistics, by direct court area, of the use made to date by procurators fiscal of the powers granted to them in section 56 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No use has been made by procurators fiscal of the powers contained in section 56 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. This section will not be brought into force until 1 January 1988.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Lanarkshire People newspaper is not in the list of those newspapers in which his Department intends to advertise on the community charge.

  Mr. Lang
  The campaign did not cover every Scottish newspaper since there are overlaps in circulation areas. The selection of newspapers for this advertisement was designed to ensure effective coverage in Lanarkshire, as elsewhere, within reasonable cost and I believe that that objective has been achieved.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals to bring forward legislation in the present Session to consolidate the legislation relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland.
  42
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Progress is being made with the consolidation, but it may not be possible to introduce legislation in the present Session.

  Latin
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of implementing standard grade Latin in schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date some £2,500 has been spent by central Government on the preparation and distribution of curricular material to support standard grade Latin. The allocation of resources within schools is a matter for education authorities.

  Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which schools are taking part in the pilot standard grade examinations of 1986 and the limited trials of the investigative element of 1987 had begun Latin from scratch at the beginning of school year three.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Of the 10 schools which participated in the trial examination in standard grade Latin in 1986, none started Latin in S3 although two schools had courses of only one period a week in S2. Fifteen schools participated in 1987. One candidate took the optional investigative element. That candidate began Latin prior to S3.

  Common Illnesses (Hospital Admissions)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which are the 10 most common illnesses for which patients are admitted to National Health Service hospitals for more than seven days in(a) Scotland and (b) Glasgow.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 November 1987]: The information, based on the three digit codes from the international classification of diseases, ninth revision, for all acute hospitals in Scotland and in Greater Glasgow health board for 1985, the latest available year, is set out in the Table. Information is not available on a constituency basis.

  (a) Scotland

  1. Acute myocardial infarction.

  2. Acute but ill-defined cerebrovascular disease.

  3. Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung.

  4. Fracture of neck of femur.

  5. Heart failure.

  6. Cataract.

  7. Osteoarthrosis and allied disorder.

  8. Other forms of chronic ischaemic heart disease.

  9. Chronic airways obstruction, not elsewhere classified.

  10. Other symptoms involving abdomen and pelvis.

  (b) Greater Glasgow

  1. Acute myocardial infarction.

  2. Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung.

  3. Cataract.

  4. Other forms of chronic ischaemic heart disease.

  5. Fracture of neck of femur.

  6. Acute but ill-defined cerebrovascular disease.

  7. Rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory polyarthropathies.

  8. Heart failure.

  9. Other symptoms involving abdomen and pelvis.

  10. Chronic airways obstruction, not elsewhere classified.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which are the 10 most common illnesses for which patients
  43
  are admitted for more than seven days into National Health Service hospitals in (a) Scotland, (b) the Clydesdale area and (c) Lanark.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 November 1987]: The information, based on the three digit codes from the international classification of diseases, ninth revision, for all acute hospitals in Scotland and in Lanarkshire health board for 1985, the latest available year, is set out in the table. Information is not available on a constituency basis.

  (a) Scotland

  1. Acute myocardial infarction

  2. Acute but ill-defined cerebrovascular disease

  3. Malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus and lung

  4. Fracture of neck of femur

  5. Heart failure

  6. Cataract

  7. Osteoarthrosis and allied disorders

  8. Other forms of chronic ischaemic heart disease

  9. Chronic airways obstruction, not classified elsewhere

  10. Other symptoms involving abdomen and pelvis

  (b) Lanarkshire

  1. Acute myocardial infarction

  £ million

  Capital

  Percentage of total

  Recurrent

  Percentage of total

  Total

  1979–80

  109·9

  6·3

  1,642·2

  93·7

  1,752·1

  1980–81

  93·6

  5·0

  1,774·6

  95·0

  1,868·2

  1981–82

  121·6

  6·3

  1,820·9

  93·7

  1,942·5

  1982–83

  123·8

  6·3

  1,841·7

  93·7

  1,965·5

  1983–84

  123·3

  6·1

  1,881·7

  93·9

  2,005·0

  1984–85

  128·9

  6·3

  1,930·4

  93·7

  2,059·3

  1985–86

  136·1

  6·6

  1,921·3

  93·4

  2,057·4

  1986–87

  116·2

  5·5

  2,009·9

  94·5

  2,126·1

  1987–88

  118·0

  5·3

  2,106·2

  94·7

  2,224·0

  The figures given are for gross expenditure expressed in 1986–87 cost terms, using GDP deflator factors. The figures for 1987–88 are estimated.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Diseases
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) of 16 November,Official Report, column 432, when he hopes to bring gyrodactylus salaris within the control provisions of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  A statutory instrument under section 13 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 (as amended) will be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the dumping of sewage sludge by the Wessex and Welsh water authorities off the coast of Devon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  None, except for recent correspondence from my hon. Friend about the quality of bathing waters on the north Devon coast. I understand that current sludge disposal
  44

  2. Acute but ill-defined cerebrovascular disease

  3. Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung

  4. Heart failure

  5. Other symptons involving abdomen and pelvis

  6. Cholelithiasis

  7. Other and unspecified disorders of back

  8. Fracture of neck of femur

  9. Cataract

  10. Diabetes mellitus

  Health Service (Expenditure)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of expenditure in real terms in the Scottish Health Service annually since 1979, indicating what proportion of that expenditure relates to(a) wage inflation, (b) debt charges and (c) committed capital expenditure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 December 1987]: The information is not available in the form requested. I have listed in the table gross capital and recurrent expenditure on the NHS in Scotland in real terms since 1979–80.

  operations in the Bristol channel 11 miles north of Ilfracombe have no measurable effect on bathing water quality in north Devon.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Leicestershire (Capital Projects)
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will list with the dates any significant capital projects his Department intends to commence in the next five years in the borough of Oadby and Wigston;

  (2) if he will list with the dates those sigificant capital projects his Department intends to commence in the next five years in the district of Harborough.

  Mrs. Currie
  No major National Health Service capital schemes are planned for these boroughs although, of course, recent major developments and future agreed developments in Leicestershire will benefit their residents. These developments include Glenfield general hospital phase I (official opened by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent in March 1986) and phase II (building work started in May 1987) and phase 4B at Leicester royal infirmary (building work started in October 1987) totalling in excess of £60 million between them. The Department does not hold details of schemes costing under £1 million and my hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of the Leicestershire district health authority for this information.

  AIDS
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what criteria he uses when deciding on the scale of resources to be made available to(a) health authorities for treatment and (b) the Health Education Authority for educational work in connection with AIDS over the next five years.

  Mr. Newton
  It is for health authorities to provide treatment services for AIDS and AIDS-related illnesses from within their general allocations. Where additional funds have been made available specifically to help meet AIDS treatment costs they have been directed to those regions carrying the heaviest case loads. Decisions will be made shortly on general allocations to health authorities for 1988–89 and on the allocation of earmarked money for AIDS-related services. Allocations are made on an annual basis and the costs of AIDS treatment services will be kept under reveiw.

  Resources allocated to the Health Education Authority for AIDS public education in 1987–88 cover the costs of the operational plan based on the authority's initial AIDS strategy agreed by Ministers. Future funding will take account of the need to sustain levels of knowledge among the general public; to provide effective support to health professionals; and to provide specific information and advice for groups at particular risk.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether any extra resources will be made available to local authorities arising from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent announcement and the increase in incidence of AIDS.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 24 November at column 130.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest information about the(a) concentration and (b) contagiousness of the human immunovirus as found in the saliva of carriers.

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised that the human immunodeficiency virus can sometimes be detected in saliva of infected individuals. Precise quantification of this virus in saliva in those individuals in which it is present has not been performed. There is no evidence that saliva from a HIV-infected person is capable of being infectious to humans.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give details of the amount of money devoted currently and cumulatively to research work on AIDS in the United Kingdom; and what equivalent information he has for France, Germany and the United States of America.

  Mr. Newton
  It is estimated that expenditure on Government-funded research on AIDS in the United Kingdom in 1987–88 will be £10·5 million. Expenditure for the financial years 1984–85 to 1987–88 inclusive is estimated to total 13·8 million.

  Information on the amount spent on AIDS research by non-governmental organisations in the United Kingdom is not available; nor are totals of Government and non-government expenditure in France, Germany and the United States of America.

  Dentist's Prescribing Patterns
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what procedures are currently adopted if a dentist's prescribing patterns are considered to be excessively high.

  Mrs. Currie
  Responsibility for the monitoring of prescribing in general practice rests with the Dental Estimates Board. If the board considers a dentist's prescribing to be substantially out of line with that of his colleagues, it carries out an investigation. This may include arranging for an examination of the dentist's patients by the Department's dental reference service. If evidence of abuse is found, or the dentist is considered to be in breach of his terms of service, the board may initiate disciplinary action in accordance with the appropriate regulations; this was done in 399 cases in 1986–87.

  Income Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce a linking rule, as for existing benefit entitlements, to ensure that after April 1988 transitional protection is not lost after very short periods of loss of entitlement to income support.

  Mr. Scott
  We have already provided a linking rule for transitional additions. Normal transitional additions of £10 or more will not cease as a result of loss of entitlement to income support for a period of eight weeks or less, eight weeks being the normal linking period for socal security benefits. This rule also applies to special transitional additions — the protection against loss of domestic assistance additional requirements–of any amount.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why the Government have refused to index-link the transitional protection given to disabled people, presently on benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Protection in cash terms is the normal way to give protection when benefit rules are changed. However, the special transitional addition which will be payable to disabled people in receipt of high amounts of the domestic assistance addition will be index-linked. We will also be monitoring the position of those people in receipt of other transitional additions.

  Bradwell Hospital (Domestic Contract)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will establish an inquiry into the decision by North Staffordshire district health authority to award a domestic contract at the new Bradwell hospital, Newcastle under Lyme, to ISC Initial, following agreement that Initial could correct various omissions and mistakes in its tender after the closing date for tenders;

  (2) if he will establish an inquiry into the awarding of a domesic contract at the new Bradwell hospital, Newcastle under Lyme, to ISC Initial, in relation to observance by the authority of paragraph 11·1 of its conditions of tender;

  (3) if he will establish an inquiry into the awarding of a domestic contract at the new Bradwell hospital,

  47
  Newcastle under Lyme, to ISC Initial, in relation to the authority's observance of paragraphs 2.2, 6.2 and 8.5 of its conditions of tender.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that both tenders for this contract were given the opportunity to clarify their 48
  documentations after the closing date for tenders. However the award of contracts is a matter for health authorities and the hon. Member may therefore wish to to write to the chairman of the North Staffordshire district health authority for further detailed information.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  Sheppey General Hospital
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when he will make a decision about the Sheppey general hospital;

  (2) what has been the context of representations received about Sheppey general hospital.

  Mrs. Currie
  Medway health authority has made proposals for changes in the pattern of health care provision in Swale for the next five years, involving seven hospitals in the district, including services at Sheppey general hospital. Following formal objection by the Medway community health council, the proposals have recently been referred to Ministers for decision and we are giving them careful consideration. In the meantime Medway health authority found it necessary to close the in-patient obstetric and gynaecology beds at Sheppey general hospital on an urgent temporary basis from 1 August, because of continuing staffing difficulties. The final decision on the future services will however be considered as part of the Swale proposals. Representations have been received from hon. Members and members of the public about both the Swale proposals and the closure of beds at Sheppey general hospital.

  Children (Intensive Care)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, by each health district, the amount spent on intensive care for children in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  I regret the information requested is not collected centrally.

  Abortions
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list each licensed private clinic with the number of abortions performed in each in 1986.

  Mr. Newton
  For the list of approved places in England, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 26 October, at columns 170–75. Information on the number of abortions performed in any individual approved place is not released, for reasons of maintaining confidentiality.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on how many occasions in the past 10 years an abortion has been refused by a private clinic, licensed by his Department, on the grounds that it did not comply with the statutory grounds listed in the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Newton
  Pregnancy advice bureaux are required to maintain registers which show, inter alia, whether or not women are referred for abortion. These registers, which are inspected by the Department's investigative officers in the course of their inspection visits, show that in some cases women do not proceed to abortion because the grounds of the Abortion Act are not satisfied. As there is no requirement for such cases to be notified, this information is not collected centrally.
  50
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to the grounds on which abortion is available(a) in France after 10 weeks, and (b) in Italy after 12 weeks.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that the position is as follows:

  (a) France — The law provides for abortion after 10 weeks if the continuing pregnancy will place the health of the woman in grave danger or if there is a strong probability that the child will suffer from a particularly serious condition recognised to be incurable.

  (b) Italy—Italian law permits abortion after 90 days if her continuing pregnancy would endanger the woman's life or her physical or mental health, for example because of the risk of fetal abnormality.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has as to(a) the maximum number of weeks pregnancy within which an abortion may legally be performed, and (b) the grounds on which legal abortion is available, in (i) Austria, (ii) Bulgaria, (iii) Finland, (iv) the German Democratic Republic, (v) Hungary, (vi) Norway, (vii) Poland, (viii) Sweden, (ix) Switzerland, (x) Turkey, and (xi) Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Newton
  I understand that the position is as follows:

  Austria

  1. Up to 12 weeks gestation the law allows abortion on demand, providing the woman first visits a medical counselling panel.

  2. After 12 weeks gestation abortion is allowed:

  (i) if it is necessary to avert a grave danger of the pregnant woman's life or serious damage to her physical or mental health;

  (ii) if there is a grave danger that the child's mental or physical health will be seriously damaged;

  (iii) if the woman was a minor at the time of conception.

  3. There is no gestational age beyond which all abortions become illegal.

  Bulgaria
  Abortion is allowed on demand up to 10 weeks gestation for married women with two or more living children, married women over 40 with one living child, unmarried women of any age and in the case of rape or incest.

  Finland

  Abortion is allowed:

  1. Up to 12 weeks gestation when:

  (i) domestic circumstances are such that caring for the child would be a great strain on the mother;

  (ii) when conception takes place in certain specified circumstances, such as rape;

  (iii) when either or both parents is unfit, through illness or otherwise to look after the child.

  2. Up to 20 weeks gestation when the mother was under 17 or over 40 at the time of conception or had already borne four children.

  3. Up to 24 weeks gestation where there are reasons to believe that the child will be feeble minded or physically unhealthy.

  4. At any gestational age when the continued pregnancy or childbirth would endanger the life or damage the health of the mother.

  Hungary

  1. Abortion is legally available on demand up to 12 weeks gestation (or 18 weeks in the case of a single mother).

  2. Beyond this, individual cases are considered on their merits by a committee which normally includes the woman's GP. This committee takes into account the mother's health, marital status, number of children, previous abortions etc. 24 weeks is the latest gestational period normally considered by the committee but in exceptional cases a later abortion might he permitted.

  51
  Norway

  The law permits abortion:

  1. Up to 12 weeks gestation on demand.

  2. Up to 18 weeks on the following statutorily defined grounds:

  (i) if the pregnancy, birth or care of the child may result in unreasonable strain upon the physical or mental health of the woman;

  (ii) if the pregnancy, birth or care of the child may place the woman in a difficult life situation;

  (iii) if there is a major risk that the child may suffer from a serious disease as a result of its genotype or disease or harmful influence during pregnancy;

  (iv) if the woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest;

  (v) if the woman is severely mentally ill or mentally retarded.

  3. After 18 weeks abortion is only permitted to save the life of the mother or if the fetus when born will not be viable.

  Poland

  1. The law allows abortion on demand up to 12 weeks gestation.

  2. At any genstational age after 12 weeks abortion is only permitted when the mother's health is at risk or when the fetus develops abnormally.

  Sweden

  1. Abortion is allowed on demand up to 12 weeks gestation.

  2. Between 12 and 18 weeks abortion on demand is still available but must be preceded by a special investigation which includes counselling.

  3. After 18 weeks, special grounds must be shown and the permission of the Board of Health and Welfare is required. No abortions are permitted if there are grounds to suppose that the fetus is capable of surviving.

  Switzerland
  Swiss law permits abortion at any gestational age if it is performed by a qualified doctor who has taken a second opinion and when no other means is available to remove a risk to the life or health of the mother. Decisions on whether or when to terminate pregnancies are taken by doctors and it is understood that interpretation of the legislation varies considerably from Canton to Canton.

  Turkey

  1. Turkish law allows abortion on demand up to 10 weeks gestation provided there are no grounds for concern for the mother's health.

  2. After 10 weeks gestation abortion is permissible if:

  (i) the pregnancy represents or is expected to represent a threat to the mother's life;

  (ii) the pregnancy is expected to produce disabilities in the baby to be born or in future generations.

  Yugoslavia

  1. Yugoslav law allows abortion on demand up to 10 weeks gestation.

  2. Up to 20 weeks gestation abortion is allowed by permission of the Medical Commission.

  3. Exceptionally, if medical indications exist abortion may be allowed regardless of the length of gestation.

  Stockport Infirmary
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what further capital expenditure plans at Stockport infirmary by Stockport district health authority he has approved.

  Mrs. Currie
  None.

  Supplementary Benefit Offices
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what amounts were paid out by the supplementary benefit offices at Seaham and Peterlee in the form of 52
  (a) single payments and (b) urgent needs payments from (i) March 1985 to March 1986 and (ii) March 1986 to March 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information about urgent needs payments is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information about single payments is given in the table.

  1985–86 £

  11986–87 £

  Seaham

  237,886

  197,572

  Peterlee

  453,083

  417,003

  Notes: Information given is for the periods 10 April 1985 to 8 April 1986 and 9 April 1986 to 7 April 1987.

  1 The figures for 1986–87 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Social Security Payments
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the latest figures available for the cost to the United Kingdom of social security payments for non-United Kingdom nationals resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  I regret that no information is collected about social security payments to non-United Kingdom nationals resident in the United Kingdom.

  Surplus Land Sales
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, South of 26 November, whether the proceeds of the sale of surplus land by health authorities may be used to offset revenue deficits or to fund capital projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Receipts from the sale of surplus land and buildings are treated by health authorities as appropriations in aid to capital and used to offset gross capital spending.

  General Practitioner Prescriptions
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what proportion of general practitioner prescriptions is paid for by National Health Service patients; what income was received from such charges by the Government in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proportion of general practitioners prescriptions would be paid by patients if the exemption categories were the same as for optical charges; what would be the estimated extra annual revenue at the current prescription charge rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  Of the total number of items prescribed by general practitioners and dispensed by pharmacists in England in 1986–87, 18 per cent. attracted the standard prescription charge and a further 5 per cent. went to persons holding prepayment certificates. The total income received was about £140 million.

  If the present exemption arrangements were reduced so as to be the same as those applying to optical charges, it is estimated that around 62 per cent. of all prescription items would become chargeable and the additional revenue based upon the current prescription charge would be about £330 million.

  Staffing Requirements (Review)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the review of staffing requirements for adjudication, as requested by the Chief Adjudication Officer, has been carried out.

  Mr. Portillo
  A full review of complements of social security local offices was completed at the end of 1986 which took account of all work including adjudication falling to local offices. A total of over 4,800 additional staff has been allocated to local offices for supplementary benefit work. Adjudication work cannot be identified separately, but part of the additional resources was allocated to this task. A further review of local office staffing for adjudication work is not envisaged.

  Benefit Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to his answer of 19 November, what was the total numbers of disallowances of unemployment benefit for each year since 1980, shown under each heading used in the annual analysis of decisions of adjudication officers.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information available is as follows:

  Total numbers of disallowances in Great Britain

  Reasons fur disallowance

  1980

  1981

  All questions

  949,477

  892,198

  Days of unemployment

  Total numbers of disallowances in Great Britain

  Reasons for disallowance

  1982

  1983

  1985

  1986

  All questions

  943,553

  977,978

  999,441

  1,081,394

  Capability

  4,656

  5,518

  7,040

  8,298

  Employment not terminated

  147

  94

  212

  21

  Engaged in employment

  65,350

  96,760

  71,676

  59,361

  Employed to full normal extent

  3,194

  11,636

  28,473

  35,997

  Normal idle day

  1,914

  1,912

  1,773

  1,862

  Payment in lieu of notice or wages etc.

  232,436

  232,355

  196,394

  215,831

  Recognised or customary holiday

  4,090

  5,725

  7,254

  7,676

  Whether unemployed

  39,983

  47,596

  56,872

  63,719

  Share fishermen work as

  233

  309

  230

  310

  no work available

  477

  502

  305

  202

  Dependants benefit child

  6,688

  5,162

  440

  187

  adult

  4,469

  4,249

  5,130

  4,139

  Delayed claim

  94,754

  104,478

  125,241

  152,212

  Failure to attend for interview

  152

  325

  254

  617

  Failure to keep to signing time

  43

  32

  78

  45

  Occupational pensions

  262

  191

  100

  143

  Availability

  52,725

  50,243

  48,020

  61,402

  Restricted availability

  9,290

  6,994

  5,660

  7,371

  Share fishermen-neglect to avail

  183

  176

  117

  203

  Trade dispute

  586

  976

  2,457

  892

  Seasonal working

  3,995

  5,015

  6,185

  6,658

  Leaving voluntarily

  255,822

  261,284

  298,206

  314,229

  Misconduct

  96,318

  94,696

  98,738

  99,503

  Employment neglect to avail

  434

  433

  762

  1,242

  refusal of

  2,248

  1,450

  1,534

  1,945

  Refusal or premature termination of training

  274

  1,249

  7,008

  6,322

  Refusal to carry out written recommendations

  68

  94

  116

  32

  Restart

  —

  —

  —

  505

  Other questions

  62,762

  38,524

  29,166

  30,471

  Notes:

  1 The headings used in the Annual Analysis changed from 1982.

  2 Figures for 1984 are not available.

  54

  Reasons for disallowance

  1980

  1981

  Availability

  40,835

  39,642

  Capability

  3,545

  3,408

  Employment not terminated

  21

  27

  Failure to attend for interview

  424

  156

  Failure to keep signing time

  108

  36

  Following on occupation

  27,751

  43,034

  Employed to full normal extent

  1,606

  2,138

  Normal idle day

  781

  1,183

  Pay in lieu of notice or wages etc.

  181,578

  242,975

  Recognised or customary holiday

  2,431

  3,218

  Restricted availability

  11,391

  9,804

  Whether employed

  25,277

  31,205

  Delayed claim

  83,781

  81,289

  Leaving voluntarily

  350,303

  245,779

  Misconduct

  134,870

  103,172

  Employment Neglect to avail

  736

  .585

  Refusal of

  8,227

  4,194

  Refusal or premature termination of training

  447

  366

  Refusal to carry out written recommendations

  264

  122

  Trade disputes

  4,291

  1,775

  Seasonal workers

  3,410

  3,274

  Share fishermen Work as

  174

  408

  Neglect to avail

  164

  1,163

  No work available

  1,159

  3,146

  Dependants benefit Child

  8,402

  7,889

  Adult

  4,478

  4,599

  Earnings-related supplement

  940

  1,141

  Other questions

  51,883

  56,470

  Pensions
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what informationhe has, for both a single and a married old age pensioner, as to the total pension he may receive from the state, the amount of supplements to the pension that may be claimed, the other benefits that are available from central and local government and the payments that are necessary for health care, in each European Economic Community country.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to sections II, IV and IX of the Department's publication, "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (Position at 1 January 1987)", a copy of which is in the Library. This covers all the major cash benefits available nation-wide in each member state. Comprehensive information on occasions and benefits from local authorities is not available.

  Hospital Car Service
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will consider establishing a set level of mileage payments to drivers working in the hospital car service so that all drivers wherever they may be working will receive the same mileage allowances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Under existing arrangements health authorities are free to reimburse drivers in the hospital car service at rates notified annually by the Department, which are based upon those agreed by the General Whitley council for NHS staff. Alternatively, they may determine their own rates to take account of local needs. Given that these can and do vary considerably, it would not be practicable to restrict authorities to a particular fixed rate.

  Japanese Experimentation Camp
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what the Government have done to support survivors of the Japanese experimentation camp 731; and what action they intend to take to support the widows of those who have died.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under the war pensions scheme, administered by the Department, a war disablement or widow's pension is payable where an ex-service man suffers any disability or illness or dies as a result of service in the armed forces, which includes periods spent as a prisoner of war. The Government fully recognise the great hardship and suffering endured by Far Eastern prisoners of war and their claims to war pension are given special and very careful consideration. All Far Eastern prisoners of war are offered a tropical disease investigation to ascertain whether they are suffering any residual effects of disease suffered whilst a prisoner.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give, for each year since 1983 and for the latest available financial year, and for each regional health authority, special health authority, and district health authority the total expenditure on agency staff, expressed at current prices, constant prices and as a percentage of each health authority's revenue budget.
  56
  Mr. Newton
  Information derived from the annual accounts of health authorities has been placed in the Library.

  Health Authority Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each health authority the total number of nursing staff employed in(a) 1979, where possible, (b) 1982 and (c)

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is in the table. Data for district health authorities could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Nursing and Midwifery Staff (including agency) by Regional Health Authority at 30 September

  Whole-time equivalent12

  Region

  1979

  1982

  1986

  Northern

  23,900

  26,400

  27,400

  Yorkshire

  27,000

  30,000

  30,300

  Trent

  32,500

  35,400

  37,100

  East Anglian

  12,800

  14,400

  15,600

  North West Thames

  26,800

  29,100

  28,700

  North East Thames

  30,900

  35,100

  34,300

  South East Thames

  29,000

  31,600

  30,400

  South West Thames

  23,800

  25,000

  24,400

  Wessex

  19,700

  21,600

  23,100

  Oxford

  14,700

  16,700

  16,900

  South Western

  23,600

  26,100

  27,000

  West Midlands

  36,300

  41,100

  42,500

  Mersey

  21,000

  22,500

  22,300

  North Western

  32,200

  37,000

  37,900

  London Post-Graduate Special Health

  Authorities

  4,100

  5,200

  4,900

  England

  358,400

  397,100

  402,700

  Source: DHSS — Annual Census of NHS Non-medical Manpower.

  1 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  2 No adjustments have been made for the change in nurses' working hours (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week) during 1980–81.

  Kidney Treatment
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give for each year since 1982(a) the number of people receiving kidney dialysis treatment and (b) the number of people who have received kidney transplants.

  Mrs. Currie
  According to information supplied by the European dialysis and transplant association registry, the number of patients treated on all forms of dialysis on 31 December in each year since 1982 was as follows:

  Number of patients treated in United Kingdom

  Year

  Number

  1982

  4,751

  1983

  5,156

  1984

  5,661

  1985

  6,381

  1986

  16,890

  1 Provisional data.

  Statistics provided by the United Kingdom Transplant Service on the number of cadaveric kidney transplants performed with the National Health Service in the calendar years from 1982 are as follows:

  57

  Kidney transplants with the National Health Service

  Year

  Number

  1982

  1,033

  1983

  1,144

  1984

  1,443

  1985

  1,336

  1986

  1,493

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the report by Sir Raymond Hoffenberg about the kidney transplant service will be released; and if he will make a statement about the delay in its release.

  Mrs. Currie
  We have been considering this report carefully, and hope to publish it shortly.

  Young Claimants
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many 16 year and 17-year-old persons who are not in education chose to remain on social security rather than take up work or accept a training place in the last year.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is not available in the form requested, but in August 1987 there were more than 54,000 school leavers in the claimant count, excluding this year's summer leavers. A school leaver for this purpose is a person under 18 who has not entered employment since terminating education. It is not known how many of these have been offered jobs or youth training scheme places, but it is known that there are enough YTS places available for anyone who wants one.

  Specialist Treatment
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he proposes to take to ensure that patients received by National Health Service hospitals obtain the necessary specialist treatment in the nearest hospital compatible with patient safety.

  Mrs. Currie
  I do not think this is a matter in which central direction would be helpful. Patients admitted for a planned course of treatment or an operation will usually have been referred to a hospital near their homes, although a more distant referral may be arranged if this would reduce waiting time. Where the patient is found to require specialist treatment which is provided in only a limited number of hospitals he or she may have to be sent further from home, normally to the nearest hospital which is able to provide the treatment at that particular time.

  Job Training Schemes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many people to date have lost benefits of any kind because they refused places on the YTS and job training scheme;

  (2) how many people in Scotland to date have lost benefit of any kind because they refused to accept YTS or job training scheme places.

  Mr. Portillo
  Between December 1983, when figures were first kept, and 20 October 1987, the latest date for which figures are available, 2,263 people in Great Britain, including 179 people in Scotland, have had their supplementary benefit reduced for refusing a place on the 58
  youth training scheme without good cause. Benefit sanctions are not applied to people who refuse places in the new job training scheme.

  Gloucester Health Authority
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many in-patient cases and out-patient cases have been treated by Gloucester health authority in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of patients treated in NHS hospitals and clinics in Gloucester District Health Authority in the years 1982 to 1986

  Year1

  Deaths and discharges

  Day cases

  Out-patient attendances2

  1982

  33,624

  3,169

  186,154

  1983

  34,009

  3,292

  186,204

  1984

  34,341

  3,178

  189,039

  1985

  36,562

  2,809

  193,264

  1986

  38,175

  3,194

  186,836

  1 Due to NHS re-structuring in April 1982 comparable data for earlier years is not available.

  2 The reduction on out-patient attendances between 1986 and 1985 was due to the transfer of mental illness services from Gloucester to Cheltenham District Health Authority.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total number of patients waiting for operations with the Gloucester health authority, for the most recent month for which figures are available, for the same month for each of the last 10 years and May 1979.

  Mr. Newton
  The available information is given in the table.

  Number of cases on in-patient wailing list in Gloucester District Health Authority—NHS hospitals

  Month/Year1

  Surgical specialties

  All specialties

  September 1982

  4,886

  4,959

  March 1983

  4,932

  5,018

  March 1984

  4,416

  4,482

  March 1985

  4,272

  4,339

  March 1986

  4,324

  4,346

  March 1987

  4,138

  4,214

  1 Due to NHS re-structuring in April 1982 comparable data for earlier years is not available.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how much capital spending the Gloucester health authority has undertaken in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will express the figures in actual and in constant 1987 prices;

  (2) how much the Gloucester health authority has spent on revenue services for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will express the figures in actual and in constant 1987 prices.

  Mrs. Currie
  Following is the information requested derived from the annual accounts of the Gloucester health authority:

  Revenue expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  Per annual accounts £ million

  At 1986–87 prices £ million

  Per annual accounts £ million

  At 1986–87 prices £ million

  1982–83

  44·7

  53·3

  3·0

  3·6

  1983–84

  47·6

  54·2

  2·2

  2·5

  59

  Revenue expenditure

  Capital expenditure

  Per annual account £ million

  At 1986–87 prices £ million

  Per annual account £ million

  At 1986–87 prices £ million

  1984–85

  50·8

  55·5

  3·1

  3·4

  1985–86

  53·0

  54·6

  2·8

  2·9

  1986–87

  59·8

  59·8

  4·4

  4·4

  Notes:

  1. The figures for the earlier years have been expressed at 1986–87 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. The figures for capital expenditure include sums in respect of capital schemes within the district recorded in the accounts of the South Western Regional health authority. Revenue and capital expenditure incurred by the latter authority for the region as a whole is excluded.

  3. Prior to 1 April 1985 the health district had an associated family practitioner committee and the relevant expenditure figures recorded in the table include small, not separately identifiable elements relating to family practitioner committees' administrative expenses.

  4. Prior to I April 1982 the health district formed part of the Gloucestershire area health authority and district based figures were not collected centrally.

  Dental Care
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the statement of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) on primary health care,Official Report, 25 November, columns 259–60, what assumptions he has made about future demand for dental inspection and sight testing in calculating the estimated contribution to be made by 1990–91 by those making payments towards dental care and sight testing.

  Mr. Newton
  The estimates of resources to be released by charges for dental examinations and the other changes to dental charges I announced on 25 November do not need to take into account any assumptions about changes in demand for treatment. This is because over a three-year period, dentists' fees, to which all charges will in future be linked, will be adjusted to take account of changes in demand.

  Similarly, the estimated contribution from optical services is not based on assumptions about the future demand for sight tests by those who will pay privately. It reflects the savings from restricting the availability of National Health Service sight tests to certain groups.

  Computer Centres
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why he has hired outside consultants to work in his Department's computer centres; what has been the cost as compared with equivalent Civil Service staff; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Consultants have been contracted to work in the Department on a number of information technology projects, principally in the development of our operational strategy, the major programme to computerise the assessment and delivery of social security benefit in the 1990s. The Department benefits from the direct input of their technical and information technology management expertise, which is not available in the Civil Service. This means that the major benefits and economies arising from 60
  computerisation will be achieved more quickly and effectively — indeed many of these very complex tasks undertaken in the computer centres would not be possible without the skills available in the private sector. As well as providing advice and guidance, consultants sometimes work along-side civil servants in joint teams responsible for delivery of specific products to tight time scales; such an arrangement has been used so that in-house staff can learn skills from the consultants whilst project development continues.

  It is not possible directly to compare costs between civil servants and consultants because, as indicated, staff with equivalent skills and the ability to deliver to the same time scale are not available.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services how many cases of firms withholding national insurance contributions which had been deducted from the pay of employees have been discovered by his Department during each of the years 1980 to 1986 inclusive; what were the amounts involved; how many members of his Department are engaged in investigating such matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested on numbers of cases and amounts involved is not available. There are some 2,000 national insurance inspectors engaged on work, including examination of employers' records, to ensure compliance with national insurance contributions regulations.

  Instances of employers collecting, but not paying over national insurance contributions could come to light in routine examination of employers' records by the Department's inspectors or Inland Revenue PAYE auditors and through employees receiving from the Department a statement informing them that their national insurance record was deficient. All such cases are investigated urgently and there are special arrangements to protect the national insurance records of the employees affected to avoid loss of benefit entitlement. The Department has no evidence suggesting that this type of abuse is widespread, but it is investigating a recent report alleging instances in the west midlands.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total number of recipients of mobility allowance at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of recipients, at 1 December 1987, was 509,000.

  Health Authorities (Employment)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will itemise the numbers employed by each regional health authority in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mrs. Currie
  The figures are shown in the table:
  61

  NHS Directly Employed Staff by Regional Health Authority1 at 30 September Whole time equivalents2

  Region

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Northern

  50,800

  52,600

  54,100

  54,000

  54,500

  54,200

  53,800

  53,500

  Yorkshire

  56,800

  59,000

  62,300

  62,000

  61,700

  61,000

  60,600

  59,600

  Trent

  70,200

  70,600

  74,000

  74,700

  74,400

  74,500

  74,800

  74,300

  East Anglian

  27,400

  28,500

  29,600

  30,000

  30,500

  30,700

  30,600

  30,500

  North West Thames

  58,300

  58,700

  61,700

  60,400

  59,700

  58,600

  56,500

  54,800

  North East Thames

  66,700

  67,200

  69,400

  74,800

  74,400

  73,100

  70,800

  69,100

  South East Thames

  65,300

  66,400

  68,000

  67,800

  67,400

  65,300

  63,400

  61,900

  South West Thames

  50,000

  50,700

  52,200

  50,700

  50,800

  49,100

  47,200

  45,700

  Wessex

  41,100

  41,600

  43,100

  43,800

  44,200

  44,300

  44,200

  43,500

  Oxford

  32,200

  33,000

  34,200

  34,200

  34,000

  34,500

  33,600

  33,200

  South Western

  49,900

  51,400

  53,100

  53,400

  53,200

  52,800

  52,400

  52,400

  West Midlands

  78,100

  80,700

  84,500

  84,700

  84,600

  84,000

  84,400

  84,200

  Mersey

  43,400

  43,800

  45,200

  45,200

  44,800

  44,000

  43,600

  42,900

  Northern Western

  68,000

  71,700

  74,800

  76,200

  76,300

  75,400

  74,700

  74,100

  England3

  775,300

  793,800

  824,400

  830,600

  829,400

  819,300

  812,900

  801,600

  Source:

  DHSS(SR7) annual censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  1 Includes all permanent paid, honorary and locum medical and dental staff, and agency nursing and midwifery staff. No adjustments have been made for the effects of the reduction in nurses' working hours during 1980–1981 (from 40 to 37·5 hours per week) or for the transfer of operating department assistants from ancillary to professional and technical staff group in April 1984.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest one hundred (100) whole-time equivalents.

  3 Includes all staff of regional health authorities, London post-graduate special health authorities, Dental Estimates Board, Prescription Pricing Authority, London ambulance service and family practitioners committees.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has now received the report which he was awaiting on the examination results from the various bodies training radiographers, and whether he will publish the results.

  Mr. Newton
  We have not yet received this information from the College of Radiographers. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible. The publication of the results is a matter for the college.

  Girobank
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services until what date the Government are contracted to use Girobank for transacting social security payments.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department has a continuing agreement with National Girobank for the payment of social security benefits by girocheque. This agreement can be terminated by either party giving 12 months' notice in writing.

  Unit General Managers
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list, for each district health authority within the Mersey region, the numbers of unit managers currently employed, the date of their appointment and the total cost in salaries to the district of such appointments.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each district health authority within the Yorkshire region, the number of unit managers currently employed, the date of their appointment and the total cost in salaries to the district of such appointments.
  62
  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 30 November 1987]: The number of unit general manager (UGM) posts is as follows:

  District

  UGMs

  Mersey Regional Health Authority

  Southport and Formby

  3

  Wirral

  3

  Halton

  2

  Warrington

  4

  Crewe

  2

  Macclesfield

  3

  Chester

  3

  South Sefton

  3

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  3

  Liverpool

  6

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

  Hull

  3

  Scunthorpe

  3

  East Yorkshire

  3

  Airedale

  2

  Scarborough

  2

  Pontefract

  2

  Wakefield

  3

  Leeds West

  5

  Grimsby

  2

  York

  3

  Calderdale

  3

  Harrogate

  2

  Leeds East

  3

  Bradford

  3

  Huddersfield

  3

  Dewsbury

  2

  The pay structure for unit general managers comprises five grades with individual posts graded according to the revenue budget and teaching status of the unit. The 1986–87 annual pay rates for these grades are:

  63

  £

  UGM 1

  28,000

  UGM 2

  25,500

  UGM 3

  23,000

  UGM 4

  20,000

  UGM 5

  16,500

  In addition, a discretionary amount of up to 15 per cent. of the grade rate may be added to reflect the different weights of individual posts, and unit general managers whose performance is assessed as meritorious are eligible for further additions in the form of performance related pay.

  The number of unit general managers posts in each grade is as follows:

  Mersey RHA

  UGM 1 — 2

  UGM 2 — 9

  UGM 3 — 12

  UGM 4 —8

  UGM 5 — 1

  Yorkshire RHA

  UGM 1 — 2

  UGM 2 — 9

  UGM 3 — 19

  UGM 4 — 12

  UGM 5 — 2

  Information about the current occupancy of these posts, dates of appointment and total salary costs is not held centrally.

  Women (Doctor Consultants)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to ensure that women have the right to consult a woman doctor.

  Mrs. Currie
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: We accept that many women prefer to have access to female medical staff, particularly for the treatment of gynaecological conditions. Everyone has a right to seek to register with the family doctor of her choice. The Department has issued guidance asking general practitioners, where possible, to refer female patients to a female consultant if they so wish. Women general practitioners and consultants are not always available, but the fact that almost half those now entering medical schools are female should mean an increasing number of women doctors in the National Health Service in future. Because of the length of training, however, it will be some years before parity is reached.

  In the meantime, the Department is taking several measures to help women doctors who have children to continue their careers. In addition in the recent White Paper, "Promoting Better Health" (Cm. 249) the Government announced that they would discuss with the professions what arrangements might be made to ensure that more women are encouraged to enter and remain in general practice.

  Housing Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give his Department's latest estimate of the number of local authorities operating local schemes under the housing benefit scheme, and the total cost to the authorities concerned of such enhancements.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: A total of 259 authorities are estimated to have operated
  64
  discretionary local schemes in 1986–87, the latest year for which information is available. Total expenditure on discretionary enhancements to benefit was about £32·4 million. This figure includes expenditure on local schemes and also a small additional amount of expenditure on discretionary increases in cases of individual hardship, for which a separate total is not held.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Test
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to make an announcement arising from the review of the driving test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  When we have the results of our consultations with the driving instructors' organisations—referred to in the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 20 November—we shall take a view on the way forward.

  Underground (Train Doors)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 433 what steps have been taken to eliminate sabotage as a cause of recent incidents of underground train doors opening while the train is in motion, with particular reference to the two incidents on 12 November; what safeguards are attached to the special keys which activate the doors; if, for each of the incidents listed by the previous answer for which no cause has been positively identified, he will give the suspected cause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Unauthorised interference with the operator's panel for opening the doors was one of the possibilities considered by London Underground Ltd. when investigating the recent incidents. Possible measures to prevent such interference are being considered by LUL and will be covered in the report referred to in my answer of 30 November at column 433. The special operators' keys are issued against a signature to those members of the staff who require them for their official duties. The cause of the incidents on 12 November is still under investigation by LUL; the probable cause of the others was given in my earlier answer.

  Accident Prevention Exercise (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what purpose his Department is carrying out an accident prevention exercise in Wiltshire; what form it is taking; which villages it covers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The purpose of the study is to investigate accident problems on A36, A303 and A419 trunk roads in the county, and to identify possible low-cost improvements or other remedial measures to improve road safety. The study involves an analysis of the accident records; a review of the physical characteristics of problem sections of the roads; and the development of the remedial measures considered to be necessary.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 592, what steps he has taken, or intends to take, in respect of safety in uncontrolled air space used by commercial airline flights to and from London City airport; and what advice he has received from the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible, through National Air Traffic Services, for all aspects of airspace management. I understand that the authority is satisfied with the arrangements for commercial airline flights to and from London City airport.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards air safety in the light of the conclusions contained in the paper presented to the EEC symposium on air safety last week by the director of Cranfield air safety centre regarding the number of fatalities involved in the Manchester airport tragedy which occurred as a direct result of smoke and toxic fumes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Any action on civil aviation safety arising from the conclusions of the paper are a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority, which is wholly responsible for aviation safety regulation.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the accident investigation branch has yet reported its conclusions to him regarding the Manchester airport tragedy and any recommendations for the implementation of measures to reduce the risk and severity of such accidents in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The investigation by the air accidents investigation branch into the Boeing 737 accident at Manchester airport in August 1985 has been complex and exhaustive, going deeply into the problems of survivability.

  The investigation is now complete and the draft report is shortly to be sent to the persons entitled to it under the regulations, for their representations. The chief inspector of accidents anticipates submitting the report to the Secretary of State in the spring and it will be published shortly afterwards, subject to any request for a review board.

  Soon after the accident the Civil Aviation Authority took airworthiness action on engine failure as a result of information passed by the AAIB. The AAIB also made several recommendations between September and December 1985 concerning the safety of passengers.

  Smoke Hoods
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had during the last six months in support of the introduction of regulations requiring the provision of smoke hoods in passenger transport aircraft.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Civil Aviation Authority is wholly responsible for aviation safety regulation. A66
  number of representations concerning the provision of passenger smoke hoods have been discussed with the chairman.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the results of the aircraft evacuation tests carried out by Linacre college at Teesside airport in connection with the donning of smoke hoods;

  (2) what survey information he has concerning passenger acceptability of smoke hoods;

  (3) when the Civil Aviation Authority expects to publish its cost-benefit analysis of safety measures to improve air passenger transport protection.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All aspects of civil aviation safety regulation, including passenger evacuation and the provision of passenger smoke hoods, are the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand that the authority intends shortly to announce the results of its considerations into the provision of passenger smoke hoods. I will draw the hon. Member's questions to the attention of the chairman of the authority.

  Air Services
  Mr. Sackville
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to what route licence applications have been received for air services out of(a) Manchester and (b) Gatwick; and which of each have been (i) rejected, (ii) approved and (iii) are still under consideration.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Air transport licensing is the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I am drawing the question to the attention of the chairman of the authority so that he may reply.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusion the collaborative research programme with other countries has drawn, concerning the potential effectiveness of smoke hoods in protecting against smoke and toxic fumes in fire-related civil air passenger transport accidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  All aspects of civil aviation safety regulation, including passenger evacuation and the provision of passenger smoke hoods are the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand that the authority intends shortly to announce the results of its considerations into the provision of passenger smoke hoods. I will draw my hon. Friend's questions to the attention of the chairman of the authority.

  Wortley Curve Rail Line
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will, in the light of the recent court judgment, give a direction to British Rail to reopen immediately the Wortley Curve rail line; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. It is British Rail's responsibility to decide what action is required following the judgment.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for. Transport what further progress has been made towards a free market in European air fares; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Channon
  I am pleased to say that, earlier today, the European Community's Transport Council formally agreed a package of measures liberalising civil aviation within the Community. This is a package which first took shape under the British Presidency in the second half of 1986. Its measures provide important new opportunities for airlines to introduce lower fares, to decide for themselves what capacity to operate, to open up new routes and for greater competition between airlines on routes already operated.

  While this represents a major agreement, it is only a first stage. The Council is committed to agreeing on a second, more far reaching, step during 1990 as part of the wider process of completing the Community's internal market by the end of 1992.

  London Underground
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the reports of the fire brigade annual inspections of the London Undergound for 1978 and each year up to and including 1986.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  No. Now that the formal investigation into the King's Cross fire has begun, LRT will be making all relevant material available to it. I fully recognise the concern of the hon. Member and all Members of the House, and of the general public in the aftermath of the disaster, but it is the investigation that has the responsibility to establish the cause of the accident and to examine the circumstances attending it.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will furnish information on the transportation of nuclear waste through Liverpool airport; how much waste has passed through in the last 12 months; what route it takes from its source; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I understand that British Nuclear Fuels plc has not transported radioactive material through Liverpool airport since November 1985.

  Tyres
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to warn motorists about unsafe second hand and remould tyres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Anybody buying second-hand or retreaded tyres should check their standard and condition carefully first.

  To help motorists know what to look for, the Department has sent a poster to MOT testing stations, motor trade associations and other suitable outlets for display.

  Drivers should look out for the compulsory E mark required on used tyres and the British Standard BS AU 144b marking required on retreaded or re-moulded tyres.
  68
  It warns them to check for adequate tread depth and for any signs of damage or unacceptable repair work on second-hand tyres.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if will make a statement on the operation of the vehicle inspectorate.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The inspectorate's annual report for 1986–87 is published today. It provides a useful overall picture of the general condition of Britain's road vehicles. It also sets out the excellent progress made in introducing a more businesslike approach into the inspectorate's work. Unit costs have been reduced significantly and standards of service improved. To enable it to continue to develop this approach and to respond quickly to changes in demand for its fee-earning services, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that it should be exempted from gross running cost controls as from 1 April 1988. It will be required instead to work within a new system of unit cost and performance targets.

  The picture is less satisfactory on the state of Britain's vehicles. Twenty per cent. of buses and lorries continue to fail their annual test. For cars and light goods vehicles the figure is 41 per cent. The vehicle inspectorate is working closely with the vehicle user associations to pin point the causes of the high failure rate and to see how best they can be tackled. The Government will continue to take a tough line against those who consistently fail to maintain their vehicles properly.

  Airports
  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the growth in numbers of passengers using(a) Manchester, (b) Birmingham, (c) Leeds-Bradford and (d) Bristol airports in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Growth for the 12-month period ending September 1987 (the latest period for which Civil Aviation Authority statistics are available) compared with the previous 12 months was:

  Per cent.

  Manchester

  16

  Birmingham

  28

  Leeds-Bradford

  22

  Bristol

  35

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing how much tax revenue was collected in capital gains tax(a) from gains on quoted shares, (b) from gains on unquoted shares, and (c) from other gains in the financial year 1986–87; and what the corresponding costs of collection were.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A little over £1 billion was collected in capital gains tax in 1986–87. It is estimated that 40 to 50 per cent. was derived from ordinary shares quoted on the United Kingdom stock exchange, about 20 per cent. from other shares and securities, and the rest from other
  69
  property. Corporation tax receipts in 1986–87 from companies gains are estimated at £650 million. I regret that a breakdown by type of gain is not available.

  The cost of collecting capital gains tax in 1985–86 is estimated at 1·7 per cent. of the yield.

  Company Taxation
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average period for companies to receive repayment of tax from elections under section 177(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information is not available centrally. The repayment period will vary depending upon

  Total BES investment per company in each year

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–861

  Companies

  Amount £ million

  Companies

  Amount £ million

  Companies

  Amount £ million

  up to £100,000

  495

  15

  527

  15

  440

  12

  £100,000—£250,000

  118

  19

  159

  25

  110

  17

  £250,000—£500,000

  58

  20

  59

  20

  54

  18

  £500,000—£1 million

  32

  20

  33

  22

  30

  22

  over £1 million

  12

  31

  29

  66

  36

  88

  Total

  715

  105

  807

  148

  670

  157

  1 Provisional. Final results for 1985–86 are expected to show a slight increase on those quoted above.

  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the contribution of the relief given to companies raising over £1 million in equity under the business expansion scheme towards stimulating the development of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  An assessment of the contribution made by the business expansion scheme towards stimulating the development of small businesses is contained in the Peat Marwick report which was published in March 1986; a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Taxes
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, for each year from 1978–79 to 1986–87, the proportion of total Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and national insurance fund receipts accounted for by(a) income tax, (b) employees' national insurance contributions, (c) employers' national insurance contributions, (d) value added tax, (e) excise duties, (f) corporation tax and special taxes on profits, (g) petroleum revenue tax and supplementary petroleum duty, (h) stamp duty, (i) estate duty, other death duties and capital transfer tax, and (j) capital gains and development land taxes.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Details of net receipts by the board of Inland Revenue and by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise by head of duty are given in "Financial Statistics" tables 3.13 and 3.14 and total national insurance contributions are given in table 3.1. Figures for employees' and employers' contributions are not readily available for the financial years requested. Some details of 70
  the precise circumstances. If my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, I would be very happy to ask the Inland Revenue to look into it.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing how many companies have equity(a) of up to £100,000, (b) between £100,000 and £250,000, (c) between £250,000 and £500,000, (d) between £500,000 and £1 million and (e) over £1 million invested under the terms of the business expansion scheme; and what the amount of capital for which relief was given in each of these brackets was in the last three financial years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is as follows:

  employees' and employers' contributions are available on a calendar year basis in the "National Accounts CSO Blue Book" (table 9.6).

  "Inland Revenue Statistics"
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the reason for the delay in the publication of "Inland Revenue Statistics" for 1987; and when he expects to publish them;

  (2) if he will update the information on personal wealth contained in appendix D2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics" 1986 for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  "Inland Revenue Statistics" is usually available towards the end of the year. The 1987 edition is expected to be published early in January 1988. It will contain information on personal wealth for 1984 and 1985. The 1986 estimates are not yet available.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, for 1985–86 and 1986–87, the total cost of those tax allowances and reliefs detailed in table 1.6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics".

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Such a figure would have little meaning, since allowances and reliefs of some kind are an essential feature of any tax system. For the cost of individual allowances and reliefs for 1986–87, I refer the hon. Member to "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1987–88 to 1989–90", Volume II (Cm 56–11) Table 2.29.

  BP Shares
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many investors have taken up the Bank of England's offer to buy partly paid BP shares at a guaranteed price.
  71
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As of close of business on 3 December, I understand the Bank of England had made disbursements in respect of 253 acceptances.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many partly paid BP shares have been bought by the Bank of England from investors selling to the bank at the guaranteed price.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  As of close of business on 3 December, I understand the Bank of England had received acceptances in respect of 72,233 shares.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of current share values, he has any intention of extending the final possible date for the Bank of England's offer to repurchase partly paid BP shares beyond 6 January.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each day from 20 October until 2 December, the price that will be recognised as the market value in partly paid BP shares, for the purposes of calculating allowable losses to offset against capital gains tax or for computing trading losses.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Capital gains and losses on quoted shares are normally computed by reference to the actual price at which transactions are conducted. It is only in limited circumstances — for example, where a transaction is not at arm's length or is between connected persons—that regard is had to market value. Generally, market value is computed by reference to the prices quoted in the stock exchange daily official list. However, those prices do not always give a guide to market value for particular transactions for tax purposes, particularly when there are large price movements during the day or where sizeable blocks of shares are concerned. In these circumstances it would be necessary to have regard to all the facts of the individual transaction. Against this background, it is not possible to provide a single figure for what would be the market value for tax purposes for shares in an individual company on an particular day.

  EC (Payments)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum received from the European Economic Community in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what part of this total was in respect of the repayment of export rebates, food storage, and the destruction of food respectively.

  Mr. Brooke
  The United Kingdom received £2,219 million from the European Economic Community budget during the calendar year 1986. During 1986 some £330 million (14·9 per cent.) was paid to the United Kingdom in respect of the repayment of export rebates, some £151 million (6·8 per cent.) for public intervention storage and some £4 million (0·2 per cent.) in respect of withdrawals of fresh fruit, vegetables and fish. In some circumstances withdrawn produce finds no end use and may be assumed to be spoilt or wasted, although the relevant expenditure is not separately identified.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his reply of 6 November,Official
  72
  Report, column 908, regarding the contractual arrangements for the European investment bank loan to Eurotunnel, in his capacity as director of the bank, he regards the equity issue as having been successfully completed for the purpose of conclusion of contractual arrangements for the loan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  This is a matter for the European investment bank (of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a governor, not a director). I understand that the bank considers that the condition regarding the raising of £750 million in equity capital has now been fulfilled.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the reply of 6 November, in his capacity as director of the European investment bank, if a decision has now been made on the portion of the European investment bank loan of £1,000 million to Eurotunnel which will be guaranteed by each of the United Kingdom clearing banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that the European investment bank has still not made a decision on which banks should guarantee the £1,000 million loan to Eurotunnel. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a governor, not a director, of the bank.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the practice of the Inland Revenue in deciding, where moneys are owed to it, whether to take out bankruptcy proceedings rather than a garnishee order; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue, like any other creditor, must have been granted judgment by a court before an application for a garnishee order can be made. A garnishee application can only seek to attach, at most, the amount in judgment. Only certain types of debt are attachable. Bankruptcy proceedings, while normally based on a judgment of a court, are commenced in respect of all monies due to a creditor, including sums not subject to judgment. Thus, one consideration in deciding the appropriate course is the relative amounts of judgment debt, tax due outside judgment and sums attachable.

  If the Inland Revenue were aware of an attachable debt, it would also consider whether it was significant enough for garnishee to be worth while and what other enforcement processes, short of bankruptcy, were available. In respect of bankruptcy proceedings, it would take into account whether tax liability was accruing at a faster rate than prospective clearance by payments or recovery through other proceedings.

  Value Added Tax
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications for Her Majesty's Government's policy towards widening the base of value added tax of the opinion delivered by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on 2 December.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 3 December 1987, at column 698.
  73
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the European Commission with regard to their proposals to harmonise excise duties and value added tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Commission formally presented its package of tax proposals to the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 16 November. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear then that we would not permit to come into force any proposals that in any way conflicted with pledges the Government has given concerning the United Kingdom's zero rates of VAT. The Council confirmed that the Economic Policy Committee should carry out an economic analysis of the Commission's proposals before further consideration of them by Economic and Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the current standard rate of value added tax applied in each EEC member state and, where there is no standard rate in a particular country, that rate which produces the highest tax revenue.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on 3 December 1987 at column 583, which lists all the VAT rates applied in the individual member states of the EC, including the standard rates to which he refers.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average cost of each job created in the following Government programmes:(a) enterprise zones, (b) the business expansion scheme, (c) urban development corporation and (d) regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Major
  These programmes are part of the Government's wider policy of helping markets to work more effectively. That policy, combined with the sound macro-economic policies we have pursued has secured great success, helping to generate 1·25 million new jobs in the United Kingdom since 1983. Adult unemployment (seasonally adjusted) has fallen for 16 months in succession.

  Cost per job is one of a number of measures used in assessing programmes which are aimed at job creation. Where relevant and available, information is given in the public expenditure White Paper. Questions on such measures in relation to individual schemes are a matter for the Secretary of State responsible for them. No current information on cost per job is available for the business expansion scheme.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the revenue yield from an increase in the rate of income tax of 1p taking into account current economic growth and unemployment figures.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The estimated direct revenue effect would be about £1·25 billion in 1988–89 and £1·60 billion in 1989–90, as published in table 4·5 of the Autumn Statement 1987.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give(a) the total revenue received from corporation tax and (b) that sum as a percentage of all revenue received from taxation, for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The information is as follows:

  Net receipts of corporation tax1

  £ million

  Per cent.2

  1978–79

  3,940

  8·1

  1979–80

  4,646

  7·6

  1980–81

  4,645

  6·5

  1981–82

  4,930

  5·7

  1982–83

  5,679

  6·2

  1983–84

  6,184

  6·4

  1984–85

  8,341

  7·8

  1985–86

  10,708

  9·4

  1986–87

  13,495

  11·3

  1 Including advance corporation tax.

  2 As percentage of total taxes and royalties.

  Source: Table 3.13 and S24 Financial Statistics.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the use of prosecution as a means of dealing with tax evasion.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The law provides for money penalties to be the normal punishment for tax evasion. However the possibility of prosecution is an important deterrent to the spread of tax evasion. The Inland Revenue therefore considers prosecution where a fraud is particularly prevalent or where a case is a very serious one of its type.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Excehquer if he will publish in the Official Report the number of full-time equivalent posts dedicated solely or mainly to the detection of tax evasion.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: 3,264 Inland Revenue officers, measured in staff unit equivalents, were assigned solely or mainly to investigation work at 31 March 1987.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details or estimates of the amounts of unpaid tax recovered by the Inland Revenue for each year since 1979 from(a) persons prosecuted for tax evasion and (b) persons dealt with but not prosecuted for tax evasion.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The total yield—tax, interest and penalties—due from Inland Revenue investigations for each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Year ending 31 October

  £ million

  1979

  111·6

  1980

  137·9

  1981

  165·1

  1982

  265·6

  75

  Year ending 31 March

  £ million

  1983

  304·8

  1984

  399·2

  1985

  594·4

  1986

  694·5

  1987

  741·3

  It is not possible, except at disporportionate cost, to distinguish amounts relating to prosecution cases from those relating to non-prosecution cases. Nor is it possible to state how much of the amount due was ultimately recovered.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details or estimates of the number of persons dealt with by methods other than prosecution for tax evasion since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The Inland Revenue figures do not distinguish between cases of outright fraud and other cases which have been investigated. Nor are the figures for the number of individuals concerned available. However, the number of cases where additional tax has become due as a result of an investigation is as follows:

  Tax Office and Enquiry branch investigations

  Number yielding extra tax only

  Number involving interest, or interest and penalties (in addition to tax)

  Year to 31 October

  1979

  31,651

  21,229

  1980

  30,870

  22,344

  1981

  32,589

  22,515

  1982

  35,649

  27,656

  Year to 31 March

  1983

  35,392

  31,417

  1984

  33,585

  37,249

  1985

  31,747

  38,859

  1986

  27,105

  37,484

  1987

  22,949

  38,707

  PAYE audit investigations

  Number where only current year adjustments necessary

  Number where adjustments of earlier years necessary

  1984–85

  3,920

  17,179

  1985–86

  3,879

  20,431

  1986–87

  4,480

  23,848

  The method of recording information altered in 1984 and comparison with earlier years would not be meaningful.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of estimates of the amount of tax due but not recovered from persons known to be involved in tax evasion since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: This information is not held centrally.

  May Day Holiday
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the gross national product of abolition of the May Day bank holiday.
  76
  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 4 December 1987]: None. The Government at present have no plans to abolish the May Day bank holiday.

  Pay-as-you-earn
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the numbers of persons paying pay-as-you-earn, for the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 November 1987]: The table gives estimates of the numbers of individuals who were liable to tax on their total income and had income subject to PAYE which was greater than the PAYE threshold. Married women are included if their earned income exceeded the maximum amount of wife's earned income relief. I regret that information for earlier years could be compiled only at disproportionate expense.

  Year

  Number of individuals (millions)

  1980–81

  22·9

  1981–82

  22·8

  1982–83

  22·6

  1983–84

  22·2

  1984–85

  21·8

  1985–86

  21·9

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prisoners
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings have been convened by the Life Sentence Review Board; how many prisoners' cases they have reviewed; and what were their recommendations, in each of 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information is set out in the following table:

  1985

  1986

  19871

  Number of meetings

  9

  11

  8

  Number of cases considered

  127

  108

  112

  Cases recommended for consultation with the judiciary with a view to the setting of a provisional release date

  26

  26

  20

  Cases put back for further review

  101

  82

  92

  1 To date.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many applications were made for the severe weather heating allowance at the social security offices in Downpatrick, Ballynahinch, Newcastle, Kilkeel, Banbridge and Newry (County Down) during the winter of 1986–87;

  (2) how many successful applications were made for severe weather heating allowance and how much money was paid by the social security offices in Downpatrick, Ballynahinch, Newcastle, Kilkeel, Banbridge and Newry (County Down), during the winter of 1986–87.

  Mr. Needham
  Information is not readily available in the precise form requested. The available figures are as follows:
  77

  Social Security Office

  Number of payments

  Amounts

  Claims disallowed

  Downpatrick

  1,331

  6,655

  334

  Ballynahinch

  602

  3,010

  268

  Newcastle

  931

  4,655

  335

  Kilkeel

  835

  4,175

  223

  Banbridge

  1,784

  8,920

  307

  Newry

  4,794

  23,970

  1,363

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will increase the amount payable in respect of severe weather heating allowance to old age pensioners in Northern Ireland; and if he will consider making the allowance available throughout the year.

  Mr. Needham
  No.

  Security
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current estimate of the cost of security related to the Northern Ireland conflict as an absolute figure, a percentage figure of all Government expenditure in Northern Ireland and as a per capita figure for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 30 November 1987]: In 1987–88 it is estimated that expenditure by the Northern Ireland Office on law, order, protective and miscellaneous services (LOPMS) will amount to some £512·4 million. This comprises approximately 10·5 per cent. of total Government expenditure in the Province. In addition, the cost of deploying the armed forces in support of the Royal Ulster Constabularly is estimated at £168 million in 1987–88. Taken together this works out to be a cost of some £12 per person in the United Kingdom.

  Note: The LOPMS budget includes expenditure on items (for example, civil defence) not directly related to the terrorist campaign, and the bulk of LOPMS expenditure (for example, on the RUC and on prisons) does not all arise from the terrorist campaign.

  Mr. Anthony Hughes
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to when the clothes and car belonging to the late Anthony Hughes will be returned to his wife; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stanley
  [holding answer 1 December 1987]: The motor vehicle and clothing belonging to the late Mr. Anthony Hughes are items of important evidential value to the RUC in its investigations into his death. Until these investigations are completed and it is clear that the items are no longer required either by the Director of Public Prosecutions or Her Majesty's coroner they will need to be retained by the police.

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Total number of searches carried out

  49

  34

  22

  33

  24

  36

  20

  46

  Total number of inmates searched

  27

  22

  14

  22

  18

  28

  15

  33

  Number of prisoners searched once

  9

  13

  8

  12

  12

  20

  10

  20

  Children (Intensive Care)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, by each health authority, the amount spent on intensive care for children in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  It is not possible to give this information, as expenditure on hospital services for children is not identified separately and could be derived only at disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received regarding Her Majesty's Government's policy towards attempts by constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland to make common cause against IRA terrorism and its sympathisers.

  Mr. Needham
  None recently, but I would welcome any efforts to bring about a constructive dialogue between the constitutional political parties.

  Playgroups
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by each board on grants for pre-school playgroups in the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 December 1987]: The information is as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  1985

  1986

  1987

  £

  £

  £

  Northern board

  61,833

  54,067

  75,054

  Southern board

  12,496

  18,757

  31,361

  Eastern board

  753,422

  734,216

  823,948

  Western board

  122,557

  114,941

  142,837

  Northern Ireland Total

  950,308

  921,981

  1,073,200

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made of female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in each month from April to November; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restained while the search was being conducted; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search, namely, making a remand appearance at court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Mr. Stanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  79

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  15

  7

  5

  9

  6

  8

  5

  13

  Number of prisoners searched three times

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number of prisoners searched four times

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reason for Search

  First admission on remand awaiting trial

  8

  11

  2

  6

  7

  10

  6

  12

  First admission on sentence/final discharge

  25

  13

  14

  20

  12

  23

  12

  29

  Attending Remand Court

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attending Trial

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attending Appeal

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bail Court appearances

  7

  4

  —

  —

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Going on and returning from home leave

  2

  4

  6

  4

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Inter-prison visit

  2

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  After a visit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  No prohibited article was found during these searches and no prisoner refused to be searched.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give, for each year and since 1983, the

  Available beds in Northern Ireland by Board 1983–86

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  E

  N

  S

  W

  E

  N

  S

  W

  E

  N

  S

  W

  E

  N

  S

  W

  General medicine

  714·1

  363·9

  335·1

  206·5

  728·4

  346·7

  333·7

  206·3

  728·2

  349·7

  332·2

  211·2

  634·8

  357·1

  317·4

  222·9

  General surgery

  789·0

  381·3

  369·4

  234·8

  759·5

  367·9

  372·1

  231·7

  797·3

  370·0

  389·5

  227·3

  714·6

  375·3

  390·2

  219·1

  Non-psychiatric acute

  2,656·9

  424·8

  292·7

  435·8

  2,611·3

  401·0

  294·1

  322·3

  2,565·5

  415·2

  302·3

  416·9

  2,302·5

  374·3

  300·4

  406·3

  Geriatric medicine

  1,194·7

  545·6

  420·1

  443·8

  1,180·1

  548·8

  418·7

  444·8

  1,173·9

  546·0

  417·2

  438·0

  1,234·7

  535·4

  415·0

  441·9

  Maternity

  362·6

  181·0

  171·1

  177·4

  152·3

  181·2

  171·6

  177·2

  363·5

  182·0

  172·2

  175·3

  339·5

  180·5

  176·6

  154·0

  Mental illness

  2,128·8

  647·0

  563·0

  1,378·0

  2,059·8

  626·8

  558·0

  1,339·3

  1,919·8

  640·0

  558·0

  1,345·0

  1,889·8

  629·5

  510·8

  1,285·0

  Mentally handicapped

  837·3

  —

  454·5

  209·0

  823·0

  —

  458·1

  209·0

  826·3

  —

  436·5

  209·0

  814·0

  —

  445·0

  209·0

  Total1

  8,736·4

  2,518·4

  2,605·9

  3,100·3

  8,367·4

  2,477·4

  2,606·3

  2,945·6

  8,426·5

  2,507·9

  2,607·9

  3,037·9

  7,981·9

  2,457·1

  2,555·4

  2,953·2

  1 Includes young chronic sick beds, which are not included in the table.

  E = Eastern Health and Social Services Board.

  N = Northern Health and Social Services Board.

  S = Southern Health and Social Services Board.

  W = Western Health and Social Services Board.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give, for each year since 1983 and for each health board, the total expenditure on agency staff, expressed at current prices, constant prices and as a percentage of each health authority's budget.

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1983 only two health and social services boards have incurred expenditure on agency staff. The information is as follows:

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Expenditure on agency staff

  Constant prices1

  Percentage of boards' revenue expenditure

  £

  £

  £

  Eastern Board

  1982–83

  83,593

  96,800

  0·03

  1983–84

  54,900

  60,778

  0·02

  1984–85

  49,478

  52,466

  0·02

  1985–86

  1,685

  1,685

  0·0005

  80
  total number of hospital beds for each of the following services, broken down by health board: (a) general medical, (b) general surgical, (c) non-psychiatric acute, (d) geriatric, (e) maternity, (f) mental illness, (g) mentally handicapped and (h) total.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  Expenditure on agency staff

  Constant prices1

  Percentage of boards' revenue expenditure

  £

  £

  £

  1986–87

  Nil

  —

  —

  Western Board

  1982–83 to

  1984–85

  Nil

  —

  —

  1985–86

  10,500

  10,500

  0.01

  1986–87

  Nil

  —

  —

  1 Figures have been adjusted for inflation (at 1985–86 prices) by using the GDP deflators.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each year since 1983 and for each health board the total number of staff as whole-time equivalents in the following categories:(a) medical and dental, (b) nursing and midwifery, (c) professional and technical, (d) administrative and clerical, (e) ancillary and (f) total non-medical.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:
  81

  Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services Staff at 31 December by Health and Social Services Board (Figures are W.I.E.)

  Year

  Health and Social Services Board/Category

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  11987

  Eastern:

  Medical and Dental

  1,288·82

  1,308·34

  1,306·65

  1,307·46

  1,326·29

  Nursing and Midwifery

  9,984·84

  9,822·65

  9,583·24

  9,492·56

  9,361·54

  Professional and Technical

  2,070·33

  2,072·16

  2,039·67

  2,025·57

  1,962·41

  Administrative and Clerical

  2,909·66

  2,957·94

  2,988·23

  3,037·56

  3,051·74

  Ancillary

  7,698·48

  7,545·24

  7,357·57

  7,157·47

  7,092·50

  Total Non-Medical

  22,633·31

  22,397·99

  21,968·71

  21,713·16

  21,468·19

  Northern:

  Medical and Dental

  274·53

  280·18

  271·59

  276·15

  283·91

  Nursing and Midwifery

  2,831·13

  2,901·07

  2,895·35

  2,905·50

  2,920·17

  Professional and Technical

  520·81

  526·32

  511·78

  510·23

  486·27

  Administrative and Clerical

  994·12

  1,029·05

  1,059·37

  1,053·45

  1,050·07

  Ancillary

  2,519·53

  2,497·69

  2,502·85

  2,404·20

  2,337·24

  Total Non-Medical

  6,865·59

  6,954·13

  6,969·35

  6,873·35

  6,793·75

  Southern:

  Medical and Dental

  244·97

  252·68

  256·35

  254·58

  252·00

  Nursing and Midwifery

  2,968·81

  2,932·68

  2,969·14

  2,827·82

  2,856·35

  Professional and Technical

  424·35

  437·40

  455·03

  417·50

  371·05

  Administrative and Clerical

  782·88

  814·61

  824·76

  821·21

  815·32

  Ancillary

  2,677·73

  2,613·93

  2,551·34

  2,449·99

  2,400·74

  Total Non-Medical

  6,853·77

  6,798·62

  6,800·27

  6,516·52

  6,443·46

  Western:

  Medical and Dental

  219·77

  229·54

  233·46

  243·81

  247·87

  Nursing and Midwifery

  2,889·44

  2,863·56

  2,871·89

  2,886·51

  2,915·22

  Professional and Technical

  403·09

  409·16

  386·08

  391·45

  359·30

  Administrative and Clerical

  69344

  715·86

  745·15

  756·69

  781·46

  Ancillary

  2,299·78

  2,284·27

  2,299·56

  2,237·84

  2,271·89

  Total Non-Medical

  6,285·75

  6,272·85

  6,302·68

  6,272·49

  6,327·87

  Note: Total Non-Medical is the total of Nursing and Midwifery, Professional, echnical, Administrative and Clerical and Ancillary.

  11987 figures at 30 September.

  Social Fund
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to appoint a social fund commissioner to be responsible for the social fund as it applies to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Mrs. Rosalind Mackworth has been appointed to serve as social fund commissioner in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain for a period of three years from 1 December 1987.

DEFENCE

  Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the proposed intermediate range nuclear forces treaty and its consequences with his NATO colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend last discussed the prospective INF agreement collectively with his NATO colleagues at the defence planning committee meeting in Brussels on 1–2 December, a copy of the communique from which will be placed in the Library.

  Low-Flying Aircraft
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, pursuant to his reply of 10 November,Official Report, column 160, he is now in a position to make a statement following his review of low-flying training over the residential developments of Hardwiche and Quedgeley.

  Mr. Freeman
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 30 November 1987.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident analysis capabilities of the computer installed in the RAF inspectorate of flight safety; and what information it provides on low-flying accident rates per 10,000 hours.

  Mr. Freeman
  The computer system used by the Royal Air Force's inspectorate of flight safety is designed to allow the timely retrieval of accident data relevant to the safety of RAF aircraft. It contains information on all serious accidents to RAF aircraft since 1979. The time actually spent at low level by RAF aircraft during training sorties is not recorded. The information requested is, therefore, not available.
  83
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to reply to recent letters sent to him by hon. Members on the subject of low-flying aircraft.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will send full replies to those hon. Members who have written to me on the subject of low flying as soon as possible. Correspondence from hon. Members normally requires investigations and the number of such letters has recently risen significantly. In the meantime, I have sent either acknowledgements or interim replies to all such Members.

  Home Defence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current cost to his Department's budget of providing home defence for the protection of the United Kingdom in the event of hostilities in Europe.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to figure 10 in the 1987 "Statement on the Defence Estimates".

  Foxhunter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 5 November about negotiations with Marconi Defence Systems over the Foxhunter radar programme, when the negotiations started; for what reasons they have lasted so long; and when he expects them to be concluded.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Negotiations began early this year. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 12 November at column 303.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 5 November, when he expects to be in a position to make a further statement about the cost overrun in the redevelopment programme at Aldermaston.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have nothing to add to my answers to the hon. Member of 30 October and 12 November at columns 485 and 303.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the precise purposes in relation to the Trident project for which the new capital facilities at Aldermaston are designed.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The programme to improve or replace aging capital facilities at Aldermaston was announced in 1979, before the decision to purchase Trident. The facilities relate basically to plutonium processing, waste management and supporting facilities such as conventional power generation. None are solely for the purposes of Trident.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards collaboration in relation to the joint targeting and maintenance of nuclear weapons within NATO, with specific reference to the United Kingdom and French deterrent forces.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  All our nuclear forces are assigned to NATO although they remain at all times under the control of the British Government and are capable of being 84
  employed independently when supreme national interests are at stake. In their NATO role, United Kingdom nuclear warheads are targeted by SACEUR in accordance with the Alliance's general political guidelines. The servicing or maintenance of United Kingdom nuclear warheads has always been and will continue to be a purely national responsibility.

  France's nuclear forces are outside the integrated military structure of the Alliance.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 13 November,Official Report, column 334, regarding nuclear weapons in Europe, how the minimum number of weapons to be maintained by NATO will be assessed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The size of NATO's forces in Europe is determined by politico-military assessments of what is required to implement the strategy of flexible response. Details of these assessments are classified.

  Waste Paper
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent his Department uses recycled paper or provides paper for recycling.

  Mr. Freeman
  The use of recycled paper by the Ministry of Defence remains as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) in his reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on 26 January 1987, at column 128.

  The Ministry arranges for scrap paper and board to be collected from its units and establishments through contracts let by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Depending on the quality and suitability of the material, it is understood that much of it is recycled by the industry in a range of papers and cardboards.

  Sea-launched Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given by his Department to the problems of verification posed by sea-launched cruise missiles.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The United Kingdom is not involved in arms control negotiations on these systems. However my Department maintains a continuous and close interest in all aspects of verification.

  Trident
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions officials of his Department met the Comptroller and Auditor General or his staff in the course of the preparation of the most recent report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the control and management of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The report on the control and management of the Trident programme (HC 27) was compiled by the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General after thorough examination of my Department's records and after extensive discussion and correspondence with a number of my officials.

  This process covered all parts of my Department engaged in the control and management of the United Kingdom Trident programme and covered a period of some 15 months.

  US Submarines (Holy Loch)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list of incidents involving the leak of radioactive material from United States nuclear-powered submarines in Holy Loch since 1975; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There have been no incidents involving leakages of radioactive materials from United States nuclear-powered submarines in the Holy Loch since 1975.

  Air-Launched Stand-Off Weapons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 34, he will place in the Library the memorandum of understanding on the development and production of air-launched stand-off weapons.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the memorandum of understanding concerning general arrangements for the collaborative development and production of a modular stand-off weapon system.

  Flying Accidents (Compensation)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many relatives of aircrew killed in flying accidents have been able to benefit from compensation from his Department, following the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has received no claims from relatives of aircrew killed in flying accidents since the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 became law on 15 May. Any claims for compensation will be dealt with on their merits and on the basis of any legal liability on the part of the Ministry of Defence.

  RAF (Accident Reports)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to place copies of Royal Air Force aircraft accident reports in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. It is already the usual practice, however, to place in the Library of the House unclassified summaries of the findings of boards of inquiry into major Royal Air Force aircraft accidents.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many animals have been subjected to penetration wounds in order to assess the effectiveness of military weapons, for each year since 1979;

  (2) how many animals have been subjected to blast wounds in military experiments, for each year since 1979;

  (3) how many animals have been subjected to chemical weapons tests by his Department, for each year since 1979;.

  (4) how many animals have been killed in military experiments, in each year since 1979;

  (5) whether animals involved in wounding or blast experiments by his Department are anaesthetised prior to the experiments; and if he will make a statement.
  86
  Mr. Sainsbury
  A relatively small number of scientific procedures involving animals is carried out, principally in order to assess the safety and effectiveness of protective measures against chemical and biological attack. Some procedures are also carried out in order to improve our understanding of wounds and our ability to treat them. Animals involved in all such procedures are deeply anaesthetised. In no instance are animals used in work to improve weapon performance. Scientific procedures involving animals are carried out on important work only after careful consideration of alternatives has shown that none is an adequate substitute and the lowest!possible order of animal is selected, usually mice, guinea pigs and rats. It is not our policy to make detailed information available on scientific procedures involving animals in the defence field, but I can say that the overall annual figure which was less than 7,000 in 1986, constitutes less than one half of one per cent. of all animal experiments conducted in the United Kingdom.

  Harrier GR 5
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any Harrier GR 5 aircraft have been flown since the loss of a GR 5 in October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Harrier GR 5 test flying has been suspended until the cause of the accident on 22 October has been fully investigated. A board of inquiry, which was convened on 24 October, is still in progress, and flying is unlikely to be resumed before early next year.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the order for the second batch of Harrier GR 5 aircraft has been postponed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 November at column 454. The second batch order has not been postponed and ordering is consistent with the need to maintain the manufacturing programme and aircraft deliveries.

  Bird Strikes
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force aircraft have been lost as a result of bird strikes for each year since 1979, listing the aircraft type and the location.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Aircraft Type

  Location

  1979

  Jaguar

  Federal Republic of Germany

  1980

  Harrier

  Dyfed

  1980

  Jet Provost

  North Yorkshire

  1980

  Nimrod

  Grampian

  1981

  Jaguar

  Tayside

  1982

  Hawk

  Devon

  1983

  Jaguar

  Grampian

  1983

  Jet Provost

  North Yorkshire

  1984

  Hawk

  Gwynedd

  1984

  Harrier

  Falkland Islands

  1985

  Nil

  —

  1986

  Nil

  —

  19871

  Nil

  —

  1 To 4 December.

  RAF Aircraft (Losses)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force aircraft have been lost as a result of technical malfunction for each year since 1979, listing the type of aircraft involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  On those losses of Royal Air Force aircraft for which board of inquiry findings are available, the following have been identified as having occurred owing to technical malfunctions:

  Year

  Number of Aircraft

  Type Aircraft

  1979

  5

  Hunter/Jet Provost/Harrier Buccaneer/Lightning

  1980

  7

  Buccaneer/Hunter/Phantom/Jaguar/Harrier/Canberra

  1981

  3

  Hunter/Lightning

  1982

  6

  Hunter/Jaguar/Victor/Harrier

  1983

  2

  Jet Provost/Tornado

  1984

  5

  Harrier/Tornado/Hawk/Lightning/Chinook

  1985

  0

  —

  1986

  1

  Harrier

  19871

  0

  —

  1To 4 December

  The statistics only relate to accidents where technical malfunction was identified as the cause. Accidents where the board of inquiry has not yet reported are excluded, as are also those where the cause cannot be positively determined.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Jet Provost aircraft have crashed as a result of technical malfunction for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Aircraft lost through technical malfunction as positively identified are as follows:

  Number

  1979

  1

  1980

  0

  1981

  0

  1982

  0

  1983

  1

  1984

  0

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  11987

  0

  1 To 4 December.

  RFA Argus
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus will be tasked as an aviation support ship for the Royal Marines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  RFA Argus will replace RFA Engadine. Her peacetime role will be as an air training ship. In war, her task would depend on the priorities at the time and she could be used to provide helicopter support in the amphibious group.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus will enter Royal Navy service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is expected that the ship will leave the shipyard in the new year. Following a period of extensive trials and training, the vessel is scheduled to enter service with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary towards the end of 1988.

  RNSSIX Satellite System
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the RNSSIX satellite system.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Procurement of the SSIXS from the United States has been under way for some years, for fitment mainly in Royal Navy submarines. Interoperability between the navies of our two countries has been enhanced in consequence of this acquisition, and the equipment has proved very reliable in operation.

  Sea Wolf
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met trade union representatives of Rose Packaging Ltd., Gainsborough, to discuss the Sea Wolf launcher contract.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement met trade union officials representing employees of Rose Forgrove Ltd. in July 1986. Matters associated with the development of a launcher for lightweight Sea Wolf were discussed.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he next expects to place orders for the lightweight Sea Wolf;

  (2) which Royal Navy vessels will be fitted with the lightweight Sea Wolf; and how many units will be fitted to each vessel.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 10 November at column 157.

  Thunder and Colt Balloon Factory
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why eight crew members of HMS Argonaut were flown to the Thunder and Colt balloon factory in Oswestry on Monday 9 November.

  Mr. Freeman
  Crew members from HMS Argonaut were flown in the ship's Lynx helicopter to the Thunder and Colt balloon factory, Oswestry, at the invitation of Per Lindstrand in recognition of the part the helicopter played in the rescue of Mr. Lindstrand following his transatlantic balloon flight in July of this year. The visit was made during a navigational training flight which included three hours instrument flying and three radar let downs. This flight was a pre-requisite for a pilot's instrument rating lost and so no extra cost fell upon public funds.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of flying a Lynx helicopter to the Thunder and Colt balloon factory in Oswestry on Monday 9 November.

  Mr. Freeman
  The cost of flying the Lynx from Portland to Oswestry and back was £4,476. As the flight was, however, carried out as part of the air crew's training programme, there was no extra cost to public funds.

  Higher Reardon Farm, West Dartmoor (Barracks Block)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what will be the cost of building a barracks block on Higher Beardon farm, West Dartmoor;
  89
  (2) what will be the size of the barracks that his Department intends to build on Higher Beardon farm, West Dartmoor;

  (3) why his Department has postponed its formal application to the Dartmoor national park committee to build a new barracks block on Higher Beardon farm; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what account his Department took of the proximity of Okehampton camp in deciding upon the necessity for a new barracks block at Higher Beardon farm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 23 November 1987,Official Report, column 35–36. The Ministry of Defence proposals to replace Willsworthy camp at Higher Beardon farm, Lydford, were submitted to the Dartmoor national park authority on 19 October, in accordance with normal procedures, which we continue to follow. Okehampton training camp could not be used for this purpose, mainly because it is too far away to provide ready access to shelter from the harsh and rapidly changing weather conditions on the moor. The proposed camp is not a barracks, but would merely provide overnight shelter for up to 100 troops using the ranges. It would be a single storey building which, with a small parking area, would cover about half an acre, about a third of the size of the present camp. The cost of construction would depend on the results of a competitive tender.

  Royal Naval Fleet
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what size he estimates the Royal Navy fleet will be by the year 2000.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  On current plans, the size and shape of the Royal Navy in the year 2000 should not differ greatly from what they are now.

  Aldermaston Defence Establishment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent leak of radioactive material from a pipe at Aldermaston defence establishment.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  On Wednesday 2 December an escape was discovered from the pipe which carries treated effluent from the atomic weapons establishment (AWE) Aldermaston to the River Thames. The escape was terminated promptly by AWE staff and no special action was required. Both the amount and the level of contamination were small, falling well below the notifiable reporting level. None the less, all the relevant authorities and the occupiers of adjacent properties were informed of the situation.

  No effluent is discharged from AWE until has been fully treated and checked to ensure that it is below the limits set by the regulatory authorities. This escape took place when the pipe was being refilled with clean water following routine maintenance, so the effluent involved in the escape was even more diluted than usual. The cause appears to have been an incompletely closed sampling point, though the precise circumstances are being investigated. At no time has there been any danger to either the public or the environment—indeed, the levels found were barely above the recommended guidelines for drinking water. However, surplus water has now been removed by tanker to AWE and the area has been subjected to a thorough check.

  Noise Disturbance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received about the noise disturbance caused by the large number of Chinook landings at RAF Molesworth on 4 December;

  (2) what representations he has received about the noise disturbance caused by the large number of aircraft movements into RAF Alconbury on 3 December.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  None.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
The Earl of Carnarvon The Earl of Carnarvon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Unroadworthy Vehicles
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the law regarding the sale of unroadworthy vehicles is adequately enforced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the law is enforced by the trading standards departments of local authorities. Many successful prosecutions have been brought. The trading standards' representative bodies have suggested changing the law to allow better enforcement. Next week Ministers from the Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry will meet the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss, among other things, the sale of unroadworthy vehicles and components.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very informative Answer. One hopes that some good will come from it. At that meeting will the Minister consider the power for inspection which the trading standards body has regarding the entry of trade premises? The noble Lord will be aware that at present it is prohibited under the Trade Descriptions Act from entering premises. Will the Minister take that into consideration at the meeting next week?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Ministers will discuss this with the Director General of Fair Trading. I would not wish to anticipate the outcome of those discussions now, but it will be one of the items on the agenda.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in addition to the criminal sanctions to which my noble friend has referred, is he aware that there are civil remedies? I wonder whether he can say anything about the extent to which they are now considered to be defective.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that information on civil remedies is not available to me at the moment. Perhaps I may look into that matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the information Which the Minister has given is most encouraging. Are the local authority associations being brought into these discussions because they will be vitally affected by the views of their trading standards officers? I know that the Society of Motor Traders is very worried about this; will it also be brought into the discussions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these discussions result from a symposium held in March of this year, which included representatives from local authorities and the motor trades organisations. They resolved to make a joint approach to Government to see what could be done. The meeting next week is the result of those discussions.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, would it be possible for every car involved in an accident to be registered and not be allowed on the road again until it was MOT'd?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that we can go quite so far as that with every car involved in an accident. We are aware of the public concern about cars which have been written off by their insurance companies. That is something which a working party of police, insurers and the DVLC is considering. We hope that it will report carefully and very soon.
Lord Newall: My Lords, will my noble friend consider having the mileage registered in the normal vehicle document (which used to be a registration book) so that one can tell how many miles the vehicle has done?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it has been suggested that mileages should be notified to the DVLC on application for a road fund licence and on the transfer of vehicles. It has also been suggested that a central record of mileages should be kept. This would be expensive to administer but we are considering it.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the chassis plate should be on the rear and the front of the vehicle with the number engraved and not stamped on as is the case at present? In those circumstances no one would he able to join two halves of different vehicles together after they have been written off.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion from the noble Lady and it is one which I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Crown Suppliers: Privatisation Analyses
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will place in the Library copies of the cost-benefit analyses of the possible privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and implementation of the Dewi Jones Report.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Belstead): My Lords, neither the report by Coopers and Lybrand assessing the feasibility of privatisation nor the Dewi Jones Report on other efficiency measures have been published. Copies of a summary of the two reports prepared by the Controller of the Crown Suppliers and circulated to all staff and the trade unions concerned have been placed in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He must be aware that the people involved, including the staff, are deeply disturbed at the way this issue is being dragged out.
Is the Minister aware of the recent report that indicates that the procurement itself had a return of 7 per cent., which is 2 per cent. above the guidelines of the Government, on its established assets? Bearing in mind its success as a financial organisation, why do the Government still have doubts about whether to keep it in being in the interests of taxpayers as a whole?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the Crown Suppliers has met its financial targets and has generally performed satisfactorily. However, the Government feel that as the Crown
4
Suppliers operates as a trading fund it is possible that it could be run more appropriately in the private sector.
As departments are increasingly free to purchase goods and services elsewhere, the Crown Suppliers is expected to compete for work in the public sector. Yet generally speaking it cannot seek business outside it as it would if it was a private concern. I think that is a persuasive reason for considering privatisation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report in a newspaper this morning that at a recent meeting with the employees, his ministerial colleague, Mr. Chope, said that the board of Crown Suppliers was a trade union acolyte for refusing to accept the idea of a management buy-out? Does he consider that such language is conducive to a good relationship with employees? Surely in the light of the successful profit return of the employees the Minister and his colleagues ought to be encouraging them and not discouraging them by using language of that kind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have not seen the newspaper report to which the noble Lord refers. It is, however, a fact that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State met staff and union representatives last week and is now considering all the available information in order to reach a decision at the earliest possible date. I believe that that is an attempt to be helpful.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the practice he has adopted of giving a reason for privatisation is most welcome; and will he bear that in mind on future occasions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the reports that there is now a serious difference of opinion between the Treasury and the Department of the Environment? I understand that the Treasury, through Mr. Major, has indicated that it desires to keep this operation public, bearing in mind the collapse of share prices and that it might not realise its true value if sold off now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I said, we are considering the matter. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has seen the staff side, and I ought not say more on this matter today.

Health Authority Consultation: Closures
2.46 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the prescribed procedures for consultation between district health authorities and community health councils, and whether they are satisfied that these

5
procedures have been adequately and properly carried out by the Birmingham Central District Health Authority since September 1987.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, health authorities are not obliged to consult over urgent temporary closures, which those announced by the Central Birmingham Health Authority were. I understand, however, that the health authority has provided the local community health council with information on various aspects of the closures and will be discussing the closures with it.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if these closures were urgent, why were they not minuted in a resolution of the district health authority at the meeting on 15th September? Why was not the community health council consulted immediately after the closure, as is laid down in the 1985 regulations and also in the de Peyer letter of 1979? If district health authorities are forgetting to communicate with community health councils, could not a letter on similar lines to the de Peyer letter be issued not only to the administrators but also to all members of the district health authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, by definition, if closures are urgent of management grounds then there would not be time to consult on them. Having said that, the circular to which the noble Countess referred states that in cases of urgent temporary closure it is good practice for health authorities to consult on arrangements for the provision of interim services and re-opening. As I said in my original Answer, that is the good practice which the Central Birmingham Health Authority is following.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister say how many hospitals and ward closures there have been in the past 12 months against the express wishes of the community health council? Is he aware that community health councils are no less conscious than the presidents of the three Royal colleges of the deterioration in patient care, the near breakdown of acute services, the depressingly low morale of the staff and the heavy responsibility on the Government to avert a crisis in the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this issue is not about cuts but about how fast services, in particular expensive specialist services, can grow. This year central Birmingham's allocation has gone up by 8·5 per cent. in cash terms. Last year it was 7 per cent. Altogether, spending on health services in Birmingham as a whole went up by 18 per cent. in real terms between 1978–1979 and 1986–1987. Within this total of course, difficult decisions have to be made about how fast individual services should grow, but quite properly these decisions are for local resolution. If the noble Lord wants to put down a Question on the total number of closures over the past 12 months, or whenever, he should do so and I shall do my best to answer it; but I am afraid I cannot do so at the moment.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, if closures are so imminent that they do not allow consultation, that points in the direction of bad administration?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would not go as far as that, but I note that the Central Birmingham Health Authority has had three general managers in the past two years.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any time limit on a temporary closure'? Is it not the case that some temporary closures are simply turning into de facto permanent closures without the proper intervening process of consultation?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if they turn into de facto closures I have no doubt that either I or my right honourable and honourable friends in another place will be kept fully informed and will ensure that consultation procedures, which we insist upon, are carried out. Of course if those consultation procedures between the district health authority and the community health council do not come to resolution, then through the good auspices of the regional health authorities they automatically come to Ministers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm the various reports in responsible newspapers that if a general manager of a health department, region or district can bring about closure of a number of wards, or indeed the closure of a hospital. he is rewarded by an increase in pay, which is denied to British nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has any evidence on that point. I have not seen the newspaper reports to which he refers. If he has background for that comment, I for one would certainly like to know.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, from the figures that the Minister gave in answer to my question, was he suggesting that the presidents of the three Royal colleges to whom 1 referred were inaccurate, did not know what they were talking about or were not close enough to the health service scene to say what I quoted they had said?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I was trying to say that there must be a rationale for reaching decisions on clinical need and on resources. The noble Lord will remember that even in his time as a distinguished Secretary of State for Social Services health authorities had to make ends meet year on year. We find ourselves in that difficult position today.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures he gave for the Birmingham Health Authority are discounted by the chairman of that authority, who said that £30 million is owed, because it receives less than the target allocation that the region should have on its population figures? Closures will automatically take place if it does not get the target figure and it is £30 million short.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am aware that the region is considering the basis of the remarks made by the district chairman and that it is looking with great attention at what is technically known as the sub-regional RAWP formula to see whether the Central Birmingham Health Authority has been under-funded.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most health authorities seem to regard community health councils as a bit of a nuisance, whereas—and I think that the Minister will agree with me—community health councils perform a vital service in protecting consumers' interests?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, I agree with the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. I have not heard suggestions that community health councils are being devalued by district and regional authorities. I hope that that is not true.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is now acute public concern about the alleged deterioration of the National Health Service? Is he further aware that a statement of the kind made by the three distinguished presidents has never before been made in this country? Will he therefore convey the exchanges that have taken place in the House to his right honourable friend and suggest to him that the time is overdue for a public inquiry into those allegations so that we and the people of this country can know the facts?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while I shall accede to the request of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to refer your Lordships' comments on this subject and any others to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, I hope that he is not suggesting that I have been inaccurate in my answers.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the regulations clearly lay down that, where there are substantial variations in service, community health councils should be conferred with. Is the Minister aware that in February 1987 a letter was sent to the Birmingham Children's Hospital saying that there would he a shortage of nurses because student nurses were being withdrawn from cardiac wards? Is he further aware that a 25 per cent. closure of beds in the children's hospital, including 33 per cent. in the cardiac wards. is a major variation in the services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for producing to me a few minutes ago the details on which she based her supplementary questions and, for all I know, her original Question on the Order Paper. As I understand the position, at that moment there was a proposal. It was not, in the words of one noble Lord, de facto.

Mental Health: Nursing Staff Levels
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is a shortage of National Health Service nursing staff for patients requiring psychiatric treatment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is a shortage of nursing staff caring for mentally ill people in some district health authorities, although nationally the total number of such staff increased by 9·2 per cent. to 59,480 man years between September 1981 and September 1986. This rise is made up of a 6·6 per cent. increase in hospital psychiatric nursing staff and compares with a fall of 15 per cent. in in-patients between years ending December 1981 and December 1986 and a rise of 134 per cent. in community psychiatric nursing staff. During this period the proportion of qualified staff has increased from 54 per cent. to 57 per cent.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In the light of it, what does he suggest should be done about the situation set out in the Guardian article where a registrar in psychiatry describes how shortage of nurses and pressure on beds in the acute admissions unit of her district hospital have meant that young and old people with mental disorders and young mothers with depression and suicidal tendencies have not been admitted because their condition is not considered critical enough? Does the Minister agree that funding is required to continue with preventive work whereby people would be taken in for a short stay and given treatment to get them through a critical period? If those funds cannot be found, there should be additional psychiatric community nurses to support those desperate people in their own homes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords. obviously, I accept that not all the staff were available in the places where the need arose. I have seen the article in the Guardian on the subject to which the noble Baroness refers. So far, I have been unable to discover to which hospital the article refers. However, as a result of better methods of treatment and modern psychiatric practice, far fewer people have entered in-patient care than was the traditional pattern 50 years ago. The answer to the main point raised by the noble Baroness is that there should be a gradual transfer of nurses from psychiatric hospitals to become community care psychiatric nurses.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I agree with the last point made by the Minister. Does he accept the disturbing figures recently presented by his department to the Public Accounts Committee which showed a 13 per cent. shortage of mental illness nurses and a 17 per cent. shortage of nurses for mental handicaps? Does he accept that the pay level is a vital factor which leads nurses to vote with their feet and to leave their jobs? Does he stand by the answer that he gave on Thursday to a supplementary question from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that there is no substance in the reports that the Government are contemplating increases in nurses pay?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, from what I can remember, that is a very free translation of what I

9
said on Thursday. I am sure that I said that the Sun article, upon which one of my noble friend's supplementary questions was based, was pure speculation. With regard to the number of staff, information about vacancies is not collected centrally. However, a sample survey of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives and Health Visitors showed that at 31st March 1986, 4·3 per cent. of whole-time funded posts in mental illness nursing had been vacant for at least three months compared with an average of 3·2 per cent. for all nursing staff. The House might be interested to know that whereas there were 60,000 patients in mental illness hospitals and units in England in December 1986, there were in fact 71,000 staffed beds.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if mental patients are to be treated in the community, probably living in their own homes with their families looking after them, a great deal of support needs to be given to those families? It means for example, that far more resources will be needed for home helps and other support for people who have to look after patients in their own homes. I know that the Minister will agree that the strain of looking after people who would otherwise he in mental hospitals is considerable. A breakdown will occur unless there is adequate support.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly agree. That is why I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that, first, I should like to see a considerable increase in community psychiatric nurses. Secondly, we are investigating the whole area of community care. We expect Sir Roy Griffiths, who is the Secretary of State's adviser on the health service, to report very early in the new year. We shall be able to take decisions based on that report.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the biggest problems facing the nurses, certainly in the South of England, is the cost of accommodation? Can something be done to alleviate that problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. As I said in answer to a supplementary of my noble friend Lady Cox last week, the Government are indeed taking on board considerations for major moves in this area. I am afraid I have nothing to announce today.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the organisations that represent nurses in the National Health Service—the Royal College of Nursing, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the Association of Home Visitors—have all expressed grave concern at what they term the vast number of nurses who are leaving the profession? Would it not be wise for the Government to consider having consultations with the Royal College, the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the health visitors' association, to see what can be done to stop this very dangerous drift of British nurses from the National Health Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, we are getting very wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I dealt fairly fully with this question last
10
week. If the noble Lord would like to refer to my answers then, I think he will find them helpful.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it the intention to make some special arrangements for nurses under the poll tax? Otherwise there will not only be a lack of nurses in this speciality but in all branches of nursing.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, I answered a supplementary question posed by my noble friend Lord Elton on this subject last week.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in view of the penultimate question, and several others, put to him this afternoon, is my noble friend aware that the furthest the Leader of the Opposition has been prepared to go is to say that there is an alleged deterioration? In the face of increased operations, additional improvements, and the money spent, is it not unnecessary to interfere with the morale of people? The Government have to consider whether the funding is right; and the people running hospitals have to ensure that they are spending wisely the money that they are receiving in the interest of the patient.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes. I certainly agree with that. But there is a world of difference between this Question on psychiatric treatment and the more general problems to which my noble friend has certainly some of the solutions and which we have discussed on numerous occasions in recent weeks in your Lordships' House.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the issue back to the Question on the Order Paper. Has the Minister seen a statement by the consultant physician in mental health. in the Aylesbury Health Authority who said:
"GPs were referring to hospital psychiatrists people who had social problems. The result is that specialised psychiatric units have become board and lodgings facilities for the socially deprived. The expertise available to provide adequate neuroleptics, and services such as family therapy is being wasted".
Is the Minister aware that Buckinghamshire has now allocated community psychiatric nurses to 16 general practices? Is he prepared to extend this experiment to all GPs in the country and therefore to relieve the hospital psychiatric units of many cases?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I sought to explain earlier. I am as keen as anyone to extend the numbers of community psychiatric nurses. It sounds to me as though Buckinghamshire has been able to achieve it. Yes, I should like to see that duplicated widely.

Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which was laid before your Lordships' House on 11th November of this year be now approved. I should stress to your

11
Lordships that the order has been made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. On this occasion I am asking the House to approve extra funds for only one vote, namely, the Department of Economic Development's Vote 3. My opening remarks on this occasion—I am sure noble Lords will approve—will therefore be reasonably brief.
The particular vote with which we are concerned this afternoon covers expenditure on, first, local enterprise initiatives; secondly, assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry; thirdly, mineral exploration; fourthly, energy efficiency measures; fifthly, capital investment grants for industrial development; and, lastly, scientific and technological assistance. Only some of these programmes require extra funds.
On 16th July this year your Lordships approved the Northern Ireland 1987–88 main Estimates, which included some £92.5 million for these services. This afternoon I am seeking a further £18.5 million, taking the total proposed expenditure on this vote to just under £111 million for the current financial year. The Estimates Booklet which is available in the Printed Paper Office—and I am sure that your Lordships will have copies this afternoon—gives full details of additional expenditure. At page 6 of the Estimates Booklet noble Lords will see that Section A of the vote covers local enterprise. Within that section the Local Enterprise Development Unit—which we call LEDU in Northern Ireland—requires an additional £1·5 million. The activities of LEDU are directed towards helping existing small businesses to expand and to encourage those seeking to establish new businesses. In a very difficult economic and social climate LEDU has a commendable record of promoting over 31,000 jobs since its inception in 1971, including 4,500 jobs in the last financial year. The agency hopes to promote 4,000 jobs in the current financial year.
One particular initiative which I wish to refer to your Lordships' attention this afternoon is the local enterprise programme of LEDU. This programme is targeted on local communities. It aims to promote the growth of new indigenous small businesses. It is being done through a network of enterprise centres right across the Province. Already 18 have been set up providing specialist advice to small businesses on the spot, and readily available premises, but most important of all, the necessary back-up services. Some 3,000 jobs have been created to date and this number is expected to increase substantially in the next few years.
In Section B of the vote we find that an additional £18·1 million of government support is required for Harland and Wolff this year. Many noble Lords will be aware of the severe and continuing crises which, since the mid-1970s have beset the international merchant shipbuilding industry. The facilities of Harland and Wolff are best suited to the large ship market but it is in this sector that competition from the Far East is at its fiercest. In consquence, the company has turned to more specialised ships such as the BP SWOPS vessel. However, in these specialist vessels many engineering techniques are being used for the first time. This has of necessity led to delays
12
in the programme and losses on the contracts. The increased government support is required to cover these contract losses and to meet work-in-progress contracts where instalments payable to the company have slipped into the next financial year.
If we look at subhead B3, which covers the Shipbuilding Redundancy Payments Scheme, we find that there is a reduced requirement of £1·2 million, thus leaving a net figure of just under £16·9 million for the section as a whole. The redundancy payments scheme has now terminated leaving only support payments to be made to workers made redundant prior to 31st December 1986.
Finally on page 6 we find Section C of the Vote. This covers energy and, as it is put, "other support services". For a number of years Northern Ireland has had the highest electricity generating costs in the United Kingdom because of its heavy dependence on oil. We find that an additional £146,000 is required this financial year for consultancy studies. The consultants whom we have engaged will provide expert advice to the Government in evaluating the competing public and private sector proposals to provide the new generating capacity which will be required in the mid-1990s.
In conclusion, I shall listen with great interest to all points made by your Lordships and I shall do my best to reply to them today. If I am unable to do so, I shall write to any of your Lordships who are concerned with any difficult points. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th November he approved. —(Lord Lyell.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his explanation of the contents of this third appropriation order of 1987. Its scope is narrow, being limited to defraying expenditure between now and the end of next March on the three items which the noble Lord has explained.
The additional expenditure of £146,000 on consultancy studies on energy matters is, in money terms, the smallest item covered by the draft order, but its implications are of the greatest importance to the economy of Northern Ireland because they have a bearing on the future generation of electricity for the Province.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on 14th July last on the draft Electricity (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, the Minister and every speaker in the debate emphasised the importance of developing a new and economic supply of electricity for Northern Ireland to replace the generating plant which is due for retirement in the mid-1990s and also to meet the growth in demand. It was then known that Northern Ireland is fortunate in having substantial reserves of high quality lignite—a kind of brown coal, as I understand it. One purpose of the electricity order was to facilitate private sector involvement in the construction of a lignite-fired station, if the department considered that to be the right decision in the best interests of the Province.
Last July the department was negotiating with two potential private generator companies about the possible terms of construction of a lignite-fired power

13
station at the site of the Crumlin lignite deposits. The Northern Ireland Electricity Service, which is the statutory provider of electricity for Northern Ireland, was advocating an alternative way of creating the additional generating capacity, including the conversion of its own Kilroot power station from oil to dual coal-firing and also itself building the lignite station at the Crumlin deposit. There were therefore a number of options for generating the additional capacity.
I understand that the department has very recently received a detailed exploration report from the Australian exploration consultants, Meekatharra Ltd., on the extent and the quality of the lignite deposits at Ballymoney, which is another lignite site some distance away from the Crumlin deposits which were referred to in the debate last July. I understand that this latest exploration report may show that the exploitation of the Ballymoney site may be an additional option and its full implications must therefore be carefully evaluated.
Can the Minister confirm to the House that a contract for the new generating station will not be awarded until the Government have fully evaluated the detailed report which has now been received from the Ballymoney deposit? Will the Minister also confirm that a decision to award a contract for the new electricity generating station will not be taken until an opportunity has been given for competitive alternatives to be submitted, compared and evaluated for the exploitation of the lignite deposit at both Crumlin and the Ballymoney site?
Before I leave the energy Vote, I should like to ask the Minister a question which my noble friend Lord Blease would have addressed to him if he had been able to arrive at the House in time for this debate. It relates to the efficient use of energy. He would have asked the Minister whether the Government propose to introduce new measures or incentives to encourage consumers to make more efficient use of energy. My noble friend Lord Blease tells me that such an incentive would certainly be in the best interests of the Province and that such an initiative would be supported by many people. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that.
I now turn to the largest item in the draft order: the payment of £18 million to Harland and Wolff by way of grants and loans to secure new shipbuilding orders. Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that with this additional expenditure the total provision for Harland and Wolff during this financial year will be about £58 million. We on these Benches accept the importance of Harland and Wolff to the economy of Northern Ireland and to many companies in the rest of the United Kingdom which trade with it. I have not seen the company's annual accounts which were published last Friday but can the Minister tell the House whether it is anticipated that Harland and Wolff will be seeking further government assistance in 1988–89? We certainly accept that Harland and Wolff cannot be immune to world shipping conditions, but can the Minister also tell us whether it is exposed to adverse conditions which in many ways are specific to Northern Ireland?
We pay tribute to the efforts of management, trade unions and employees to make Harland and Wolff a
14
more cost-effective and internationally competitive company. Its competitiveness has been enhanced at high cost in terms of unemployment and redundancy. I believe that during this year alone the company has shed about 22 per cent. of its labour force. I was therefore pleased, in a sense, to note that the sum which earlier had been set aside for the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme has been revised downwards, albeit by a very modest sum. Are the Government satisfied that as the company's employees have been made redundant, they have been receiving training for other skills so that they do not drift into long-term unemployment?
Before leaving the shipbuilding yards of Harland and Wolff, I have to touch on one of the deep political problems of the Province. The company has traditionally employed very few Catholics. Is the department satisfied that Harland and Wolff is now vigorously promoting equality of opportunity in employment for both communities in the selection and promotion of all grades of its staff, or, is it dragging its feet?
Now I turn to the third item, the additional assistance for the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) which generates the growth of small and efficient businesses in the Province. It is generally agreed that this unit has a good record for creating real jobs and also for co-operating with the district authorities and voluntary groups. The Northern Ireland Economic Council recently reminded us that LEDU has reduced its job target for 1987–88. The Minister spoke earlier of the job targets which have been achieved by LEDU. If that is so, can he give the House a reassuring explanation for the reduction in the jobs programme?
We are also told by the Northern Ireland Economic Council that it has been unable to obtain adequate detailed information from LEDU and the Industrial Development Board to enable it to make a complete analysis of industrial development and job prospects for the Province. This is clearly worrying, because if the analysis is incomplete the prognosis and prescription can be faulty. If there is anything in this point we would urge the department to encourage both LEDU and the IDB to make available to the economic council all the detailed information which it considers essential to get its analysis right.
Finally, I should like to raise one matter which does not come within the strict ambit of the order. I trust that your Lordships will allow me to raise this one point. On Thursday night, 22nd October last, in the western region of the Province six major rivers burst their banks and their waters flooded at least 337 homes and shops and also agricultural land to an extent never recorded before. This caused substantial damage and loss which has been assessed to be of the order of £1.325 million. The Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux described the area affected around Strabane as being "a disaster area". Strabane district council described the consequence as a "catastrophe". A deputation of five councillors accompanied by their chief executive came to Westminster early in November to plead for more help for the flood victims.
We know that poverty and hardship are unequally distributed throughout the United Kingdom but

15
Strabane and the district bear an exceptionally heavy share of that burden. In Strabane male unemployment is 42.3 per cent.—almost one in two of the male population. That is probably the highest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom. A large number of people in the area are dependent on social security and are not likely to find their way into employment for many years to come. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that many of the people of Strabane had given a very low priority to insuring their house contents against the risk of flood damage. In the result, they were found to be under-insured or not insured against the risk.
The Department of Health and Social Services has made payments in excess of £200,000 to flood victims to meet their urgent and immediate needs. British Coal has made available a free supply of coal and there has been a modest contribution from the EC. I understand that the payments made by the Department of Health and Social Services, or a high proportion of them, have been by way of loans which are repayable. It is far from clear how the unemployed of this area can possibly repay the loans out of unemployment benefit. Can the department find a way to waive its legal entitlement to recoupment of the money paid? I hope that the Government can respond generously. The waiver of their entitlement would be widely supported. I hope that the Minister's replies to these points will be helpful, and with those few questions and comments we support the order.
3.25 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, after thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for explaining the order with his usual clarity and attention to detail, I ought perhaps to explain to your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Hampton, who has contributed so much and so well for many years—10 years I think—to these discussions has at last felt obliged to lay down his portfolio and to ask to be relieved of his spokesmanship. I know that this will be a matter of regret to the body of regular Ulster-watchers who have come to appreciate the essential reasonableness and moderation of his speeches, and with the exception of the Lebanon I can think of nowhere in the world where such qualities are more needed or in shorter supply.
Having explained the position of my noble friend, I must next regretfully inform your Lordships that the competition to succeed him as Alliance spokesman for Northern Ireland has been such that we have not yet been able to resolve it. I am no more than a very temporary stand-in. That being the case, perhaps the best amends I can make for this rather deplorable state of affairs is to be very brief.
In reading what was said in another place about the order I was struck mostly—and several honourable Members made this point—by the unfair burden borne by the inhabitants and industries of Northern Ireland as regards the exceedingly high cost of their energy. I gather that they pay one-third more for electricity than the rest of us. We recall the recent occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, explained to us with his accustomed sang
16
froid, aplomb and perhaps panache why it was such a good idea to increase the price of electricity by a good deal more than the rate of inflation. Is is really necessary, sensible and fair that this should extend to Northern Ireland, where the average rate of unemployment is about 19 per cent.?
It has been decided that neither a gas pipeline nor an inter-connector link with the national grid via Scotland can be provided. If these decisions were made on ineluctable technical grounds, because we simply do not know how to do it, then we have to accept them. But if they were made on short-term grounds of cost-effectiveness then I suspect that one or both of them is probably mistaken.
I should like to raise one final point that is provoked by "The Money Programme." last night on television. I understand that there has been a welcome, if modest, revival in the linen industry in Northern Ireland but that none of the flax is grown there. It would be interesting for me at any rate to hear from the noble Lord whether any steps are being taken to re-introduce this crop. When we think that agriculture is the major employer in Northern Ireland it would seem that a re-introduction of the crop would be a good idea. There must still be a good many people around who know how to grow it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, in thanking the Minister once again for having presented the draft order in his usual clear and courteous way I should like to refer to energy efficiency, which is mentioned in the only Vote before your Lordships' House this afternoon. What I beg to say is peripheral to the more central points that the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord McNair, have raised, but perhaps there are certain general implications which would make them worth touching on.
First, I believe that in certain places—I have not ascertained where or to what extent—domestic waste is processed in some way, probably by incineration, so that it can generate energy. Obviously its contribution to the overall demand for energy would be fairly minimal, but still I would suggest that it is worth considering not only for the contribution that it would make but also as a solution to the problem of finding new places to dump rubbish.
The noble Lord, from his experience of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, will probably be aware of the contention and difficulty that is stirred up by local councils trying to find sites to dump rubbish. Inevitably the people living round about complain, and usually with justification too. One of the more recent examples to come to my notice was the disused quarry at Magheramorne. The noble Lord probably knows about that. The residents around there are complaining that the watercourses will be polluted, there will be foul odours and so on, that birds will carry the rubbish away and drop plastic cartons and things over the surrounding countryside. There are countless examples of that. Therefore, even if the contribution towards energy generation was minimal it would still he worth looking into in terms of conservation of the countryside.

17
Then there is the matter of an aerobic fermentation of sewage. When successfully done this produces methane, which is combustible, through microbial degradation of the carbon material therein. This leaves a harmless, odourless, disease-free matter which can he spread on land as an organic fertiliser. Similarly from the point of view of the environment even if the contribution to fertilisation of the land is not all that great, at least it would save polluting the sea and the loughs with raw sewage.
I think there is already a plant at Coleraine in the north of the Province which is processing sewage in this way. I am told also that in Birmingham, in the United States, and in Holland such processes are being successfully carried out. But not so in Newcastle, County Down, where a substantial amount of public money is being spent, as I understand it, to pump raw sewage a considerable distance out into the sea, but even if it is a mile or two miles into the sea it is still going to have a polluting effect. Any benefit that could be gained from that sewage by generating gas from it, by producing fertiliser from it, will be lost. I cannot understand that. If the noble Lord can throw any light on it this afternoon I shall be grateful.
Again, the digestion of farm slurry has already proved to be effective. I saw in the press a photograph of the noble Lord standing admiring the complex of buildings at Portglenone not very long ago, so he knows about this. Once more, combustible gas is produced and an end product produced which is useful as a fertiliser, both liquid and solid. The products can be separated.
For an outlay of only £65,000 (which is not all that much nowadays when you are going in for a major plant, whether agricultural or industrial) the monastery at Portglenone—and I am referring to the religious order; perhaps the Ministry of Agriculture had some part in it as well, I do not know; if they did, I salute them—managed to set up this plant. The result is that they are able to produce one and a half tonnes of fertiliser a day which they can sell at £1.35 a bag. They are generating revenue from this as well as generating gas which they can use for heating and other purposes. With this process the weed seeds are killed so that there is no propagation of foreign matter to any farmer who spreads this fertiliser on his land.
Another interesting aspect is that in Holland they have been having problems with slurry, and particularly pig slurry where they have a high concentration of pig units in certain parts of the country. This slurry in its raw state gives off ammonia, which apparently is a catalyst for acid rain. They have found that this problem is solved by digesting the slurry. Therefore from the atmospheric pollution point of view it is well worth digesting slurry, even if again the energy produced from the process is minimal by comparison with the total provincial or national requirement.
I would respectfully suggest that it is not only in the interests of the Department of Economic Development but also in the interests of the Departments of Agriculture and the Environment to look into this and see to what extent they can promote it. I should be interested to hear from the noble Lord how far there has been public education on these subjects and to what extent funds have been
18
devoted to encouraging farmers and public authorities dealing with sewage to look into the possibilities that may exist there.
The next point—and I mentioned this to the noble Lord when he kindly asked whether there were any points we wanted to raise—is why is it that the surplus heat from electricity generating stations is deliberately dispersed either into the atmosphere through cooling towers or, as is mostly the case in Northern Ireland, into the sea because they are water-cooled? Could that energy not be harnessed and used for district heating or some other purpose? It seems an awful waste.
Insulation of buildings is something that has been much better understood in recent years, but I have been distressed to see how many modern houses and particularly a lot of the modern blocks of flats—I think of Divis Towers in Belfast, and those 1950s and 1960s developments—have suffered from condensation. if you get condensation inside a building, that surely means that it is badly insulated. It defeats me to know why buildings erected so recently, at a time when any architect or engineer ought to have known about insulation and heat conservation, should have suffered to the extent that Divis Flats, for instance, have: they are now virtually uninhabitable.
Another great waste of energy is in providing an excessive temperature in public buildings. Everyone knows that the differential between the temperatures outside and inside a building is critical to the amount of fuel that is consumed. If you increase the temperature inside, the law of diminishing returns weighs in with a logarithmic viciousness. The consumption of fuel increases out of all proportion to the increase in the temperature. Therefore I really do question whether it is necessary to keep some of our public buildings as hot as they are at present.
However, even if we made improvements in insulation and in energy conservation, we are still, to the greater extent, dependent on fossil fuels. They will not last for ever. I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord how much progress is being made with Biomass, which I remember several years ago was being hailed as being the quickest renewable source of energy; that a crop of Biomass could be produced in under 10 years and that this would he a source of fuel. I remember they were experimenting on it in Loughgall.
Similarly, how much progress have Her Majesty's Government made in making it attractive for farmers to transfer land from conventional agricultural production to forestry? I think that we still import about 90 per cent. of our timber requirements. This surely is a renewable source of energy, even though it does not have as quick a turnround as Biomass.
I apologise that I have had a few fresh ideas since I originally wrote to the noble Lord. I do not necessarily expect answers to all the points that I have raised this afternoon, but I shall look forward to hearing from him, if not this afternoon, in due course.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, at the outset I should like to express my gratitude to the business managers of the

19
House for arranging for this debate to take place in the afternoon, because it has ensured a greater attendance in your Lordships' House than we normally have. In the past Northern Ireland people have felt somewhat neglected when they heard or read that the debates on Northern Ireland issues, which they regarded as being of vital importance, were limited to a dinner hour here in the evenings. The same feeling persisted in relation to the debates which took place in the House of Commons.
I am not only grateful that we have this debate this afternoon, but I realise that for the first time, among new Members to your Lordships' House, we have five ex-Secretaries of State. When each one of those gentlemen held the office of Secretary of State they proclaimed to the House of Commons the great affection which they had for Northern Ireland and its people, and recognised its tremendous difficulties and problems. On leaving Northern Ireland they said that they would retain an abiding interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, did people believe them?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I think that that has to be proved by future events. I see the noble Lord, Lord Atkins, in the House. I hope that in future debates affecting Northern Ireland those noble Lords who, as I say, have expressed great concern for Northern Ireland will be able to join in and show that concern to the people of Northern Ireland.
The scope of this particular debate may seem somewhat limited, but it has tremendous implications for the people of Northern Ireland. It takes into account employment, which is the ever-prevailing interest in everything relating to Northern Ireland, and the high cost of energy, electricity, etc.
In relation to LEDU, I do not think that there is anyone with any knowledge of Northern Ireland who would in any way take offence at the consideration which has been given by the Government to the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Since its promulgation by British Parliament after the institution of direct rule, I think that of all the organisations in Northern Ireland, LEDU has really proved its worth. It has brought about local enterprise; it has brought about community involvement. Each and every senior officer employed by LEDU treats LEDU as a job which gives him a salary; those officers are dedicated to the work that they are doing. I know the senior officers of LEDU. Each and every one of them is really involved in trying to create employment in Northern Ireland which, as we have already heard, has an unemployment rate of 19 per cent.
In that small Province 126,000 have seen unemployment. We do not talk about short-term or long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland; it is all long-term. People in Northern Ireland have been obtaining unemployment benefit for five, 10, 15 and 20 years, and some of them for up to 30 years. These were figures which I ascertained when I was elected in another capacity to another House. Unemployment is something that we live with every day in Northern Ireland.
20
I was in Belfast last week and the week before. In relation to what I regard as the most significant part of this order vis à vis the Belfast shipyard, I found in talking to many people that there is a great air of despondency about the future of Harland and Wolff. Whether or not it be justified is another matter. However, I can say I spoke to many people who are employed by Harland and Wolff, and to say the least, they are fearful of the future.
I am sure I have the overwhelming support of the five former Secretaries of State of Northern Ireland when I say that Harland and Wolff is an industry which is much more than an industry in Northern Ireland. It is the lynchpin of all the other industries and it is symbolic of industry in general in Northern Ireland. Between 50 and 60 per cent. of Harland and Wolff work is carried on outside the gates of the Belfast shipyard. Six hundred firms throughout Northern Ireland are actually involved in the process of building ships in Belfast. Every month 285 firms invoice Harland and Wolff. That indicates that Harland and Wolff problems are not restricted to the Queen's island; they pervade all over Northern Ireland. Whatever happens to the finances of Harland and Wolff will have an ongoing effect throughout the whole of Northern Ireland.
We have heard in recent years about the efficiency of Japanese and German shipyards and all the other foreign shipyards. We were told that their efficiency has led to the charge of inefficiency in British shipbuilders and in Northern Ireland. That really is not so. The facts of life are—and I went out of my
way to ascertain them before taking part in this
debate today—that there are five main shipyards in
Japan. For the last trading year, 1986–87 the NKK shipyard lost 95 million dollars; the IHI shipyard lost 145 million dollars; Hitachi lost 106 million dollars; SHI lost 75 million dollars and Mitsui lost 22 million dollars. The same applies to German and Spanish shipyards. Every major shipbuilding country in the world has lost money because the world seems to be needing fewer ships than it did.
On those figures, British shipyards are not doing too badly. British Shipbuilders, with its workforce of 6,000, has had a trading loss of £148 million. Belfast, with a workforce of 4,000, has had a trading loss of £58 million. If one tries to correlate the figures, Harland and Wolff has done even better than British shipyards and certainly better than other shipyards.
I think it is worthwhile repeating that Harland and Wolff is not only a shipyard. It is symbolic of everything that is important in Northern Ireland. In view of the recent election results in the North-East of England, it may be that the Government will wish to take the view that the shipyards in North-East England are on the mainland but the Belfast shipyard is on another island far removed from the every-day world of events here. It may be that further orders will be approved in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will not take that view.
As a result of the losses incurred last year by the Belfast shipyard 1,300 men were made redundant at a considerable cost, in millions of pounds. Those 1,300 men had skills; they were fitters, turners and electricians. They do not need training; they have already been trained and have given their lives to the

21
Belfast shipyard. It is highly unlikely that those men could be trained for any other industrial occupation in Northern Ireland. They have already acquired skills and it is a sad story that those skills are no longer of use to them because of the cut-back in shipbuilding.
At the behest of the Government and on their advice, in recent years Harland and Wolff has departed from its normal activity. It was building large tankers and bulk carriers but at the behest of the Government it switched and is now engaged in building three of the most sophisticated ships in the world. They are three of the most sophisticated ships that will ever sail the seven seas and I say that with considerable pride.
As we look forward to the 1990s there is a feeling in shipbuilding circles that there will be an upturn in building. It has been estimated that 50 to 60 per cent. of the world's tanker fleet will then be between 15 to 20 years old and due for replacement. When the orders are placed it will create a new mood, an upswing and a feeling of competition among the different yards for the building of those tankers. It would be a tragedy if in the 1990s Harland and Wolff no longer existed and could not engage in the competition for those orders. I hope that I am not being unduly pessimistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, should be aware of some of the disquieting stories that have appeared in shipbuilding journals over the past few months. I do not know from where the information is obtained or whether it has been leaked. All noble Lords know of the leaking that takes place in politics with people trying to create an atmosphere. At the moment there is a feeling of despondency. It has not gone very far hut it must he transformed into a feeling which will improve the morale of the present workforce. They must know that they will have enough orders to keep them going for two years and that on entering the 1990s the yard will he in existence and able to compete for the upswing in orders which will take place.
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of the rumours that I have heard from certain people whose optimism I hope is justified. The Belfast shipyard made its name in the early part of this century by building great passenger liners. It still has that capacity. Noble Lords will remember the "Canberra" and will know how vital it was to have a ship such as that in the Falklands war in 1982. I do not believe that the day will ever come when ships such as the "Canberra" and other cruise liners are unnecessary. I hope that not too far into the future Northern Ireland will again be in a position to design and build great passenger liners.
I have spoken specifically about the Belfast shipyard because I am a Belfast man. I know many of the shipyard workers and I agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. There have not been too many Catholics, or Nationalists (for want of a better word) employed in the Belfast shipyard throughout the years. If there is a problem in that regard I hope that the directors of Harland and Wolff will go out of their way to ensure that there is no religious discrimination in the employment of its workforce.
22
No matter how many Catholics or Protestants may be employed, that issue should not, and I hope will not, be a reason to look with disfavour on the present workforce employed by Harland and Wolff. I hope that this afternoon the Minister will be able to indicate that the workforce and management of Harland and Wolff—a company which has had many financial problems but which has good industrial relations and a good workforce—are entitled to look into the future with optimism. Harland and Wolff is part of Belfast and Northern Ireland and it must remain so.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as always we have had a tremendous debate on what, on the face of it, was a short Appropriation Order. It gave rise to few questions but any noble Lord who has been present over the last hour will appreciate the tremendously detailed knowledge shown about Northern Ireland. Many detailed questions have been aimed in my direction and I hope that I shall be able to answer them satisfactorily. If not, I hope that I shall be able to give satisfactory answers in writing at a later stage.
I am pleased to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNair, to our debates—perhaps I should say our "club". I should like to disabuse him of one matter: none of us is an Ulster-watcher and I am sure that he would not wish to be considered as such. All noble Lords here are doers and participants in the activities of Northern Ireland. I am sure that all noble Lords who regularly take part in debates on Northern Ireland will welcome the noble Lord. I should like to say that we have appreciated the tremendous help, advice and comments that have previously been given by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. We look forward to hearing from him when he is able to attend.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, first asked about energy and raised the interesting point about lignite and the two main deposits at Crumlin and Ballymoney. I should like to make four points as regards lignite and mineral exploration. First, the Department of Economic Development is examining every option for future electricity generation in Northern Ireland. They include both coal and lignite stations. However, until the study is completed I do not think that the Government will wish to presume that the lignite deposits at either Crumlin or Ballymoney will be exploited in the immediate future.
My second point relates to the Australian company, Meekatharra, mentioned by the noble Lord when he made an approximation into Irish, although he may not have intended to do so. I first became aware of this company 15 or 16 years ago while working in Australian minerals as an apprentice stockbroker. I believe that the company recently submitted a report of its study into the Ballymoney deposit. However, the study of the Meekatharra company will certainly form part of the full appraisal of the study on lignite which I mentioned at the outset.
The third point about lignite with which I wish to deal is that before taking any final decisions on the next tranche of the capacity for electricity generation in Northern Ireland, the Department of Economic Development will take into account all the

23
information that is available. That information will, of course, cover both the Crumlin and Ballymoney lignite deposits as well as alternative coal options.
Lastly, should lignite be the chosen option. certainly it would be for the power station operator, whether private or public, to decide which lignite source was most attractive to him on the basis of commercial negotiations and indeed of generating electricity.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a query on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, concerning energy efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, will certainly be aware, as indeed may be the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the Government operate a scheme of assistance under the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 which is meant to safeguard and maintain employment in Northern Ireland by the reduction of costs through the promotion of energy conservation and more efficient use of energy. Since its introduction on 1st June 1983, this scheme has resulted in nearly 460 firm applications for assistance. The applications to date indicate savings of nearly £4 million per year—I think it is between £3.9 million and £4 million—to the firms which have applied. The Department of Economic Development also funds an insulation scheme that provides grants towards the cost of loft insulation in private homes.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Fitt, raised the question of Harland and Wolff and the shipyards. As was pointed out, the difficulties in the shipbuilding market have affected shipyards all over the world. Western European production of merchant ships has halved over the past 10 years. Certainly the difficulties in obtaining new ship orders are not unique to Northern Ireland. It is with that in mind that Harland and Wolff has gone out of its way to pursue other options. Indeed, the marketing strategy of the company has covered three sectors: first, merchant shipbuilding; secondly, offshore work; and thirdly, what are called quasi-naval vessels. Earlier this year a new and strengthened sales and marketing team was established in Harland and Wolff with the aim of ensuring that the company positions itself correctly for future developments in all three sectors.
As noble Lords have pointed out, the company last week published its accounts for the year to 31st March 1987. Those figures show that the company incurred a trading loss of £57.8 million and an overall loss of a little over £75 million. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will certainly know that the company is wholly owned and funded by the Government and that that loss will be met by the Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced last month that the continuing difficulties in Harland and Wolff's trading position indicate that the Government's support in the financial year 1988–89 will be greatly in excess of the previously planned level of £30 million. However, that level will he the subject of continuing negotiation between the company and the Government and we hope to have a reasonably accurate estimate of what it will be. The figures that I have produced to the House today, as your Lordships will have noticed, give some indication of the scale of the problem.
24
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about employment practices at Harland and Wolff. Of course, the company is subject to the same employment legislation and rules governing equality of employment as any other company in Northern Ireland. As your Lordships will be aware—it has been hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—historically the workforce has been drawn predominantly from the Protestant community. However, it is difficult for the company to create a more balanced workforce since overall numbers are declining and new recruitment is at a much lower level then before. However, the company has signed a fair employment declaration and has implemented an affirmative action programme, as a result of which any recruitment which takes place is subject to fair employment practices.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked about the recent redundancies at Harland and Wolff. The level of redundancies is a matter for the company and will depend on the future workload that the company can obtain. A subsidiary company called Harland and Wolff Enterprises has been set up along the lines of British Shipbuilders Enterprises to provide practical advice on retraining—a particularly
important aspect raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—as well as re-employment opportunities for workers at Harland and Wolff who can no longer take part in the company's continuing progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked about the particular programmes of Harland and Wolff. The company has three current orders. First, there is the single well oil production system, which, in the course of my opening remarks, I referred to as SWOPS. The vessel is highly technical and very complicated. It is certainly the first of its type to be built at Harland and Wolff and requires a great deal of new technology. It has been prepared for British Petroleum.
Secondly, there is the conversion of a container ship into an aviation training ship for the Ministry of Defence. Thirdly, there is the auxiliary oil and replenishment vessel—the AOR vessel—for the Ministry of Defence. All three vessels are particularly interesting as engineering projects. It will be appreciated that they require a vast amount of new technology not all of which was suitable for Harland and Wolff who have had to make changes. I should like to pay my tribute and that of the Government to Harland and Wolff for the speed with which it adapted to new skills and practices. I am sure that all your Lordships will wish the company well.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of LEDU. Of course, job promotion is but one of the activities of LEDU. The reduction in the LEDU job promotion target for 1987–88 reflects a widening of the range of activities of that organisation to support small businesses in Northern Ireland. However, there has been an increase in new activities, which include such things as local enterprise groups, management and marketing development schemes and the establishment of export companies which are much appreciated by small companies wanting someone to give them advice on how to break into markets, be they in Great Britain, the Community or elsewhere in the world.
LEDU is targeting its activities on developing a product quality initiative. In several institutions that

25
I have visited I have seen little stickers stating "The customer comes first" or "Zero errors" and such slogans, all of which indicate that quality comes first and is taken into consideration by companies all over Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the floods. Certainly the flooding on 20th and 21st October, which was most evident in Strabane early in the morning of 22nd October, was caused by what those noble Lords who know Northern Ireland would agree was very exceptional rainfall. I believe that up to three inches or 75mm. was heard of in several areas in the Province; not just in Strabane or Omagh but also in a small village called Maguiresbridge where the level of the river rose something like six feet. The village was flooded at three o'clock in the morning. I visited it at 10 o'clock that morning and I could see what level the water had reached. The rainfall in that catchment area certainly exceeded 75mm.; it was, I think, nearer 80mm.
I should like to pay tribute to the excellent response of all the statutory and voluntary bodies in Strabane, Omagh and elsewhere in their efforts to remove flood water from properties and give immediate help to families and businesses that were affected. The Government are not responsible for compensating what are insurable risks, but they have provided help in whatever practical ways are possible, especially for those in genuine need. I shall go on to say a few words about that.
The reaction of the government departments and the other public bodies involved has been two-fold. First, the aim was to provide as much help as possible to the individuals who suffered and, to that end, urgent payments from the social security office of over £250,000 have been made. I stress to the noble Lord. Lord Pry's-Davies, and to everybody in your Lordships' House, that all social security claims have now been dealt with. Under rules which apply throughout the United Kingdom some payments will he recoverable. However, certainly I give the assurance that recovery will be sought in a humane and considerate manner, with full regard being paid to the personal circumstances of each individual who has made a claim.
As the noble Lord also mentioned, the European Commission provided £57,000 which was very welcome. British Coal provided 70 tonnes of free coal and all of this has now been distributed. The Housing Executive provided what I am advised are dehumidifiers, but which I call giant portable heaters, to help dry out the properties, and the Housing Executive has rehoused a small number of families. Furthermore, the electricity service has surveyed the houses and replaced electricity meters free of charge where necessary. The Western Health and Social Services Board has provided material and other help and the Industrial Development Board and LEDU have both been in consultation with their client companies in these particular areas.
The other essential work which is now being undertaken is the repair and replacement of the infrastructure which has been damaged. A scheme for new flood walls in Strabane, costing £4½ million has been announced. Some of the seven local bridges which were washed away have been replaced on a temporary basis and they will be replaced permanently as soon as appropriate arrangements
26
can be made. Other essential repair work to Housing Executives properties is now being undertaken.
I hope that these few measures that I have outlined will represent a very positive and helpful response to what has been a very distressing situation to many individuals and families, and indeed to many businesses, in Omagh and Strabane, as well as—I do not forget it—Maguiresbridge where two of the village shops had most of their stock washed away and, I think only three houses in the village were not struck by the flood.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, raised the question of electricity generation and, if I may, I shall briefly try to give him some assistance in regard to the queries that came to his mind. The tariff rate of Northern Ireland electricity is indeed fairly high. The present tariff policy was introduced in 1981 in order to bring Northern Ireland electricity prices down to a level more closely in line with those in Great Britain. In deciding to align these tariffs to the highest rate prevailing in England and Wales, the Government considered that they would not be unjustified in providing a subsidy which resulted in Northern Ireland consumers paying less than some of their counterparts in Great Britain. I think your Lordships will agree that that is fair.
As regards the application of an increase of between 8 and 9 per cent. in electricity charges in Northern Ireland, I should point out that 8 per cent. is a preliminary estimate of the expected overall average percentage increase in English and Welsh tariffs, but the rate will vary between boards and that still has to be determined. As the Northern Ireland electricity rates are linked to the highest ones in England and Wales, we shall have to await the outcome of the area boards' deliberations before being aware of the scale of the tariff increase which will apply in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord McNair, also asked about flax. I am afraid that I did not see the programme to which he referred. I shall certainly see it on my return to Northern Ireland where, I can assure your Lordships, we assiduously record any programmes on television or radio that are of interest to myself or my colleagues. Northern Ireland does indeed have an ideal climate for growing flax, but the conditions are not really favourable for the process of retting of flax. This will be familiar to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. In his career he will have seen many of these retting dams. I understand that this is the process of breaking down the wood material to enable the fibre to be extracted. The process of water retting that used to be carried out before the war was used extensively, but it is not really possible any more because of environmental control and pollution of rivers. Therefore that would certainly not be possible in Northern Ireland.
Over the past few years we have carried out various experiments in chemical and other methods of retting, but I have to inform the noble Lord, Lord McNair, and your Lordships that as yet none of these has provided a viable alternative. We certainly are experimenting in something that is called tank retting, but I should not think we shall have any news for the noble Lord this year. Certainly I shall want to see what is contained in the programme. For all I know there was something dealing with tank retting

27
in that programme. But if I have any news on flax and retting, I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised the most interesting question of trying to convert waste products into heat. At the outset, the noble Lord referred to a disused quarry at Magheramorne. Perhaps I ought to be aware of it. Certainly I shall make urgent inquiries. I shall not weary your Lordships this afternoon with what might be picked out of that interesting place, but I shall endeavour to see what the noble Lord found or what was reported to him. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, will be aware that a number of companies in Northern Ireland are investigating the possibility of developing waste derived fuels. Perhaps he may be going to a seminar on the subject which is being held in Belfast later this week on, I think, 11th December. The Department of Energy has provided funding of £33.2 million towards research and development projects for the conversion of domestic and industrial waste in the United Kingdom, but in sewage plants in Northern Ireland waste animal matter has been treated to produce methane gas which is used in processing the sewage.
Recently the Government have given support to one organisation in Northern Ireland to install a treatment plant to convert animal waste to a source of energy. I think that the noble Lord also referred to raw sewage at a farm in Coleraine. I shall certainly look into that—I was not aware of it—and will also pass on the noble Lord's comments about the pumping of raw sewage well out to sea, I am glad to say, at Newcastle, County Down. I am sure that my honourable friends will be interested in that.
The noble Lord referred to the abbey at Portglenone and to the treatment plant there. I paid a visit there and the wife of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been there since. The noble Lord pointed out how interesting this plant is. I would go along with him on that, but I shall have to write to him with some of the figures that we have found from Portglenone, and with some of the arguments that we believe do not put quite such a favourable light on the conversion figures as first appeared when we were looking at the project.
The noble Lord mentioned two concepts. He said that there were some interesting odours. If the noble Lord would come with me, he might then slightly rephrase that. Certainly, the digesting of slurry may be interesting in your Lordships' House, but it is not exactly a term which I or many others would wish to use.
The noble Lord raised a question, which I hope is not aimed at me or my colleagues, about overheating of government buildings. The Energy Efficiency Service operates within the Department of Economic Development and it seeks to encourage everybody to use energy efficiently. Certainly it is concentrating its efforts on all kinds of energy efficiency in public buildings, in housing and in government departments. I find that the noble Lord's opinion on heat, certainly in my part of Dundonald House, is not always what he believes it to be. We need to have auxiliary heaters in some of the rooms when meetings are taking place, at least in my office. However, he is
28
welcome to come and visit me and find out about that.
On the question of Meekatharra we are carrying out experiments at Loughgall, as the noble Lord knows, but we are not yet in a position to say how these will be able to transfer energy. Perhaps it is relevant in fairly small farms and one or two houses, but so far we have not been able to transfer these findings and figures to larger projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was kind enough to mention my right honourable friend in a previous administration. I understand that his name is now the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. I probably should have known that but as this is my first visit to your Lordships' House for about a month, I am sure that my noble friend will accept my apologies.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also drew my attention to many points on Harland and Wolff. I hope that I have covered them. I was interested to note that the noble Lord had researched into Japanese shipyards as well as European ones. I compliment him on the excellence of his study of the Japanese language. We shall be able to discuss this matter at a later stage.
I hope that I have covered all the points that have been raised in this afternoon's debate on the appropriation order. If I have missed any I shall certainly write to noble Lords about them. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
4.21 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: The order gives effect to the recommendations of the report of the Children and Young Persons Review Group on the adoption of Children in Northern Ireland. That report is available in the Printed Paper Office. I found it most interesting.
The order goes on to re-enact those provisions of the Adoption Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 which are unaffected by the recommendations of the review group. The order does not propose a fundamental departure from the present adoption practices. But it advocates a series of legislative changes designed to refine and to streamline existing procedures on an evolutionary basis.
The review group carried out extensive consultation before it published its report in June 1982. I stress that the recommendations have commanded widespread support. They have been fully endorsed by Government and are generally consistent with law and practice in Great Britain.
The order for the first time places a statutory duty on health and social services boards to provide an adoption service. The effect will be to put existing practice on a formal basis as boards, since their inception, have exercised their discretionary power to act as adoption agencies. The changes in the law will accordingly carry no real resource implications. But the order also confirms the position of the Department of Health and Social Services as the

29
registering authority for the voluntary adoption societies. It requires the department to consider the likely, or the present, effectiveness of the service offered by each society and to examine even more rigorously than at present their programmes, their resources and their organisation.
The order also introduces provisions which require registration of adoption societies to he renewed every three years. In the light of this change in registration procedure, I have accepted arguments put forward by the voluntary sector that the requirement to pay a registration fee should be dropped. This will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom where there is no fee for registration as a voluntary adoption society.
Mostly this is enacted in Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the order. The existing practice of third party placements will no longer be possible. All placements of children for adoption will in future have to be arranged through an adoption agency except in a case where the natural parents place a child directly with relatives. Your Lordships will see that most of those provisions are covered in Article 11.
The order continues to make provision for schemes for paying allowances to adoptive parents in very exceptional circumstances and under strictly controlled conditions. The aim of these schemes will he to facilitate the adoption of hard-to-place children, for example those who are known as sibling groups. Your Lordships will understand that when the adoption authorities and indeed the health and social services board believe it necessary that three or four brothers and sisters should change their home for some reason it would be better for all of them to remain together. I must say that the concept was new to me, but it was the explanation I was given. Those noble Lords who are expert and have much experience in this field will I hope agree that that is a reasonable definition.
The first category in the hard-to-place children is sibling groups. Then there are children with mental, physical or indeed multiple handicaps. Corresponding provisions were introduced for the first time in the rest of the United Kingdom in February 1982. That was before the review group issued its report. The vast majority of adoption agencies have devised schemes for payment which are working satisfactorily and have resulted in the adoption of children who might otherwise have remained in statutory care for many years.
One of the most significant developments is the introduction of a system of what we call freeing orders. This system enables consent to adoption to be conclusively obtained or in certain circumstances to he dispensed with at a much earlier stage in the adoption process. Your Lordships will find most of these particular measures in Articles 17 and 18 on pages 15 and 16 of the order. The aim of this particular system is to reduce the strain and confusion felt by parents facing long delays in awaiting the finalisation of adoption proceedings. It is also to ensure that prospective adoptive parents, with the element of uncertainty regarding parental consent removed, can commit themselves wholeheartedly to a child at a time when that commitment is essential.
A freeing order will usually be obtained upon joint application to the court by the adoption agency and the parent or indeed the parents of the child. The effect of this freeing order will be to transfer all parental rights and duties to the adoption agency.
The provision which attracted the greatest degree of comment during the consultation period was that all adopted adults who were at least 18 years old and who wished to trace their origins would have the right of full access to their birth records. Your Lordships will find that in Article 59 of the order. The amount of comment was really not surprising. This issue involves fundamental personal relationships. Indeed the review group itself, although firmly of the view that the principle of access to birth records should be admitted, was divided on the question of timing. Having considered all the representations most carefully, I concluded that such access should be granted in respect of all adoptions, thus avoiding discriminatory legislation which would exclude persons adopted before the date of the order.
The proposal for the adoption order as published for consultation followed the line advocated by the review group that people seeking access to their birth records would be encouraged but not compelled to avail themselves of a counselling service which would be operated by the adoption agencies. I feel it is very important to stress that they are not compelled but only encouraged to do this. The provision attracted criticism from the majority of existing adoption agencies who all argued for some degree of compulsion in the counselling provisions. It has always been recognised that this is a very delicate area which would have to be treated with great sensitivity. I was very impressed with the force of the representations on this topic. At the same time I recognise that this issue was considered in depth by the review group and I accept that many of the arguments were advanced in the report. I believe that they do have validity. We thought carefully about the whole question and have decided on balance that the right kind of natural parents require some additional protection.
In England and Wales, where similar provisions relating to access to birth records were introduced by the Children Act 1975, the law makes it mandatory for all persons adopted before the passing of that Act to attend a counselling session before receiving the information. None of the respondents to the proposal doubted the value and necessity of a counselling service. Although I fully recognise that compulsory counselling carries no guarantee of effective protection for the natural mother and that the use of compulsion is regrettable, I have decided that the benefit outweighs the disadvantages and that the people adopted before the passing of the order should be required to attend a counselling session as a condition of obtaining access to their birth records. Subject to this condition, access will be granted in respect of all adoptions irrespective of whether they were completed before or after the operative date of the new order, thus bringing it into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
While the provisions of the order are generally consistent with existing law and practice in Great Britain, there are one or two respects in which Northern Ireland will differ from Great Britain. I

31
should like to take your Lordships through those differing aspects and try to explain the most significant variations.
In Article 2(2) your Lordships will see the definition of "authorised court". In England and Wales the High Court, the county court and the magistrates' court all have jurisdiction to grant adoption orders. In Northern Ireland only the High Court and county courts will have such jurisdiction. The review group received unanimous support for its view that the number of courts hearing adoption applications in Northern Ireland should be kept to a minimum, thus enabling expertise in adoption work to be built up. Due to the economies of scale and the relatively small numbers of adoption orders made each year I have no hesitation in accepting that view. Therefore, jurisdiction to grant free or adoption orders will not be delegated to magistrates' courts.
In Article 11 on page 11 of the order there are some remarks on arranging adoptions and the placing of children. In Great Britain, in addition to those placements made by adoption agencies, any individual, whether a parent of the child or a third party such as a friend or acquaintance of the parents, a family doctor or a solicitor, may arrange to place a child for adoption, provided that the proposed adopter is a relative of the child. In Northern Ireland at present a placement arranged by an individual whether a parent or a third party may be with either a relative or a non-relative.
The review group was particularly concerned about arrangements permitting placements by individuals other than parents. It felt that the expert skills and high standards demanded of the adoption agencies in determining the suitability of prospective adopters and in preparing the prospective adopters for adoptive parenthood gave a professional safeguard for the welfare and optimum benefit of the child. At the same time it achnowledged the necessity of achieving a balance between protecting the child from what might be an unsatisfactory placement and infringing the personal freedom of the family. Accordingly, no person other than an adoption agency will be permitted to make arrangements for the adoption of a child or to place a child for adoption unless he is a parent of the child and the proposed adopter or one of the proposed adopters is a relative of the child or he is acting in pursuance of an order of the High Court.
Article 16 is to be found on page 14. The relevant paragraph is to be found under Article 16(1)(b)(i)(ab). This is an extraordinarily little paragraph. The matter was covered also by paragraph 51 of Chapter 5 of the report. This aspect of religious upbringing is covered in the following ways. It is not proposed to change the provision in the 1976 Act whereby the parents' consent to adoption can be given either unconditionally or subject to conditions with respect to the religious persuasion in which the child is to be brought up. By way of contrast, in Great Britain an adoption agency in placing a child for adoption is required merely to have regard "so far as is practical" to any wishes of the child's parents or guardian as to his religious upbringing. However, the weight of opinion in Northern Ireland clearly supports the retention of the existing provision.
Another variation that I bring to the attention of your Lordships is reporting to the court. This is covered by the term "guardian ad litem" in Article 66. The law in Great Britain provides for a reporting officer to be appointed when an application is made for an adoption order or a freeing order. His or her main duty is to witness agreements to adoption and to assure the court that such agreements have been given freely and with full understanding of what is involved. In Northern Ireland there was overwhelming support for retaining the present procedure for witnessing consent, whereby a guardian ad litem—in practice this is a social worker—is present when the natural parents appear before a justice of the peace to sign the consent form and the guardian ad litem ascertains on behalf of the court whether every consent was freely given and with full understanding of the nature and effect of an adoption order. There is accordingly no need to provide for the appointment of reporting officers in Northern Ireland.
I have outlined the most significant provisions that will be made by the orders. I have also referred to the main differences that will continue to exist between the law of Great Britain and that of Northern Ireland. The other provisions of the order either reenact existing provisions of the Adoption Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 or contain provisions consequential upon the new policies. Accordingly I do not propose to go through the order article by article. Perhaps I may give a general sysnopsis of the balance of its provisions.
Part I of the order is introductory and provides for title and commencement interpretation. Part II deals with the detailed arrangements for adoption. Article 3 imposes a duty on every health and social services board to establish and maintain an adoption service within its area. Article 4 sets out revised arrangements for the registration of voluntary adoption societies by the Department of Health and Social Security. The new criteria laid down for registration that I have already mentioned must be renewed at three-yearly intervals. Article 9 is what may be regarded as the keynote article of the order as it contains the welfare principle that confirms that the welfare of the child is the central focus of adoption law. It requires courts and adoption agencies, boards and registered adoption societies, in deciding the course of action in relation to the adoption of a child, to regard the welfare of the child as the most important consideration. In so far as is practicable this is to be done, first, to ascertain the wishes of the child regarding the decision; and secondly, to give due consideration to those wishes, taking into account the child's age and understanding.
Part III of the order deals with the definition and mechanics of making an adoption order; in particular it introduces the concept of freeing for adoption and sets out specific grounds on which the court may dispense with the consent of the natural parent. Part IV outlines the arrangements for the care and protection of children awaiting adoption. In particular it places restrictions on the removal of a child from his place of residence while an application for a freeing order or an adoption order is pending. The courts are empowered to make orders to prevent such removal or to secure the return of a child taken away without permission.
Part V of the order deals with the status of adopted children and corresponds with existing provisions in the law of England and Wales. In particular it defines adoption for the purposes of this part of the order, confirms the status conferred upon a child by adoption with regard to legitimacy and relationships and sets out the rules of construction for instruments containing dispositions of property.
Part VI continues with minor modifications to the existing procedures for the registration of adoptions by the registrar general, and it re-enacts (again with minor modifications) the existing procedures for the registration of adoptions made outside Northern Ireland. I have already referred to the new provisions contained in Article 54 which provide for an adopted person over 18 to be given access to his birth records. I certainly would not wish to add anything to my earlier remarks.
Part VII contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions which generally re-enact corresponding elements in the 1967 Act. However Article 59 not only reinforces existing prohibitions on certain payments in connection with adoption, but it also introduces new measures which will enable adoption agencies to make payment to adopters in accordance with the scheme approved by the department. It also requires the department to publish regular reports on the operation of any schemes which are so approved.
That covers my brief outline of the provisions of the order. I wish to conclude by stressing that the order is not a totally new statement or a new philosophy of the law. It is a set of proposals to update and to improve the 1967 Act which, on the whole, has worked very well and the general principles on which it is based have not been disturbed.
I recognise that some modest resource implications will arise from some of the provisions of the order although these will be substantially offset by savings resulting from other provisions. Overall, the order will not lead to a significant increase in public expenditure or in public sector staffing.
The proposals in the order have received a wide measure of support in Northern Ireland, and for my part I am satisfied that the order represents a sound approach to the subject of adoption. I hope that by simplifying the procedures adoption will assume a more positive role in the range of possible options available for children in need. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th November he approved. (Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I will not detain the House over this order. It is an important order and we welcome it. We are grateful to the Minister for describing the background, for explaining its main strands and for identifying the areas where the law on adoption in Northern Ireland will depart in some material respects from the law in England and Wales.
I am particularly pleased that the order recognises that the most important consideration in the adoption proceedings is that of the welfare of the child. It seems to me that this comes out very clearly in Article 9 of the order which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has described as the keynote article. It seems to me that it is spelt out very clearly and possibly clearer
34
than in the appropriate section of the Children's Act 1975.
I have only one question to ask the Minister and it is this. The Minister explained that the adoption societies will not be charged a registration fee. Article 4 provides for the payment of such a registration fee as may be prescribed. Presumably this is an enabling power for the department but that in practice it is not intended that a charge be levied on the adoption societies. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
I have no other questions. Our hope must be that the order will make it easier for some of the children of Northern Ireland who are in need of love and care and a stable background, to live happier lives henceforth. We support the order.
Lord McNair: My Lords, as I understand it, this order, with one or two exceptions, brings the procedures for adoption in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of England and Wales. It seems to us to be entirely sensible and the order has our support.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my outline took 20 minutes, so I must apologise for taking so much of your Lordships' time; but I felt it wise to cover the ground. I am very, very gratified that my outline seems to have found support in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, had one particular question which he wanted me to answer about charging a registration fee by adoption orders in Northern Ireland. He quoted Article 4 in this regard. The noble Lord will notice in the last line of paragraph 1 of Article 4 towards the top of page 8 the two words, "if any". There will be a departmental discretion to introduce a registration fee at a later date if we think that this is necessary in the light of my earlier remarks.
The noble Lord will see the sentence:
"paying such fee, if any, as may be prescribed."
At present, we do not intend to charge a fee for registration as a voluntary adoption society. I outlined the considerations that if we want to ask societies to register on a triennial registration that we regard it as unreasonable to ask them to pay a fee. That is the background to this particular point raised by the noble Lord.
I am very grateful for the patience and fortitude with which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has attended upon my interpretation of the particular order. I wish also to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has once again come to listen to the heat of Northern Ireland debates. 1 assure you that many of us appreciate her presence here. We are very grateful since all the discussions on the affairs of Northern Ireland do not always sparkle with the wit which your Lordships experience on other occasions. We believe in Northern Ireland; that is, the doers and the participants, and we believe that these debates provide an opportunity for points to be raised and queries to be answered. I am grateful for the attention which has been paid to this particular order and to the earlier appropriation order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security in the EC: ECC Report
4.49 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Social Security in the European Commumity (3rd Report, 1987-88, HL Paper 12).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to begin by thanking the other noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate.
This report on Social Security in the European Community by your Lordships' Select Committee was prepared by Sub-Committee C in response to a consultative document issued by the European Communities Commission. It was published with all the evidence some little time ago.
It is not perhaps the most exciting topic in the world and there was almost complete silence in the press when the report was published. An honourable exception was the Yorkshire Post, which managed to combine interest in what we had said about the movement of workers with recognition of the fact that the territorial title of the chairman of the sub-committee demonstrated that he came from that great county.
Although the topic lacks glamour, it makes up for it in importance. The sums involved in social protection schemes across the EC amount to something like 26 times the total EC budget. These are schemes which affect the lives of a great many people.
A lot of progress is being made in breaking down the barriers of trade in the Community but there has really been nothing comparable in the field of social policy. A little has been done, for example, in the way of poverty programmes, in arrangements affecting state pension benefits and over equal pay. However, the unemployed, the sick, the elderly and the disabled have not all that much to see as a result of membership of the Community. Even by 1992, to them it will still be essentially a European common market rather than a European Community and more concerned with the regulations about foodstuffs and toys than with the quality of life of the less fortunate members of society.
The issue today is whether the Community can be given a more human face. The powers are not lacking. Article 51 of the Treaty of Rome requires the Council, on the initiative of the Commission, to adopt such measures in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of movement of workers; and Article 118 charges the Commission with the task of promoting co-operation between member states in the social field in a number of areas, one of them being social security.
Some time ago the Council of Ministers concluded that the Community would not be able to strengthen its economic cohesion without also strengthening its social cohesion and that social protection schemes were an important feature of social cohesion. We are only now beginning to consider ways of injecting some life into those splendid sentiments.
At the margins, social security provision could be relevant to the economic aspects of the Community in that they could affect competition policy. Member
36
states might be tempted to bolster their competitive position by cutting back on social security expenditure. Indeed, for some time the French were muttering that the system in this country gave a competitive edge to United Kingdom employers. The movement of workers could be affected if they tended to move across boundaries towards the countries with the most generous social security provisions. In this context perhaps the Channel Tunnel will put us in the same boat—to use an appropriate metaphor—as the Continental countries with common land frontiers.
However, in our inquiry we did not come across hard evidence that either of these things had been happening, and in any case the issues go much wider than that. The sub-committee thought it opportune, and indeed overdue, that the Commission put round its paper designed to stimulate debate on these wider issues. We welcomed the opportunity of making a modest contribution at what is still an early stage of that debate.
It is perhaps as well to start with what cannot be achieved in this imperfect world. As our report shows, we concluded that there was no prospect within the foreseeable future of achieving complete harmonisation of social security provisions throughout the Community. Although many will regret this conclusion, I believe it is inescapable. The historical backgrounds of the different countries, the fact that social security policies are locked into national cultures and the differing political and administrative structures all add up to making it an impossible dream.
However, at the same time, it seemed to us to be highly regrettable if members of the Community drifted even further apart in tackling problems which in greater or lesser measure are common to them all. For example, all the member states except Ireland have the demographic prospect of society having to maintain an increasingly high proportion of the elderly. Long-term unemployment is something which the countries have to face as a persistent problem—a prospect not envisaged when the post-war social security systems were brought into being.
There are what are commonly described as the "new poor"—the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed and in particular one-parent families—who again exist on a greater scale than when the new system started, even in the Roman Catholic countries in the South. They may be the "old poor writ large", as one of our witnesses put it, but nevertheless they are a problem common to all member states. I add the disabled to this list. I hope that later speakers may have more to say about these groups, but for my part I must content myself with making the general point that these are common problems and it does not seem to make all that much sense for them to be tackled separately by each country without regard to what is happening elsewhere in the Community.
That takes me straight to the point that there is at present a marked absence of shared knowledge in this sphere. The one aspect common to nearly all our evidence was that, although the witnesses had very clear ideas about what they would like to see happening in this country, they had great difficulty in putting those proposals in a European context. We

37
gather that even the Government when they embarked on their major social security review in 1983 found very little information available when they turned to Europe to see what might be learnt from experience there.
We dug out some information in our report which I believe some readers of the report have found of passing interest. However, it was clear to us that, first, there was no very large-scale research going on and, secondly, that the resources of the Commission were inadequate both to collect information and also to assimilate it and draw conclusions from it. There is a very big gap here.
We thought it desirable that the Commission should be better equipped to fill the gap. We thought that member states should be put under an obligation to inform the Commission of changes and innovations in their social security systems and in related areas, including benefits in kind such as health care. We also thought that the Commission should be so equipped that it could attempt to analyse the effect of current and proposed policies, do much more in the way of consulting interested bodies and organizations—a point we touched on in previous reports—and take a positive role in encouraging the adoption of the best practices. We hope that such a process might result, for example, in the adoption in all member states of what we describe as a "safety net", for example, for the long-term unemployed.
We are well aware of the problems of achieving this in our terms but we cannot think it right that there should be groups within the Community who are excluded from social protection; nor would we altogether despair of progress eventually being made over pension portability—to use that horrible word—despite all the very formidable obstacles. In short, we believe that that is an area which has been neglected for too long.
We appreciate that there are some signs of movement, some stirrings in the undergrowth. A group of officials, as it is described, for the Concertation of Social Protection Policies meets from time to time, although there is not all that much evidence of it getting to grips with these issues. The Social Affairs and Employment Committee of the European Parliament has been considering the Commission's paper. From conversations we had with it, it seems to have adopted an approach not inconsistent with that of Sub-committee C. In addition to some isolated pieces of research we know that a professor from Antwerp University has been officially commissioned to inquire into the definition of poverty in a European context.
All that does not add up to much unless there is a genuine debate on the issues raised in the Commission's document which forms the basis of our report. I am not at all clear as yet about the Government's reaction to that document. We shall learn tonight with great interest what it is. Do the Government share the view taken by some that nothing much need be done, on the argument that the development of the Community over the years will of itself be bound gradually to result in the Common Market becoming a genuine European community? Or do the Government see scope for positive action in that hitherto somewhat neglected area? If they do,
38
what do they think of the suggestions made in our report? Have they any other positive steps in mind? Finally, do they see the political will being there to take effective action? I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Social Security in the European Community (3rd Report, 1987-88, HL Paper 12).-(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I shall begin by saying how much I appreciated the opportunity to sit on the sub-committee. I found the inquiry immensely informative. I believe that the constructive contributions of so many witnesses have been reflected in the constructive recommendations which have emerged in the report. I deeply appreciate the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who so ably helped us to distill coherence from the abundance of significant and often fascinating material which was presented to us.
In my brief contribution to the debate, I wish to consider the demographic changes experienced by countries in the Community, with particular reference to the implications for the elderly and those who care for them. I have selected this theme because I understand that other Members of your Lordships' House will focus on other aspects of the report; for example, important issues such as the new poor.
When we look at demographic changes, we see a pattern in recent decades which is widespread throughout Europe. It tends to be characteristic of all industrial societies. I refer to a combination of a drop in the birth rate and a rise in life expectancy. The dramatic increase in longevity has been achieved through generally higher living standards, advances in medical science and better preventive health care. But, as is so often the case, in the field of health care and social policy, success breeds new problems especially as the increase in the numbers of people surviving to old age has in many countries occurred at the same time as the reduction in the size and proportion of the working population. As the Department of Health and Social Security memorandum points out:
"The demographic trend over the next few decades will create for all member states (with the exception of Ireland) a diminishing ratio of contributors to pensioners, both because of increases on longevity and because of the passage of the 'baby boom' generation into the retired population of the next century."
The Government Actuary's Department suggests that the ratio of contributors to pensioners in the United Kingdom will fall to much lower levels than it is at present—from 2.3:1, which it is now, to 1.6:1 in the year 2030. According to the DHSS, other European countries will follow suit over the next 20 years.
One of the biggest challenges confronting all concerned with social security provisions is the need to find the means to provide financial support for the growing numbers of those who will reach retirement age and to enable them to enjoy a reasonable standard of living throughout the growing number of years of retirement that they may expect. Furthermore, consideration must be given to the needs of those elderly people, especially those whom we might call the older elderly, who will become

39
subject to the frailties and infirmities of old age and who will therefore need some form of care.
I should like to highlight three inter-related problems that confront us: first, the problems of providing adequate financial support for the elderly; secondly, the problems of providing adequate social support for the elderly; and, thirdly, the problems of those who care for the frail and infirm elderly in their own homes.
First, financial support: there are at least two groups of elderly people who are especially vulnerable to poverty. In the memorandum submitted by Age Concern England, two poverty traps were identified: those into which some elderly women may fall and those afflicting the older elderly. I shall quote some of its evidence:
"Elderly single women are recognised to be the poorest of the poor elderly. During their working lives these women were badly paid and a wage-related pension is therefore inadequate…others have a reduced contributions record after leaving the labour force and returning late after bringing up children. Arrangements for the pensions of the widows of retired men often result in inadequate amounts for the surviving partner…this can be a particular problem when the man himself was low paid during his working life".
Age Concern also comments that greater participation by women in the labour force and higher social insurance paymens will lessen that trend, but the below average wages of most women at work reduces its value for final pensions.
The second group of elderly people especially vulnerable to the poverty trap is the older elderly. I shall again quote briefly from Age Concern:
"Those who retired 10 years or more ago will not benefit from the recent new schemes of wage-related pensions now being introduced by many EEC countries. They must often rely on various types of minimum income guarantee, including social assistance, which is inadequate. This problem is likely to diminish over time, but meanwhile the current group of older elderly often have very low incomes. It is a problem which will remain, however, for low-paid workers as long as pensions are wage-related".
The problems of inadequate financial support may be exacerbated by the various other problems which may affect old age, especially, "the ills which flesh is heir to". Many, especially among the older elderly, become frail, infirm and in need of help with the basic activities of everyday life. With the growing emphasis on community care, which apparently is policy in most if not all European countries, many frail elderly people who would previously have been in residential care will now be out in the community. At its best, community care can combine the ideals of independence and support, but at its worst, it may mask social isolation and physical neglect. The predicament of those who suffer may be hidden from view, because the community can be a very lonely place. Therefore great care needs to be taken in the implementation of the policy of community care for the elderly to ensure that those who are the most vulnerable do not sink into a black hole of desolate loneliness and neglect.
Of course many frail elderly people are cared for by relatives and neighbours and such care is often given with great willingness and affection. However, there are also often great costs involved for those who provide such care, and those costs may be financial and social and operate in the short and the longer-term.
40
This point was highlighted in the memorandum submitted by the Family Policy Studies Centre whose concern was expressed about what they call the "forgotten army of carers", especially women caught up in the "cycle of caring" who move from caring for children to caring for elderly relatives. The memorandum points out:
"Unlike married women caring for children, those caring for the elderly and disabled now have their loss of income recognised by the social security system, but at £23.75 a week, it is only a small substitute for full-time work".
Of course women who remain out of full-time work to care for elderly relatives also suffer from loss of occupational pensions and from accumulation of career experience so that if and when they wish to return to work they are likely to do so at a lower level than those who did not take time out or who returned sooner. As Mrs. Rimmer from the Family Policy Studies Centre said in oral evidence:
"What I think is particularly lacking is not simply some sort of concerted effort to consider what pattern of services, and what balance of services, would be appropriate to carers themselves, whatever diverse situations they find themselves in, but also an emphasis on the employment impact of this on some women over their life cycles, and the extent to which they cart therefore generate under a national insurance system sufficient entitlement to a pension of their own, and during their lifetime accumulate capital sufficient to cushion them in their old age".
Mrs. Rimmer went on to suggest that such problems will probably affect one in two women. One out of every two is likely to take time out of work to devote to caring responsibilities of some kind. She also suggested that it would be most useful if the Commission were to look at these problems in some detail.
That recommendation leads me into my concluding comments which relate to the need for more information—a need which has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. As so many of the countries in Europe are facing similar challenges and problems, there is so much that we could learn from each other. It has been well said that a society can be judged by the way in which it cares for its most vulnerable members. Social security is by its very nature concerned with those who are vulnerable. Different countries have met the challenges of providing for those who are vulnerable in very different ways, reflecting each nation's own history, culture and social and political traditions. None has a perfect solution but we could all learn from each other's problems and achievements.
I therefore conclude by adding my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale and to many others, including many of those who gave evidence to the Committee, by asking for more research-based comparative information on which to assess present policies and on which to base new policies. This would help us to ensure that those who are most vulnerable will not suffer needlessly in societies, many of which are among the world's wealthiest, and many of which are sufficiently affluent to ensure adequate financial and social support for all their citizens.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the way in which he chaired the committee and for his very excellent introduction of the report this

41
afternoon. It was a very interesting inquiry because of the information that was brought to the attention of the committee and also because so much information was missing. There was another sense in which it was interesting. As the chairman said when we interviewed our first set of witnesses, "It is a good idea to be taking part in a debate which is just beginning rather than one which is just ending." We hope that our report will be a contribution to that debate.
A number of issues have emerged, some of which are for long-term consideration and some for more immediate consideration. For more immediate consideration is the problem which both the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, have mentioned. That is the lack of information. There is a very real gap which makes it impossible to evaluate and compare the different systems within Europe. Even the 1979 Directive on Equal Treatment in Social Security—about which we have heard, and which some of us know quite well—was based on the principle of equality between the sexes. It was not concerned with social security coverage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has said, there has been a concentration on economic and agricultural affairs. For example, we were told that of the Community budget, 65 per cent. went into CAP and only 0.019 per cent. into the second poverty programme. It is perhaps significant that the first meeting of Ministers concerned with social security was in June 1984 and it is obvious that their conclusion must have been what it was: that if we are to strengthen the economic cohesion within the Community we need also to strengthen the social cohesion. That is a view to which your committee subscribes.
As has been said, all the evidence and statements from witnesses agreed that harmonisation in the sense of a single social security system for the whole of Europe was neither desirable nor likely to happen given our different historical and cultural backgrounds and the different pace at which the economies and the political features have developed in different countries.
It was also pointed out that innovation could he valuable in setting new standards. Nevertheless, it emerged that it is possible to focus on some of the shared problems and the growing issues of common concern. As has already been indicated, these areas fall into four categories: the increasing number of elderly in the community; the growth in the number of long-term unemployed; the growth in youth unemployment; and the increasing number of single parents. I should like to concentrate on the area of single-parent families.
The Family Policies Study Centre in its evidence pointed out that currently there is no single generally recognised measure of one-parent families in this country, let alone at EC level. It went on to say that:
"Issues arise for example over the extent to which lone parents who are co-habiting, living in parents' households or with other adults can or should be separately identified".
It drew our attention to the resolution passed by the European Parliament in 1986, which, among other points called upon the Commission to produce a common definition of "one-parent families".
42
Work in this area and in establishing longitudinal evidence, as the Family Policies Study Centre said—about how many people become lone parents at some time in their lives and how long they remain lone-parent families—seems essential.
In this country, we know, for example, that some 14 per cent. of families are headed by a lone parent. We know that approximately half of those are living on supplementary benefits. In other European countries the position is not so clear because of lack of evidence, but a Commission report prepared for a conference in Copenhagen in 1982 on one-parent families in poverty indicated, first, that the number of one-parent families had been rising throughout the whole of Europe and that it now represents an average of 10 per cent. of all types of family. In Europe, too, a high proportion are known to be people living at low income levels. This growth is largely due to the increasing incidence of marital breakdown. Even in countries where divorce is not legal, the separation of parents constitutes a growing problem. One-parent families arise from three situations: marital breakdown; widowhood and unmarried mothers. Of these areas, marital breakdown constitutes the largest group. Widowhood, which is the group best provided for financially, is now of less significance numerically in many countries. All three groups suffer deprivation in one way or another: financial, emotional, social isolation, homelessness, inequality in employment opportunities. Some single parents and their children suffer from all the deprivations.
From the evidence, and as many of us know from our own experience of encountering single parents, it is not merely a question of providing financial support through the social security systems. There is also a need to provide other social and economic support in the form of work opportunities, child-care provision, housing facilities, better opportunities for social interaction and so on. The policies of different countries emphasise different aspects. In some countries the emphasis is on assisting single parents to be self-sufficient through employment. In other countries, the emphasis is on the provision of a safety net. Very often, as in this country, it is on a means-tested basis. The incidence of employment varies from country to country. In the United Kingdom, 41 per cent. of single parents are in employment, compared with 89 per cent. in Denmark and 78 per cent. in France. All countries make some provision for child benefit. Some make provision for all children, irrespective of the type of family from which they come; others by an addition for single-parent families. Some make additional provision for different groups within single-parent families.
As many of us have argued for a long time, the best means of financial support is an adequate and non-means-tested child benefit which has the advantage of avoiding the pitfalls of the poverty and unemployment traps. It emerged that opportunities for employment are important, not only in the economic sense but in the sense of mixing in and being part of the whole community.
It seems to me that the issue of single-parent families is well suited to further community action in the context of common objectives and more coordination. The parallel of the equal treatment

43
directives between men and women was discussed with the committee and they seem to provide a pattern which is a possibility. Single-parent families have featured as part of the Community poverty programmes but, as I have indicated, they receive only a very small percentage of Community funding. Although we understand that there is still a paucity of data and a need for research into the implication of existing policies, nevertheless we would not be starting completely from scratch in this area. A little work has already been done.
There is also an overriding common problem which is that in none of the European countries was the social security system developed on the basis of coping with single-parent families on the scale that we face today. There is also a great deal of interest in this subject among organisations and there is a certain amount of head of steam on the issue in all countries. In such a situation, a European directive might be appropriate, not imposing standardised benefits and services but seeking to work towards equal treatment for one-parent families in employment, housing and within the social security system. As with all the equal treatment directives, the principle would apply and would be operated within the systems of each individual country, so there would still be some difference and some flexibility.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, implied in his speech, it seems that unless we begin to make some movement in social matters and in social security matters, the European Common Market, even with a single internal market, will not become a European community in the real sense of that term.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, as the first speaker who was not a member of the sub-committee, I can express the gratitude of the House to Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee for the production of this most interesting and thought-provoking report and to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the way in which he introduced the report to us this afternoon. It is a paradox that while the possession of a highly developed social security system is one of the distinguishing marks of the member states of the European Community, certainly of the original members, nevertheless this is an area in which there is little concerted Community action. It is also an area, as all speakers so far have pointed out, where there is a lack of comparative information readily available, yet the sub-committee has managed to accumulate within the pages of the report a good deal of such information. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, put the basic question. He asked whether social security policies have an impact on the operation of the Common Market. In theory the answer appears to be yes. People may move to a country where social security is at its greatest in order to have that protection. Employers who have an extra burden of national insurance and insurance contributions may be at a disadvantage competitively compared with employers in other countries.
However, in practice the answer appears to be no. Witness after witness before the sub-committee indicated that there was no evidence that either of
44
those things happens. People moved in order to seek jobs and better prospects and social security was not uppermost in their minds. If employers had lower insurance contributions, that meant that taxation was higher and their employees would ask for higher wages. So it may be that there is no great impact on the operation of the market. But as the subcommittee and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, pointed out, Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome charges the Commission with the task of promoting close co-operation in social security and other social policy areas.
The report makes very clear the considerable differences in the origins, the history, the benefits and the funding of the different national systems. There can be no doubt that harmonisation in the sense of standardisation is not possible. I agree with the subcommittee on that point. Even a measure of convergence would be difficult to achieve. Is it possible, then, to establish a common aim behind all the separate national social security policies? Other countries have put considerable emphasis on insurance benefits. These are often earnings-related, linked to individual previous earnings or to national average earnings, or to a mixture of both. There was some cutback in the 1970s but usually the benefits are set at levels in excess of British levels.
A study produced by the Dutch Government in 1983 showed that an average wage-earner, married with two children, would expect to receive sickness or disability payments, even after a full year off work, of more than 90 per cent. of previous net pay in the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark; of 73 per cent. in West Germany; of 56 per cent. in France and of 47 per cent. in the United Kingdom.
The right to social justice is enshrined in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. The state is committed to protect all its citizens against insecurity. A sudden drop in earnings or its possibility creates insecurity. Therefore earnings-related benefits are offered. The poorest are helped because all in a certain predicament are helped, regardless of resources. Social assistance on a means-tested basis is seen as a last resort and is administered regionally or locally.
The United Kingdom made moves along the earnings-related path with the state earnings-related pension and the earnings-related supplements for unemployment and sickness benefit. The present Government have reversed that trend. They have reduced the state earnings-related pension scheme's future benefits, but of course conditions in the United Kingdom are different because of the greater reliance on and development of occupational pension schemes.
They have also abolished the earnings-related supplements. The watchword is that help must be given to the poorest; help must be provided for those who are seen to be in the greatest need. There has been a great growth in the United Kingdom of dependence on means-tested benefits; on supplementary benefit in particular but also on family income supplement and housing benefit. Social assistance has increased on the Continent too, particularly since the emergence of large-scale unemployment, but to nothing like the same degree.

45
The British Government philosophy is well demonstrated in the freeze this year on universal child benefit and the increase in family credit as opposed to family income supplement. The trouble is that means-tested benefits have raised problems of take-up. The Government anticipate that only 60 per cent. of those who will be eligible next April for family credit will take up the benefit. Means-tested benefits create poverty traps. They are divisive and tend to divide the nation into "us and them". I should certainly like to see some reduction in the dependence in the United Kingdom system on means-tested benefits.
Is social security something for the nation as a whole, or is it state charity for the poorest? Which is right, the universal or the selective approach? The Commission might well promote discussion about that. I think the Commission should encourage discussion on the various problems that are mentioned time and again throughout the report—the ageing populations, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has spoken; the increase in the number of one-parent families, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has referred; large-scale unemployment, and the position of the disabled and the carers.
The Commission could perform a useful service by increasing the flow of information, as others have suggested. A simple comparative study is required. It would not be difficult to provide, because the information with regard to these schemes is not secret. It is available. What is required is for it to be collated. For example, the Federal Republic of Germany provides excellent booklets and leaflets in English setting out all the details of its social security scheme. While no standardisation is possible and probably no imposition of a minimum standard of benefit is feasible, nevertheless the Commission could draw up a charter for social security which would pinpoint the circumstances in which an individual could look to the state for financial assistance.
Such a charter should include a recommended minimum subsistence level, whether expressed as a percentage of average earnings or as a fixed real value. The drawing up of such a charter would be in keeping with the Commission's proposal in November 1986 that there should be an identification of key elements which all social security systems should eventually contain. I was interested in Age Concern's written evidence to the sub-committee, which pointed out:
"A simple to administer system would be the introduction of a basic income for all sectors of the population, including the elderly. This would guarantee to each man, woman and child the right to independent non-means-tested tax-free income sufficient to meet basic living costs irrespective of occupational or marital status. All other income would be taxable. This means that the basic income replaces existing income tax allowances for people with other income. It also replaces social security benefits for those who are retired or unemployed".
The tax credit scheme which has been produced by my party goes far along that road but it does not offer the same basic income for those employed as for those unemployed. If that were possible on the lines set out in the quotation from the Age Concern evidence, your Lordships may imagine how it would help us in dealing with unemployment: no signing on for benefit, no black market problems and no means
46
test when unemployment benefit runs out. I should like to see the Commission set up an inquiry into the working of such a scheme so that all the possibilities could be explored and widely discussed within the Community.
The promotion of discussion, the provision of comparative information, the identification of the key element which all social security systems should eventually contain, the establishment of a recommended minimum subsistence level, seem to me the modest but useful tasks on which the Community should embark. Although it might not be easy, the member states might, in addition, attempt to develop an agreed philosopy of social security.
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, if harmonisation of lawn-mower noise levels has occupied what many might regard as a quite disproportionate amount of the European Community's time and effort, the prospect of harmonising an area as vast and as complex as social security would no doubt take us into the 22nd century and beyond. But in a more serious vein, I should not want that rather irreverent sentiment to obscure or detract from the Commission's efforts to stimulate thought and discussion about member states' social security systems—not before time in your sub-committee's view.
As a member of the sub-committee which produced this report may I commend its contents to your Lordships? It is a wide-ranging, informative document which I believe both fulfils and progresses the Commission's intentions of stimulating informed debate. I should like to make some general observations on the report's findings before moving on to pension provision, not by any means a narrow subject but one with which I am most familiar.
The committee, as the report points out (and it is a point to which other noble Lords have already spoken) had some difficulty in acquiring up-to-date statistical and comparative information on European systems. Nevertheless, from the information available to us I was particularly struck by, first, the enormous variety and complexity of member states' systems; and, secondly, the wide divergences in the source and scope of funding, and in the administrative mechanisms of individual systems.
Thirdly, there is the fact that, as the DHSS pointed out in its supplementary memorandum to the committee, to some extent the centralised United Kingdom social security system has been better placed to meet the problems of rising expenditure, and more so than the more fragmented schemes of other member states. Finally—and perhaps inevitably—comes the conclusion, backed up by the excellent witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, that harmonisation of social security systems in any structural sense cannot be regarded as feasible in the foreseeable future.
This is not to say that harmonisation on objectives should be ignored. Indeed, the report recommends that this should happen. However, I think that even this would be a fraught area as specifics such as safety-net measures will excite discussions on quantum which will not be easily reconciled.

47
As we are all aware in the vigorous and sometimes partisan debate on levels of social security provision, the longer and broader term view is often ignored. This is regrettable not least because member states, as the report clearly shows, share many of the same problems. Financial strains are felt by all members of the Community and all have, and are continuing, to engage in efforts to contain expenditure.
In almost all states the rate of increase in social security spending has been slowing down. At the same time public expenditure has been subjected to more rigorous control. What this suggests—and what I hope your Lordships will agree—is that social security issues cannot be looked at in isolation. They must be seen in the context of fiscal and economic general policy.
As the CBI pointed out in its evidence, the central criterion in evaluating and assessing Economic Community proposals has to be the need to create an economic and social environment in the Community which encourages profitability and investment. This is the only sure way to create a solid base for expanding employment opportunities. Establishing a unified internal market is fundamental to realising the Community's real economic potential, and its achievement in 1992 will represent a major advance.
The short-term financial pressures, however, faced by most member states' social security programmes are largely due to the rising level of unemployment during the 1970s across the entire Community. In the case of the United Kingdom our loss of competitive edge, though partly due to the world recession, was also due in part at least to the lack of labour cost competitiveness. There are of course other reasons but those are at least two. The improvement in our competitive position is already helping to generate new employment, and this is leading in turn to a reduction in unemployment. It is important that measures to improve social security provision—and these are of concern to your sub-committee—should be at least designed to encourage and support such improvements.
Turning now, if I may, to pensions—and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, can relax; I am not going to talk about portability! —the demographic trend over the next few decades, with the exception of Ireland, will create for all member states a diminishing ratio of contributors to pensioners. According to the DHSS this trend is likely to be less marked in the United Kingdom than in some other Economic Community countries—for instance, France, Germany, and Italy. We already have a high ratio of pensioners to active population.
I believe that the United Kingdom Government's recent radical review of the pension system is a good example of a member state anticipating, and responding to, changes in the structure of the working population. In order to give the public new opportunities and new choices in pensions it was not necessary to make a major revision of our financing methods in the private sector. Unlike many other states, we already have an occupational scheme system, generally with a mix of employee-employer contributions, plus support from general taxation via
48
tax reliefs. Indeed the Commission's paper, to which this report responds, draws attention to the potential advantage of the advanced funding of pension arrangements. This, as your Lordships are all aware, is commonplace here in the United Kingdom.
As the House knows, steps have been taken to maintain the substantial funded element by permitting funded schemes to contract out of the state earnings-related scheme in the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that this facility is unique in Community countries, and it does not even extend to Ireland. A further move in this direction is to be made next year when members of approved personal pension schemes will be permitted to remain outside the scope of the earnings-related scheme.
I cite these changes to the United Kingdom pension provision as an example of the importance of the historic development of differing social security systems and schemes. The late development of the state earnings-related pensions in the United Kingdom compared with Germany, which pioneered the structure, meant that when earnings-related state scheme pensions were finally introduced into this country there was already a well-established private sector. This has given the United Kingdom a preeminent position in developing ways of integrating state and private pensions. The new legislation provides a framework which encourages private funding and allows the individual choice at a cost which should be affordable into the next century. It is this partnership between the employers, the employees and the state which other European states may well be advised to consider when, as I have no doubt they will find, their own generous levels of state pensions become too costly to support some time in the future. Indeed, we are seeing some moves in that direction already.
Despite the divergences of different schemes (including pensions and other areas which have been mentioned by noble Lords this afternoon) evolving from different traditions and in response quite frequently to different circumstances, the cross-fertilisation of ideas between EC countries remains very important.
The evidence of this report suggests that the members of the European Community have a creditable record in the provision of social security. There are of course always weaknesses, and again noble Lords have heard this afternoon about some of them. However, I would draw your attention to the fact that most members of the Community have a much more highly developed system than those of the wealthier industrialised nations outside Europe such as the USA, Australia and Japan.
As I draw close to the end of my speech, I am aware that I have concentrated perhaps almost totally on the economic aspects of social security. But the financing of these systems and the overall problem of public expenditure levels must be kept under constant review. We compete increasingly in a global market and not one that is purely confined either to the United Kingdom or to the EC. If we fail to compete both within the Community and externally then I am afraid that our social security systems will suffer, and the expectations of the needy and others that we wish to look after may well not be realised in full.

49
With that caveat firmly in mind I believe that this report is a helpful start in focusing attention on the desirability of the Community producing at least a coherent set of social policy objectives. I think that in setting those objectives we shall have major difficulties of getting down to detail.
I think it would be appropriate if I closed with a personal note of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, our chairman. I do not speak on behalf of all the Committee members, but I know that we took the decision to go ahead with this inquiry with considerable trepidation. It is a vast subject and it is one where partisan views—and all of us have very different views on the requirements of social security—can play a major part. I think it reflects a lot of credit on the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that we have produced a report which I hope noble Lords will find informative and which will help us in our future discussions.
5.54 p.m
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is a little disappointing to be the only vocal spectator of the team at work. Surely other noble Lords are taking an interest in this splendid report. I am happy that my noble friend Lady Jeger is to join me in cheering the team on, because this is the beginning of their work, and a long way they have to go. I shall come back to that.
To begin with I want to say how essential it is that the first thing we should always do about the European Economic Community is to reaffirm our faith in it, because I feel that experience has run rather ahead of our enthusiasm at times, and that has been a little less than good for all of us. We have witnessed the quarrelsome meetings in the EC summit, or the failures even when members have not quarrelled. We are led to believe that the EC bureacracy is more pettifogging than our own. Then of course there is the crowning imbecility of the agricultural system, which actually grows food to fill storage warehouses instead of feeding the starving people. Yet—and yet, I say—none of this, deplorable though it is, must weaken our conviction that in Europe lies our destiny. There is no alternative, although at times the Prime Minister behaves as if there were.
The EC and our membership of it has been my firmest political conviction for many years, transcending at times party allegiances and party considerations. I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is not in his seat for the moment, but I may now dare proclaim that at the time the European Communities Bill was before the House of Commons I led 67 rebel members of the parliamentary Labour Party into the Government Lobby against a three-line Whip to get it through.
Many is the time when the government of the day have been lacking the strength to put through a momentous decision of Parliament. That was such an occasion. Some of us had a very rough time afterwards and I sometimes wonder what would have happened had the government failed to carry that Bill on Second Reading. I have never regretted what I did then. I am sure it was right and I am sure that history will prove that it was a decision that the country wisely took then.
50
So when I had read quite a lot of the excellent report of the Committee, I turned to my copy of Encounter magazine and found to my pleasure a review there of a new book by Professors Hoggart and Douglas Johnson entitled An Idea of Europe. In the review of that book by Christopher Tugendhat in Encounter this week there is something which I hope your Lordships will permit me to quote:
"For the first time in the history of Europe a number of sovereign states have come together in a political system in which all are subject to the same rules, sovereignty is shared, co-operation the objective, and perpetual debate the norm. It is impossible to envisage a greater contrast than that between the spirit underlying the Community and the dreams of conquest and great-power compacts at the expense of smaller countries that have characterised all previous periods of European history. Just as the American Constitution at its birth was an experiment different from anything that had been tried anywhere else in the world, so is this. It represents a great ingathering of European peoples, beginning with six contiguous countries and now numbering twelve".
That is the inspiration behind everything we should do on the EC.
I believe that the Treaty of Rome is more important than that which is to be signed tomorrow in Washington. The treaty to be signed tomorrow deals with a threat; the Treaty of Rome deals with reality.
I welcome the report. I think it is a splendid report, bearing the imprint of the studious care of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose reputation as one of Whitehall's mandarins is well renowned. I think that it is a notable example of the way in which the foundations of the new European history are being laid and one should congratulate them all. An enormous amount of expertise and knowledge has gone into the report. It will be the foundation and the beginning of all the thought that will follow, and a great deal will be needed.
It is a pity that the Committee has encountered some of the problems and ambiguities in the Treaty of Rome: are matters within the terms of reference, or are they not? That is one of the disappointing features about our not being members at the inception of the EC. We should have had a hand in drafting the treaty, and we are much better at writing the law than anybody else in the world.
I am bound to point out that basically the European Economic Community, as its title implies, is an association to promote mutual economic interests. It is called a Common Market and we are reminded of that when, occasionally, thinking that the EC can do anything if it can only be minded to do it, we are told that some things are not within the terms of reference of the EC, or thought not to be. For instance, when we should like the EC to intervene and stop bullfighting in Spain we are asked whether it is within the scope of the Treaty of Rome. It is a deplorable spectacle to see the Italians shoot migratory birds by the tens of thousands for sport, dressed up as though they were big game hunters, but is it something which can be brought to an end by agreement of the Council of Ministers?
Let us suppose that I were to suggest that it is about time we harmonised the abortion laws of Europe so that we can stop talking with contempt about foreign women who come here to have the abortion which they cannot have in their own country. Is that within the scope of the EC? What about marriage and divorce and a great many other

51
matters? If we stray from the economic basis of the Community we shall soon find what it is that will divide us, and it will be religion. Religion divides everyone and it will also divide the Common Market. We must not let that discourage us from doing as much as the unity of the Common Market and its terms of reference will allow.
I entirely agree with the conclusions of the Committee. I have only one reservation to offer and it is in respect of the conclusions on page 19. Paragraph 58 states:
"There should be a right to a basic level of social assistance throughout the Community".
The words used are "a right". Paragraphs 46 and 47 do not state that it should be a right but that it should be provided. I do not want to cavil about the word "right" but I fear that we are laying down more rights, human rights, rights for every living creature than we can fulfil. They all spring from the goodwill and approach of human beings, but the establishment of rights should be approached with great caution, especially in the field of social provision. Matters will depend on whether there is the economic basis to fulfil them and much else besides.
I should also like to refer to paragraph 17 in the section dealing with demographic trends. As a spectator I can shout what I want at the team: "Don't do that", "You ought to have done something else". "Hooray!". Are the demographic trends of Europe to be left to the cause of human nature and be under no influence for the common good? Is there any real sense in an economic policy without an attempt to sketch out a match between economics and population? Many politicians are little better than one-armed bandits. They think that the more times one pulls the handle, the more the money will flow for everything one wishes. It is no good to talk about economic policy unless, in the end, one provides what is needed for social standards of us all.
What would happen to the world if China and India took no interest in the size of their populations? What about the teeming millions in the world who are starving? I suppose that we think that Europe is different and that we have no problems of this kind. Obviously we have but we do not recognise them. They are not sufficiently grave in our minds for us to grasp them fully and to act.
However, some interesting points are made in the chapter dealing with the evidence of the Family Policy Study Centre. One wonders whether it should have been called the Family Planning Study Centre because that is what population is mostly about. There are other factors which we must take into account alongside social policy. Health has a large bearing on social provisions, quite apart from population. One must also consider our national vices such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs and others that I shall not mention, and violence in society. What about education? All those things must come into the reckoning when one is looking for the foundations of the European Community with European citizenship and standards: in fact, to become Europeans. We are embarking on the concept of a European society and it will take a long time to build that up. We cannot have uniformity and harmonisation. We cannot
52
always achieve harmony but we are getting on and I hope that we shall do so.
One of the purposes of our education should be to inculcate into the minds of the young the concept of European unity. We had Empire Day and Commonwealth Day but both have gone. Are we ashamed to have a European Day? Could we not explain it or would it not be popular? At least we could create the starting point of a nation of Europeans.
Noble Lords may think that that will be difficult but bear in mind that the English consented to become British; the Welsh call themselves British in moments of absentmindedness; the Scots do not easily take to it but nevertheless they are. However, it is important to note that the rest of the world regards us as Europeans. Let us live up to it. That is really what this report is beginning to understand.
I finish on a note of hope about the future of Europe. We must be realistic. I do not think that we ought to regard as sufficient to enable us to move forward a placid acceptance of membership of the EC. Our membership has to be active, inspired and courageous. Of course we shall have to meet many setbacks and disappointments but it becomes the statesmen of Britain who go to Brussels to represent this country to arrive there with a semblance of enthusiasm for the European ideal. Then there will be some hope for this country.
I sat in the Cabinet while one technological defeat after another had to be considered, as we failed to put through Blue Streak, TSR2 and other big, imaginative technological developments that we did not have the wherewithal or economic foundations to support. The lesson we learned is that there are some things that cannot be done other than on a European scale. I sincerely hope that that knowledge will be in the forefront of our approach to European matters.
6.10 p.m
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having chaired that interesting committee and to all members who served on it. I should also like to pay tribute to the many witnesses who gave such thoughtful evidence and who obviously took a great deal of trouble with it. I refer especially to some of the voluntary organisations, which do not always have vast resources to help them prepare their submissions.
As I was not a member of the committee, I have listened very carefully to all that has been said today, and I have read the whole of the report and the evidence. I do not count myself totally ignorant on the subject of social security, partly because for many years I served as a representative on the Council of Europe. During that time I had the opportunity of studying what was happening in such outlandish countries—according to certain noble Lords—as Sweden and Austria. I hope that we do not forget that Europe is not entirely composed of members of the EC and that there are lessons to be learned from all countries.
We are discussing a very complicated and wide ranging subject. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, will not be too surprised to hear

53
that I agree with some of his remarks; namely, that this matter has to be looked at within the context of the fiscal and economic policies of each country. Of course we shall never agree about the content of those fiscal and economic policies.
I also agree in some measure with my noble friend Lord Houghton, although he tried to take me down highways and byways on which I did not intend to follow him. However, I certainly agree that social security cannot be treated as an isolated subject. It is part of the fabric of the life of any country. Moreover, although we sometimes tend to think that social security concerns only the deprived people of a country, I submit that a full vision of a decent social security system embraces the whole population. It is part of what one used to call the social wage. and it affects the conditions of life of all people, whether they are employed—especially if they are receiving low wages—or unemployed, have children within a marriage or children while living in sin, or whatever may be the circumstances of their lives.
We must look across the whole spectrum of national policy. What about housing? What is the policy on rents'? Is the policy to offer subsidies or is any government which is a member of the EC allowing rents to rise more rapidly than people can afford to pay them and therefore encouraging a kind of self-inducing poverty? What about food prices? What about child care? I have always been impressed by the system in France of the Ecole maternelle which gives us such a splendid example of pre-school child care on a wide basis. It is not just for the children of the poor and unemployed: the schools are open for any child to attend.
What about charges for school meals? What about the cost of illness and how do costs differ in different countries'? What is the level of industrial injuries compensation? What about the low level of wages in some areas? What about the cost of transport and the torture of travelling that some people have to undergo? What about the high cost of fares to work'? What about all those things which go to make up everyday living? Noble Lords may feel that these matters have nothing to do with social security, but indeed they vitally affect the way that people live. What are countries doing through their taxation policies to alleviate the difficulties of those who are receiving social benefits? The noble Lord, Lord Banks, reminded us, as he often does, of the connection between taxation and social security benefits.
I am not insisting that the committee should have examined all those topics, but those who want to see the committee's ideas followed up on a European basis will want to relate the report to some of those other fiscal, economic and social policies which help to make social security—or social insurance, whatever we call it—a more realistic measure for the ordinary people of the countries concerned.
There has been a lot of sweetness and light during this debate but in conclusion I should like to say that many people believe, as I do, that the social security policies of the present Government will not improve the quality and serenity of life for our own people nor
54
will they set an example to the governments of the EC.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are familiar with important and wide-ranging debates in your Lordships' House, but this debate has been exceptionally wide ranging, encompassing not only the broad field of social security in all its ramifications, but also its many variations in the 12 nations of the European Community and possible developments well into the next century.
Perhaps it is just as well that we are not covering countries such as Malta and Sweden and various others that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, knows so well. That gives me the opportunity to say that the House has been treated to a typically refreshing speech from that most "pro" of all pro-Europeans, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. So far as he sticks to that point, I agree with him, but when he digresses into talking about the EC as a machine for social engineering on a large scale, I feel that that is not a path that I should like to tread, although as I know the noble Lord's background I am not surprised that he should hold that view.
I cannot hope to cover all the points which have been raised, so instead I shall concentrate on the main issues provoked by the report of the Select Committee which have been elaborated by different speakers today. The main thrust of the report was that social security should have a higher profile in Community policies, that there should be greater movement towards harmonisation of social security benefits and that the United Kingdom Government should give stronger encouragement to this movement.
From much of what we have heard this afternoon, one might be pardoned for believing that the European Community's policy on social security solely concerned the harmonisation of benefits. I think I should begin therefore by saying a few words about co-ordination. Harmonisation, after all, concerns the modification of national security systems to conform to certain common rules or guidelines. Co-ordination, on the other hand, concerns the inter-relationship between national systems so that they can work better in parallel, without necessarily changing their content.
While the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has said there has not been a lot going for recipients of benefits in the Community to see, there has been, I believe, a great deal of progress in the European Community in co-ordinating national systems for the benefit of, for example, migrant workers. This has been achieved through regulations issued by the European Commission and administered in constant consultation with representatives and officials from member states. A large part of the jurisprudence of the European Court concerns the migrant worker regulations.
This is a dynamic area of law, policy and administration which has to evolve continuously to keep pace with the continual changes in national systems. The success of the European Community in this area has done much to make the free movement

55
of labour a practical reality. The ordinary tourist as well as the migrant worker has also been able to profit from these developments, for the arrangements for medical care for temporary visitors is based on the migrant worker concept.
All this has been done without changing the content of any national social security schemes, but rather by defining the migrant workers' rights and obligations in their host countries and devising rules for calculating entitlements built up in working careers which may have spanned the frontiers of several different states. The achievement has been magnificent; but, whatever else it is, it is not harmonisation. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly social security and it has figured frequently in the agenda of the bi-annual social councils. I must agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that normally this has been without the need for social security ministers to meet. Nonetheless, that does not mean that social services are seldom discussed in the European context.
Moving onto harmonisation, there is an area of harmonisation where, frankly, I found the Select Committee's report disappointing. It is the only area of harmonisation in which the Community has ever issued a directive, as opposed to non-binding recommendations and opinions. In fact, there have been two directives in this field and a third is in preparation. I refer to equal treatment between men and women in social security.
British Governments of both political persuasions have supported the Community initiatives in this field, on state schemes in 1979 and occupational schemes in 1986, although there have naturally been tough negotiations on points of detail. So harmonisation is not only about establishing common benefit standards; it is also about adopting common principles. The British Government's record shows that we are by no means opposed to harmonisation per se.Our attitude is that each proposal should be seen on its merits. In that we are probably in agreement with the Select Committee; but we are divided by the degree of caution and scepticism with which we treat some of these proposals.
To begin with, our experience with the co-ordination of social security systems has taught us that harmonisation of benefit levels is unnecessary to achieve some important objectives which were once considered unattainable without it. We can give continuing social protection to migrant workers without harmonisation and we can extend this to tourists and other travellers. I am not sure on first consideration that single-parent families lend themselves to the same treatment, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, but of course I shall consider this matter further.
Now that we know that the problems can be solved without harmonisation, the supporters of harmonisation have moved on, I suggest, to broader arguments, claiming that greater political cohesion is impossible without common social security and welfare systems. I must confess that I am sceptical as to whether the sense of national identity in the European nations is strongly bound up with their
56
different social security systems. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire noted, federal nations—and I would add the United States to those—succeed in combining a strong national identity with considerable diversity between states in their welfare arrangements. Federal Germany, the largest of the EC member states, has a separate social assistance system for each of the Länder.Even the unitary states often do not have unitary social security schemes. And now it is suggested that harmonisation is essential not from the benefit angle, but from the contribution point of view.
Harmonisation of social security is claimed as a necessary part of the harmonisation of tax systems, essential for the achievement of the internal market. Naturally, I agree with the latter part of that sentence; I am suspicious of the former. We cannot say what developments may be appropriate in the distant future. But the programme to achieve the internal market by 1992 does not envisage any changes in social security arrangements for the very reasons given in the most interesting speech by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
There are many more obvious changes to be made before we consider social security; and, indeed, care in the Community—a matter especially referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox—the point being of course that although certainly it is a goal worth aiming at, it is at the moment impossible to achieve on a European-wide basis with the differing needs and social backgrounds of the members of the differing nationalities.
The House may feel that the United Kingdom's social security is complex enough—and the Government have given a high priority to reducing that complexity—but we are the only member state of the European Community where the whole range of social insurance benefits, family benefits, means-tested help and special payments for disabled people is administered by one central government department. As the Select Committee itself points out, in other countries there is often a mosaic of autonomous schemes each with its own financing arrangements and providing differing benefits for differing occupational groups. Many member states are still a long way from achieving internal harmonisation of their social security arrangements. Portugal, Spain and Greece are only just beginning this process.
The particular measure therefore proposed by the Select Committee as a first step towards harmonisation is the establishment of a minimum level of social assistance. This may seem a logical one for a person from the United Kingdom where we have such schemes; but we should remember that we have an exceptionally comprehensive system of means-tested support for people in financial need to whatever category of the population they belong—elderly people, unemployed people, disabled people, single parents, and so on. In several member states this is the least developed area of social protection. Indeed, I note that it is not even called social security in most countries. It is often left to local authorities to run at their own discretion with no guarantee that all groups are covered. This is true of France, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. Although the northern member states have more

57
comprehensive schemes none is as uniform as our system here.
It may interest my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to know that the United Kingdom is the third highest spender in the Community on the elderly as a percentage of the gross national product. This comparison includes state and occupational pensions and spending on residential care, but excludes medical care.
That of course brings me rather quicker than I anticipated to the point that I wanted to make—that is, that I would agree with the Select Committee wholeheartedly that the bases for comparison within the Community are totally inadequate. But I shall say a little more about that in a minute. For now the imposition of a general income support system would, for about half the EC countries, go far beyond harmonisation; and I must say to members of the committee, in all honesty, that it would in my book be a radical innovation.
The Select Committee has suggested that the level of the basic assistance could be fixed as a percentage of the average wage in the country concerned, thus being adjusted to the general standard of living. There are technical problems there for countries with large numbers of self-employed farmers, shopkeepers or anyone else and where there are big differences in the spread of incomes within and between regions and differences in subjective perceptions of poverty. However, there is also a huge political and financial problem. Even though the social assistance level might be fixed at a lower level in absolute terms, in poorer countries they would still be being asked to spend money in areas where there is at present little or no expenditure.
I really do not think that this is a runner. Neither the Community nor anyone other than the country concerned can legislate for increased expenditure in this fundamental area. Indeed, an attempt to do so would meet the same reaction as noble Lords would give me if I introduced a Bill to make parents give their children more pocket money. If there were a transfer of resources I might just get away with it, but of course there would not be and indeed there is no immediate prospect that the European Community itself would be able to offer a transfer of resources. My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire will note that the transfers required to make a standard basic level of assistance possible and acceptable would be very large by Community budgetary standards, carrying the budget far beyond its present ceiling with all the problems that that would bring. Furthermore, the flow of money into and out of Brussels would be on a new scale, permanently changing the nature of the Community. We do not imagine that the present levels of Community financial activity are permanent and sacred but I for one gasp at the thought of so great a change in the foreseeable future.
That is why in answer to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I do not think that in this case the political will is there. I would add to that by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that no government provide for the poor, pensioners, single-parent families or whoever, except by redistributing income from other sections of society. The Government cannot conjure up fresh
58
resources from thin air. This Government's social security system is, I believe, better than most in redistributing resources from richer to poorer rather than recycling income at the same social level as do earnings-related pension schemes in most Community states. We cannot of course compel poorer states to divert to their social security beneficiaries resources that they do not possess. I repeat that this would mean a mammoth injection of finance into the Community system.
However, some forms of harmonisation are not only unnecessary and impossible, they are positively undesirable. Your Lordships' Committee has recognised this. Social security was invented in Europe and Europe has led the world in developing it. Each European nation has borrowed ideas from its neighbours and has in turn made its own contributions to the development of new arrangements and new principles. It is the very diversity of Europe which has made the launching and extension of fresh initiatives possible, which could well have been stifled had some international authority imposed a standardised régime across the continent.
However, as I have said, the British Government take each proposal on its merits. Where it seems necessary, practicable and desirable we will look at it further in detail. In the case of equal treatment for men and women, the proposals passed that test and we joined in voting them into Community law. We are definitely not partisans of harmonisation for its own sake.
Although I have been somewhat hard-hitting about some aspects of the report that we are debating tonight and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will criticise me for that, I should like to congratulate him and the Committee. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that those organisations in the field such as the voluntary bodies which gave a wealth of evidence to the committee deserve to be congratulated. The result of course has been to achieve this debate on the Commission document which occasioned it. We wholeheartedly welcome that document and agree that all governments should consider the long-term future of their social security schemes.
That is why I should like to join those noble Lords who welcomed the opening of a debate on this particular subject. I believe that we in this country, of whichever political persuasion, are ahead of the game for we have already completed a major review and passed the necessary legislation. Many of the effects which will flow from our reforms will not be felt until well into the next century. We have been mindful not only of the burdens we can carry in this generation but also of the burdens which we can reasonably expect our children to bear.
The European Commission has not itself proposed any measures for harmonisation in its report Common Problems of Social Security.Instead it has proposed several research projects to be conducted at Community level. One noble Lord referred to the phrase "shared knowledge". I believe that that is exactly what we should seek in our first step of furthering this Community goal. That is shared knowledge on financial, demographic trends and new groups in financial need. The Government warmly support these proposals although we shall of course

59
as usual seek to ensure that we get value for money and avoid duplicating work carried out elsewhere.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I think that the authors of Common Problems,as the Commission document is called, will be pleased to see that their report has indeed achieved its primary objective in this country, namely, to stimulate discussion. I know that the record of our debate will be read with interest in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere in the Community. I wish to welcome the positive suggestions on harmonisation in the field of research that this report has brought forward.
6.36 p.m.
lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall only delay your Lordships for a few minutes. However, I am bound to say that the noble Lord invited me to be critical and I shall therefore make one or two comments. I had some difficulty in recognising the report that the noble Lord seemed to be discussing as the one that was laid before the House.
The report itself and my speech, which I may have put rather badly, explained why we could not go in for harmonisation. It was a little odd to find criticism being levelled at us and those who have spoken in the debate because of our concentration on harmonisation. There is also the point that we naturally took careful note of what was said by the noble Lord's officials about migrant workers. If I may say so, they had quite admirable evidence on
60
that, but I obviously completely failed in my speech to explain why I at any rate thought that the issues went a good deal wider.
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I must say that he has been treating as firm propositions ideas which we merely floated for further dicussion. But I shall read his speech when it appears in Hansard with great interest. Perhaps he would do me the courtesy of reading mine as well, as obviously I have completely failed to put over some of the points I was trying to put over.
I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken and for the tributes that we have received to the work of the committee from the non-members of the committee with the partial exception of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I also wish to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about the valuable evidence we received and all the work which was put into the preparation of that evidence. However, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was perfectly right when he said that in Europe lay our destiny. I am bound to go away from this debate wondering whether Her Majesty's Government have yet realised that.
on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before seven o'clock.

  BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES
  BBC EXTERNAL SERVICES
  LAND REGISTRY
  LAND REGISTRY
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL MEETING, 3RD DECEMBER
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL MEETING, 3RD DECEMBER
  ARMOURED VEHICLES SUPPLIED TO POLICE FORCES
  ARMOURED VEHICLES SUPPLIED TO POLICE FORCES