Sitting of 29 April 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  Orders of the Day
    Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
    As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
    Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
      Clause 1

        AMENDMENT OF DEFINITION OF "SALE BY RETAIL" IN LICENSING ACT I964
        Mr. Ian Gow: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'to any one person'.
        It would be wrong to say that the Bill was subjected to protracted scrutiny on Second Reading. Indeed, this is the first occasion on which this excellent measure, which is the child of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay), has been debated on the Floor of the House.
        Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Committee discussed the Bill for three sittings and it was suggested in some quarters —quite wrongly, and the suggestion was rejected by you, Mr. Speaker —that we were filibustering? We considered serious amendments. We examined some of them at great length. We think that the Bill has now been fully considered.
        Mr. Gow: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have studied the reports of Standing Committee C with great care. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was a member of the Standing Committee, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is partly a parent of the Bill.
        Our debate takes place on the 87th birthday of the Emperor of Japan and on the 46th birthday of the deputy Foreign Secretary. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) have already been in touch with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, raising with her issues about double summer time which were considered by the House last evening. I do not want to be led astray down those paths, however.
        As well as' the two birthdays to which it is right that the House should pay tribute, we should note that our debate on the subject of drink takes place in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House. The House should not despair, however, because seated on the Treasury Bench is the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household —my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). He is visiting us at the start of a weekend which appears for him to have begun already. He
        630
        is in his place because he has a deep interest in alcohol I have an interest in alcohol, but it is not quite the same as that of my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain.
        I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is in his place.
        Mr. Tony Banks: No, I am not.
        Mr. Gow: He is not sitting beside the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). That would be quite wrong. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was a member not of Standing Committee C but of that Committee which considered the Housing Bill. You may wonder, Mr. Speaker, why I am bringing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West into the debate —
        Mr. Speaker: Order. We are considering the Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill, not what went on in the Housing Bill Standing Committee, interesting though that may have been.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We need to know who is in the Chamber.
        Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was a member of the Standing Committee. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison).
        Sir John Biggs-Davison: I do not know why my hon. Friend should wish to give way to me. I have no wish to intervene in the debate, so overcome am I by my hon. Friend's eloquence.
        Mr. Gow: I do not want to be led astray, particularly with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Especially when the hon. Member is moving the amendment.
        Mr. Gow: That is true. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have studied closely the Bill and the amendment. The amendment seeks to leave out the words, "to any one person". When I was discussing the series of amendments with some of my hon. Friends I wondered whether the words, "to any one person" were really necessary.
        I dislike very much even raising a doubt about whether the draftsmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) could in any way be defective. It is possible, although the clause was considered most carefully in Committee, that the point that I draw to the attention of the House on Report was overlooked. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East and to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who has brought with him a massive volume of paper and books that are not readily available to BackBenchers.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: This particular book is not so readily available to Back Benchers because I have nicked it from the Library and it was the only copy.
        Mr. Gow: That book was written by my noble Friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone who has been engaged in a very erudite correspondence through The Times —with which I am in respectful agreement —with Lord Jenkins, who used to sit close to where the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is seated, and who used to be in the same party as the hon. Member.

        631
        Lord Jenkins of Hillhead has been engaged in a correspondence in The Times—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman reads The Times —about the powers of another place. It will be interesting to see, when the Bill reaches another place, whether the amendment is rejected or withdrawn. It is quite possible that the amendment will be considered in another place.
        Mr. Robert Hayward: Will my hon. Friend say whether he believes, in the light of the Under-Secretary of State's presence on the Front Bench, the amendment arises out of some conspiracy or some cock-up?
        Mr. Gow: The amendment was tabled by me. It is perfectly true that none of my hon. Friends has added his or her name to the amendment. I think that it would have been in order for the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) to add her name to this first amendment. Madam Deputy Speaker confirms that that is so. It would not have been possible at this stage for the Minister's father to add his name since he is a member of another place.
        Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend mentioned the Minister's father. Would it be appropriate for us all to congratulate him on the excellent interview that he gave on television last night in which he spoke for the British people?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt whether that relates to the amendment before us.
        Mr. Gow: I entirely agree with the ruling that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have given. We want to know, either from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who had a great deal to do with the parenthood of the Bill —I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East will not think it discourteous of me when I say that they were joint parents of the Bill —
        Mr. Richard Holt: There are usually joint parents.
        Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is quite wrong about that. How many letters now start off, "I am a one-parent family"?
        Mr. Tony Banks: Obviously the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is prepared to give way to anyone this morning, even to me. Although it can end up as a single-parent family, at the point of conception two parents are usually involved, unless it is a virgin birth.
        Mr. Gow: As my hon. Friend —I almost referred to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) as my hon. Friend. Indeed, we had many happy discussions about the Housing Bill. However, I should not be led astray by the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Gow: What do you think, Madam Deputy Speaker?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to determine whether an hon. Member must give way. The hon. Member has given away a great deal of time this morning.
        9.45 am
        Mr. Gow: I shall give way to my hon. Friend and if my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate should seek to intervene I shall certainly give way to him.
        Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend referred to the number of one-parent families. Is he aware that more than 20 per cent. of births are illegitimate? Would he consider that as being related to the availability of alcohol?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's interventions do not relate to the amendment.
        Mr. Gow: I believe that the Bill will be improved and its comprehensibility advanced if we omit the words "to any one person" because they are superfluous. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East will acknowledge that those words are not necessary and that the clause will be made clearer if those words are omitted. I expect that to be the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East, and I expect that the Minister, when he advises the House, will agree that the amendment is a modest improvement to this excellent Bill.
        Mr. Andrew MacKay: I always hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) because for four glorious days in 1983 I served as his Parliamentary Private Secretary and I have always held him in the greatest respect.
        Although I have no particular objection to the amendment, as it does not affect my Bill, I believe that when my hon. Friend the Minister addresses the House we shall find that the amendment will have consequential effects on the major licensing Acts that have been passed. Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne might find it wiser to withdraw the amendment, but perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about that
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have to say that I had not expected to speak so early in the debate. It occurred to me that this kind of amendment, striking at the root of parliamentary draftsmanship, about which hon. Members from both sides of the House would like to speak.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has raised the matter and I have been challenged, as it were, by his former Parliamentary Private Secretary. I fear that I shall not rise to that challenge in quite the way that he would have done had he continued with his speech a little longer. There is no doubt that the question that has been raised so clearly by my right hon. Friend —I am sorry, I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne; I cannot think how such an omission has occurred —is a matter of some importance. That is because there is a nasty tendency on the part of those who draft legislation to increase the volume of words that appear in the Bill. Consequently, it is important that when a certain phrase appears in a Bill of this kind we should be in a position to justify it. Otherwise, out of an abundance of caution, we shall find the language of the Bill being multiplied, with phrase being piled upon phrase, and becoming verbose. In the end, we have to ask what it means
        Mr. Robin Corbett: Precisely.
        Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports me. He will remember that on a number of occasions in Committee, when I have had the privilege of serving with him, he has tried to add phrases that have no meaning, but on this occasion I see that we are as one. Incidentally, that also applies to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). He has given me some nasty moments, for example, on money resolutions.
        Mr. Bob Cryer: That is one of life's modest consolations.
        Mr. Hogg: If it is one of life's modest consolations for the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I have to say that it was one of my embarrassments, but I hope that I rose to the occasion with good humour and charm. In any event, the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and I, and, I think, the Vice-Chamberlain Household, Lord Tinky-pooh and various hon. Members are anxious to know —
        Mr. Gow: Did I hear my hon. Friend refer in a somewhat disparaging way to a member of Her Majesty's Household? At the beginning of the debate, did I not remind my hon. Friend that today is the 87th birthday of His Majesty the Emperor of Japan? Were not the words that fell from my hon. Friend's lips anticipated earlier by the marvellous Mr. W. S. Gilbert?
        Mr. Hogg: That is the problem. I was reminded about the glorious birthday of the Emperor of Japan, and that put the unhappy words "Tinky-pooh" into my mind. I withdraw them, because it is disparaging to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) and, no doubt, to the Emperor of Japan. Therefore I withdraw them on that ground as well.
        Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend realise how closely the Bill is related to the Emperor of Japan?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that such references were ruled out of order earlier.
        Mr. Gow: I was about to refer to the Deputy Foreign Secretary because you had ruled, Madam Deputy Speaker, that she could have added her name to the amendment. I draw that fact to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister.
        Mr. Hogg: It is true that my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary could have done just that. Had she done so, it would have been a great advantage because she occupies a much more distinguished place in the Government than I do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not know how to reply to the sedentary interventions behind me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I feel sure that you would not wish me to do so. Nevertheless, had she added her name to the amendment, the House would have had the benefit of a speech from my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary and she would have been able to bring her international experience to bear upon it.
        Mr. Robert Hayward: And her intellect.
        Mr. Hogg: And, indeed, her intellect. We should have had both a precise analysis of the legal questions and the experience of my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who would have drawn upon comparisons with Germany, France, Italy and—
        Mr. George Gardiner: Is it not the case that, had she done so, she would not have remained Deputy Foreign Secretary for very long?
        Mr. Hogg: I do not know about that. It is not for me to speculate on the future of my hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary, but I should have thought that the House would have been better informed—
        Mr. Andrew MacKay: My hon. Friend the Minister seems to be somewhat confused over titles. Understandably, but wrongly, he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) as his right hon. Friend. I share his view that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne should be my right hon. Friend, but he has just done a grave injustice to the Deputy Foreign Secretary by calling her his hon. Friend. He should know, as I know, that she was made a Privy Councillor about 18 months ago. No doubt he would wish to add his congratulations to her.
        Mr. Hogg: I most certainly wish to add my congratulations, but I think that they may be a trifle belated. I have to say that I am overcome by shame. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not, on the whole, overcome by shame, but on this occasion I feel that the point that has been made is particularly sharp.
        Mr. Holt: Is not my hon. Friend's error compounded even more by the fact that our right hon. Friend is the only other Lady, apart from the Prime Minister, who is a right hon. Member of the House?
        Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is rubbing salt into the wound. All that I can do is to grovel, and I do so in a way that I hope is much more meaningful than the way in which others grovelled in this House a few days ago. I have committed a grave sin. I can only apologise to my hon. Friends and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is not here today. I have a feeling that if I continue in this vein, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall be in serious trouble with your good self.
        Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no post known to the law as Deputy Foreign Secretary. May we know to whom my hon. Friend the Minister is referring?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that has anything whatever to do with the legislation that is before us. We ought not to go down that path.
        Mr. Hogg: It is a tribute —
        Mr. Gow: Why has my hon. Friend not paid tribute to our right hon. Friend the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)? Was not mention made at the beginning of the debate to the Father of the House? Did we not say that our proceedings would be strengthened if only he were to arrive?
        Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that I had not noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point had come into the Chamber, but that is a fact upon which we should comment. Very few hon. Members know or care more than he does about legislation that relates to alcohol. I think that I speak on behalf not only of the Treasury Bench and my hon. Friends but of the hon. Members for Erdington, for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs Golding), when I say that we

        635
        very much welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. His presence denotes the possibility that this legislation will be examined in somewhat greater detail than might otherwise have been the case. That is inevitably good, especially on a Friday morning when we have the time to explore these matters in some detail. On behalf, therefore, of all right hon. and hon. Members who may be in the Chamber, or who are shortly to arrive, I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and hope that he has a very full contribution to make to the debate.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) raised a point of order about the term "Deputy Foreign Secretary". He was right to do so, but it is a tribute to the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the description that he applied should have been treated by hon. Members as a definitive description. Strictly speaking, he was not right, but, as on many occasions, he sets the tone that this Chamber is anxious to follow.
        Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend could be misled by the fact that the BBC constantly refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) as the Deputy Foreign Secretary. We all know that the BBC never makes a mistake.
        Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that our understanding of the facts may occasionally be perverted by the BBC, and it is undoubtedly true that—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These proceedings are by no means tedious but they are quite irrelevant.
        Mr. Hogg: You may remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that about 10 minutes ago I said that if I pursued my then current line I should be ruled out of order by you, but just as I was turning to the point with which I now wish to deal—the words "to any one person"—I was sidertracked by the very welcome arrival of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. Should that phrase be in the Bill? We began from the proposition that we should not include words that are surplus to the meaning of the Bill. Are those words surplus to the meaning of the Bill, and do they damage its effect?
        Mr. Holt: We are getting into trouble with titles this morning. To help us make up our minds about the amendment, will my hon. Friend say whether he has consulted the parliamentary draftsmen about whether the amendment would preclude a pregnant lady from purchasing liquor?
        10 am
        Mr. Hogg: That possibility was not in my mind when I first considered the amendment. Although it is capable, by extension, of applying to persons not present in the corporeal world, perhaps my hon. Friend is stretching the point further than I would wish. I shall discuss the matter at an appropriate moment with the parliamentary draftsmen and explore possible further refinements of the law to make the position crystal clear. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) for raising that drafting point.
        636
        My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne looks as though he is about to leap to his feet. Does he wish to intervene?
        Mr. Gow: No.
        Mr. Hogg: We have just witnessed a unique event. I invited my hon. Friend to intervene, but he declined. I always welcome new experiences.
        I revert to the interesting, if somewhat detailed, question whether the phrase, "to any one person" should appear in the Bill. There are two reasons why it should not. First, there is the question of its impact on related legislation. The House will be aware of the provisions of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, particularly section 4(4). The definition of "sale by retail" in the Bill follows broadly the provsions contained in section 4(4) of the 1979 legislation, where the words
        "at any one time to any one person"
        appear. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is a lawyer. I was a lawyer and hope never to be one again. We understand the importance of consistency in legislation. If I were to make one serious point—I hope to make many serious points—I would suggest that it is desirable to have the same definitions in relevant and related legislation. For that reason, I find the amendment difficult to accept.
        Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point of principle about the way in which the country is run. In view of his contribution to a recent debate, is he suggesting that when a Government have made a cock-up and legislation is on the statute book, it is inviolate for all time and cannot be amended by subsequent wiser thinking? That would suggest that a measure passed in 1982 would stand for ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) made a valid contribution. It is wrong to say that because words have been enshrined in legislation, or that because in the past some buffoons accepted them, we must accept them for all time.
        Mr. Hogg: I am a wiser person than I was two nights ago. I believe that the phrase that I used was a trifle inelegant, so I shall not repeat it. My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh, however, is right. If an error was made some time ago, we are not bound by it thereafter. We are entitled to consider legislation and decide whether the error should persist I do not believe that the 1979 legislation is defective in its definition. I am, therefore, anxious to maintain consistency between relevant and related legislation.
        Mr. Hayward: I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to comment on whether the voters of Eastleigh, North took this amendment into consideration when yesterday they increased the Conservative majority from 228 to 511. The Labour party's vote decreased dramatically.
        Mr. Hogg: I suspect, although I cannot speak authoritatively, that the answer is no. I imagine that the voters of Eastleigh, North had in mind the Government's successful policies and the great leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Those facts are more self-evident than the true but less self-evident merits of the Bill.
        The Government are neutral about the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) was right to draw to the attention of the House our remarkable victory. I think that it had more to do with

        637
        the overall success of the Government and the defects of the Opposition than the merits of this important piece of legislation.
        Mr. Holt: And a good candidate.
        Mr. Hogg: And, indeed, a good candidate. As you, Madam Deputy speaker, will know, the Conservative party is extremely careful to select only good candidates. I wish that the same could be said of other parties. I am aware that I am trespassing, Madam Deputy Speaker. You need not rise, because I know that I am at fault. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would apologise to those Opposition Members who should have been selected had they been present.
        My second reason why the words "to any person" should not appear in the Bill is that they do not deleteriously affect paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 1, but they have a prejudicial effect on paragraph (e) because they would dilute the control encompassed in clause I. They would enable people to band together to buy quantities of alcohol, the effect of which would be that such sales would be treated as wholesales and would thus be exempt from the licensing regime.
        It was right that the phraseology of clause 1 should be challenged, but for the reasons that I have given I do not commend the amendment to the House.
        Mr. Gow: In view of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. Gow: Having listened to the Minister on amendment No. 1, I shall not move amendment No. 2.
        I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out line 12.
        Line 12 of clause 1 states:
        "to any canteen or mess."
        This Bill is a small but excellent measure and it will give added protection to children who can be misled into buying alcohol from the back of a lorry. It will be warmly welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House. It will also be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Vice Chamberlain.
        I think that my right hon. Friend the Father of the House will agree that not every canteen or mess sells alcoholic drink. My right hon. Friend is a deputy lieutenant of his county and has also been a soldier. I have never been into a mess where alcoholic drink was not served, but, there are canteens and messes, however rare, where it is not. Indeed, I believe that that is increasingly the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) drafted clause 1 on the assumption, which I do not believe is valid, that alcohol is served in every canteen and mess.
        Mr. Hayward: I assure my hon. Friend that many canteens throughout the country in many industrial premises quite rightly do not sell alcohol because it is recognised that people have to return to work having eaten in those canteens.
        Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was making. I believe it to be the view of my hon. Friend the Vice-Chamberlain that it would be no bad thing if there were more canteens and messes, within and without the House, where alcohol was not served. My hon. Friend the
        638
        Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) has many soldiers living in his constituency. Unlike the Vice-Chamberlain, he is allowed to have a drink. Indeed, in the past I have given a drink to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, but I have never given an alcoholic drink to the Vice-Chamberlain. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will not think that this is an incorrect recollection on my part, but I believe that in a canteen or mess I have given a glass of sherry to my right hon. Friend. Does my right hon. Friend wish to intervene?
        Sir Bernard Braine: I am listening with intense interest to this debate. I listened to the high quality speech from my hon. Friend the Minister, which is what we expect from him, and to the contributions from my hon. Friends.
        I was once the chairman of a working party—I think it was the first working party in the country—that looked into the question of alcohol in the place of work. We came to the conclusion—it was widely accepted by industry, the medical profession and the country as a whole—that alcohol and work were a mismatch. In fact, a high proportion of industrial accidents and an inordinately high incidence of absenteeism from work were caused by the imbibing of alcohol during some part of the working day. I am glad to say that, by and large, employers and trade unions agreed. I should like to pay tribute to the contribution made by the trade union movement. In fact, a distinguished member of the Trades Union Congress was a member of the working party. As a result of that, there have been considerable improvements.
        There is also the growing problem of young people and alcohol. Youth leaders up and down the country are urging the provision of bars and canteens where young people can take a non-alcoholic drink to refresh themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is dealing with an extremely important point and I will listen to the rest of his speech with the greatest interest.
        Mr. Gow: I was not sure whether my right hon. Friend had caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and was making a speech or whether it was an intervention. Certainly, that brief intervention has whetted the appetite of the House and I hope that it may be possible for you to call my right hon. Friend later in the debate.
        10.15 am
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, with his long experience of canteens and messes as a former soldier, in his quasi-judicial role as a deputy lieutenant of his county, and as a member of the Privy Council, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, has quasi-judicial origins, has added support to the amendment. It is true that he was not able to bring himself to sign the amendment, but he has done something much more important. He has come to the House on the last Friday in April, on the very day when he could have been at the Japanese embassy signing the book on the Emperor's birthday. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) is giving a luncheon party today in order to mark her 46th birthday. All I know is that I have not been invited to that party, nor do I know whether it will take place in a canteen or a mess. I hope that my right hon. Friend's newly made constituency of Castle Point will continue to return him

        639
        for many years. He is not with the Deputy Foreign Secretary, but has come to the House, whose Father he is, to support the amendment.
        For those reasons I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East and my hon. Friend the Minister will agree with the amendment. The glittering political career of my hon. Friend the Minister may be injured if he disagrees with our right hon. Friend the Father of the House and, in view of the added weight given to this amendment, I hope that he will feel it right to acquiesce.
        Mr. Andrew MacKay: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has been putting words into the mouth of our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I listened carefully, as I always do, to the intervention of our right hon. Friend and I was not clear whether he was supporting the amendment or simply making some extremely valid points, which have been helpful to the House, about the dangers of alcoholism at work and the detrimental effect of alcohol being drunk in the workplace. I felt that his remarks were supported widely on both sides of the House and that it was an intervention with which we all agreed.
        However, with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, that does not necessarily mean that our right hon. Friend was suppporting his amendment. I had hoped that it would merely be a probing amendment so that we could have the sort of enlightened debate, such as we have had already this morning, on the subject of alcohol in canteens and messes.
        I urge the House to reject the amendment if, after hearing from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne does not withdraw it. It would be an embarrassment to the Ministry of Defence, our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and messes throughout the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is a distinguished officer in the Territorial Army and I am sure that he would be the last person to wish to cause such embarrassment. Therefore, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Hayward: In interpreting the word "canteen", my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), spoke almost entirely about military canteens. When I intervened, he referred to industrial canteens as well. Inevitably, one makes such an interpretation when it is associated with the word "mess", but there are many industrial canteens in factories and offices in the City of London, Westminster and this building. It is appropriate, as I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) will agree—as he did in his brief but lucid intervention—that people who are to return to work having had a meal in a canteen should not consume alcohol. It is a danger not only to themselves, especially if they work on industrial machinery, but to other workers.
        Mr. Tony Banks: The Chamber is a place of work as well. It could be argued that it is just as dangerous for Members to go into the Bars here, return in a drunken state and participate in the passage of legislation as it is for someone in a factory to drink and then operate a piece of machinery. The hon. Gentleman should be equal in his treatment.
        Mr. Hayward: I am not sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would accept the suggestion that any right hon. or hon. Lady or Gentleman ever returns to this place in a drunken state. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will take the opportunity to correct that interpretation.
        Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Hayward: I should like first to deal with the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
        Mr. Tony Banks: May I point out that I have not been ruled out of order by the Chair. To prevent the hon. Gentleman from trying to provoke further debate, I should like to say that I made no allegations about an individual Member. Perhaps it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman if I said that Members return here suffering from a very heavy lunch.
        Mr. Hayward: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the matter. I share his view that it is important that in all circumstances, whether in this place or elsewhere, but especially when safety is involved, people should be able to work to their maximum efficiency and not endanger anyone. One could reasonably presume, and hope, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) —if she is having the birthday party to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred, would return to work not influenced by any alcohol that she was able to acquire in a canteen, mess or club or for the purposes of her trade. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to convey her congratulations to the Japanese on the birthday of the Emperor of Japan. I understand that this evening the Japanese embassy will celebrate the Emperor's birthday. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will have been invited to that.
        Mr. John Marshall: I wanted to ask my hon. Friend earlier whether he would comment on the advice given by the late Lord Attlee to a new Member of Parliament, that he should, first, specialise and, secondly, that he should keep out of the Bars.
        Mr. Tony Banks: Most ignored his advice.
        Mr. Hayward: I note that, as ever, the hon. Member for Newham North-West makes a sedentary intervention, observing that it was universally ignored advice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point ignored that advice so rightly given by the great Lord Attlee. I note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West does not wish to comment. I am sure that the advice is not universally ignored, although it may be ignored by quite a number.
        I return to my original point, as you would wish me to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on the amendment. Are we talking purely about canteens and messes in military establishments, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne spoke at length, or are we speaking in general about canteens? Clarification is needed by all those responsible for running non-military canteens.

        641
        I referred earlier to the by-election in Eastleigh, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responded. There were similar results in Durham and Hammersmith which were not good news for the main Opposition party. This amendment, or previous amendments, may well have been in the voters' minds when they pondered before casting their votes yesterday.
        Mr. Holt: I had no intention of speaking to this amendment, until I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). It seemed that he lacked the sort of background knowledge that I have had, having been a boy sailor and junior sailor. Some of the messes into which we were allowed did not serve alcohol, and that was always a great regret because we never learnt at a young enough age to control the problem, and later in life we perhaps compounded it. Rather than pass the amendment, we should first decide why we all want to be Holy Joes all the time, telling people what they should and should not do, and consider the matter in relation to canteens.
        Having been a director of personnel in a company with five works canteens, all of which served alcohol, I do not recall many instances when people were the worse for wear, except perhaps on their birthdays. The Emperor of Japan is no doubt celebrating his birthday today. Perhaps you are not aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when I was a young lad in the Navy there was a tradition that on one's birthday one was allowed to get blind, stinking drunk and was never in trouble for it. When I was a young man in the Navy, sailors were real sailors and drank rum, unlike sailors today, who are technocrats who drink lemonade. The Navy currency was that each measure was made up of a sipper, two sippers were one gulper, two gulpers were half a tot, and two halves were a whole tot. A young lad knew how many friends he did or did not have on his birthday by the number of times that he was invited to come round and have a sipper, a gulper or half a tot, or a bosum pal might even give a friend his tot. That did not make the whole British Navy any the worse. In many ways it made it better. We did not lose too many wars or battles as a consequence. Sometimes we lose sight of these important little aspects of' our life when we introduce measures such as this.
        It should he noted that men like to drink. They like their pint of beer. I have even known ladies who enjoyed a gin and tonic. A young couple can go to the works canteen, have a pint and a gin and tonic, and indulge in intimate conversation spread over some time, rather than have to rush clown to the car park, try to get the car out, knowing that the space will be gone when they return, and drive 30 miles to a pub. It is wise to say these things when dealing with this legislation. They enable the matter to be put in its proper perspective.
        It will be a sad day when we do what has been done in some places and ban all alcohol. I am afraid, though, that I might have liked to ban alcohol last Sunday when I managed finally to get into a compartment at Wembley Park after the football match and was squeezed like a sardine. Someone, who perhaps had been drinking a little too much, happened to throw up in the compartment. The problem was compounded by the fact that the Holy Joes of the GLC and London Transport had banned smoking, and I could not light up to offset the fumes from that offensive action. The more we legislate to ban things, the worse they become. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne will withdraw his amendment.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I think that it will be to the benefit of the House if I proceed fairly quickly. There seems to have been a misunderstanding about the nature and scope of the words "canteen" and "mess". They are, in fact, narrowly defined in section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964, which states:
        "'canteen', except in part X of this Act and in the expressions 'canteen licence' and 'licensed canteen', means a canteen in which the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor is carried on under the authority of the Secretary of State".
        That is further defined as meaning, in effect, a military canteen. "Mess" means
        "an authorised mess of members of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces".
        It is therefore a mistake to suppose that the word "canteen" is apt to include the ordinary canteens with which hon. Members are more familiar. It has a narrower meaning.
        Against that background, let me deal with the substance of the amendment. All sales of alcohol are sales by retail and are thus subject to the licensing regime unless they are exempt, and the Bill sets out the categories of transaction that should be exempt. One of those exempt categories is "canteen or mess". The amendment would mean that those who run a canteen or mess could get their supply of alcohol only from licensed wholesalers, unless they were purchasing in quantities which constituted wholesale quantities, which, in loose jargon, is purchased in bulk. That has two unfortunate consequences. First, it probably diminishes the range of suppliers who can supply to a canteen or mess. Secondly, it might persuade the secretary of a mess or canteen to order a crate of gin when a bottle would do just as well.
        On the basis that the amendment narrows the range of supplier and that it is at least capable of increasing insobriety, I advise the House not to accept it.
        Mr. Gow: In view of my hon. Friend's answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Order, for Third Reading read.
        10.32 am
        Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I believe that the Bill that I have piloted through the House represents a significant contribution to the reduction of alcohol abuse in this country. It tackles in particular, the dreadful problem of under-age drinking. I do not believe that there is an hon. Member who has not discussed with anxious parents, teachers, social workers or other interested parties the problem of school children consuming large quantities of alcohol. By making illegal the sale of alcoholic drinks, for example, off the back of lorries, to under-age drinkers—especially at carnivals and pop festivals—the Bill makes a significant move in the direction in which the country and the House wish to proceed: we want to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for young people to consume and abuse alcohol.
        There has been one unfortunate aspect of the Bill's passage through the House. The House and the country have acknowledged that this is a significant Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were upset, therefore, by the attitude of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the supporters of his private Member's Bill who, earlier this year, tried to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner),

        643
        myself and other sponsors of this Bill, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Standing Committee, were in some way trying to delay the proceedings of this Bill and thus of the Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. They tried to suggest that this Bill was irrelevant—a gross insult to everyone who is trying to tackle alcohol abuse. Then they had the impertinence and cheek to persuade their zealot supporters—the ayatollahs who parade under the banner of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children—to write to churches and newspapers in our constituencies suggesting that we were filibustering.
        First, as Mr. Speaker pointed out in a ruling on the Floor of the House, that was most certainly not so, and it was an insult to the occupants of the Chair. Secondly, it was an insult to all those hon. Members who are anxious that the Bill should proceed. It should be put on record again that that disgraceful incident did no credit to the hon. Members involved.
        Today, we see proof of the Bill's importance. My highly respected right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who is also a strong supporter of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—I hasten to add that he took no part in the disgraceful episode—has the House and acknowledged our work on the Bill. I hope that in future hon. Members who have been fortunate enough to draw a relatively high position in the ballot and who choose to introduce legislation that is perfectly in order, as is their right, will not be harassed as my hon. Friends and I have been harassed by outside groups aided and abetted by certain hon. Members.
        Mr. Hayward: My hon. Friend may have clarified the point that I intended to make with his reference to our right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). He used the terms "zealots" and "ayatollahs" when referring to those who supported the actions—which I regret—in support of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Perhaps he will make it clear that he was not referring to all that Bill's supporters, of whom I am one.
        Mr. MacKay: I am happy to make that clear. I would put my hon Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who I know takes a similar view on the subject, in exactly the same category. I cannot put the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and certain other hon. Members on both sides of the House, who I am not prepared to name at this stage, in the same category and I certainly cannot include in it a large number of the Bill's supporters outside the House who parade under the banner of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Life, who behaved in a despicable way and have been suitably censured by the Chair.
        I am delighted that the Bill is proceeding through the House. It is a significant measure. I hope that it will gain its Third Reading and proceed to the other place, that it will return unamended to us in July and that it will be on the statute book by the end of the year. I believe that it will help and do good. It is a modest but significant reform of our licensing laws.
        10.38 am
        Mr. Corbett: As the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows, the Opposition wholly support the Bill.
        The hon. Gentleman does the House a favour by reminding us of the events that surrounded the start of the Bill's Committee stage. A number of us who served on the Committee were subjected to the most intense pressure by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) who made the most astonishng and false accusations about us and against us—not in this place but by letter circulated all round our constituencies, and directed especially at ministers of the Church. That led to a great deal of anxiety.
        I have a Catholic abbey in my constituency and I like to believe that I have good and friendly relations with those who work there, although we do not always agree on the issues that we discuss. It was right and proper that, after a deal of pushing, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill wisely withdrew his accusations and caused letters to be sent to those to whom he had originally written.
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was particularly offensive to select him for such criticism as he was appointed to the Committee in his capacity as Front Bench spokesman for the Labour party rather than as a volunteer? Does he further agree that the same applied to my position as a Minister, so it was wholly reprehensible to suggest that either of us had any choice in the matter?
        Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for making that important point. It was certainly implied, if not stated, that places in the Committee were self-selected for the malevolent and improper purposes ascribed to us by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. I am delighted that we managed to dispose of that episode, although, like the hon. Member for Berkshire, East, I greatly regret that it ever started.
        The Bill is a small but none the less important measure. I suspect that there is agreement throughout the House on the immense and growing problem of alcohol abuse among young people. I do not pick on them deliberately, but one of the most alarming factors in the rise in alcohol abuse is the increase among the very young. A recent survey shows that children of 10 and 11 are regular drinkers and that there is regular heavy drinking by 13 to 15-year-olds. Anything that we can do, as the Bill does, to focus the spotlight on that problem is certainly to be welcomed.
        It is a pity that the press does not give the same attention to alcohol abuse as to drug abuse. The problem of drug abuse is extremely important, but a hundred times more people are affected by alcohol abuse. For reasons about which we had better not speculate, however, it is extremely difficult to get the media to take an interest in alcohol abuse. Perhaps it is felt that sustained boozing is more acceptable than sustained drug abuse. I hope that that is not so, as abuse of anything is bad for anyone.
        The hon. Member for Berkshire, East has done the House a service. I hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading and have a fair wind through the other place.
        10.43 am
        Mr. Gow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on having secured a

        645
        high place in the ballot and piloted the Bill as far as Third Reading. It is a short and in some ways modest Bill, but it is extremely important. Sometimes it falls to those who succeed in the ballot to introduce measures that will have a lasting effect for good on our society. I believe that that can truthfully be said of this Bill. It was clear from the proceedings in Committee and from my hon. Friend's speech in moving Third Reading that this is a matter about which he cares deeply.
        My hon. Friend will have the satisfaction of knowing that when the Bill reaches the statute book—like him, I wish it a speedy journey through another place—and its provisions become operative, it will give protection to some of those currently exposed to exploitation by people seeking to sell alcohol to the young. My hon. Friend will be able to look back with great satisfaction at his introduction of the Bill and the skill with which he has piloted it through the House. I congratulate him again. I am sure that the Bill will be of great value to our country.
        10.44 am
        Mr. John Marshall: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on his success so far with the Bill, which I am sure will be passed into law very soon. The temptation of impulse buying is a problem in a wide range of situations. By reducing the opportunities for impulse purchasing of alcohol the Bill will help the whole community
        As a community, the publicans of this country are a highly responsible group in their efforts to deal with under-age drinking.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Hear, hear.
        Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. We all welcome her presence as she has played a major role in educating people into better diet and therefore better health.
        The publicans of this country are highly responsible people who recognise that under-age drinking is a major social problem. They also realise that if they are found guilty of selling drink to persons under age they risk losing their licence and livelihood.
        I believe that we should consider further the availability of alcohol not just from the backs of lorries but in supermarkets. The availability of alcohol in supermarkets at prices with which publicans cannot compete is a major problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department replies to the debate he will deal with that point and give an assurance that the Government are examining it extremely closely.
        I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East will be thanked by a large number of people as a result of the Bill. As a parent of two young children, who in a few years' time may be tempted, I thank him. I am sure that he will also be thanked by many other parents and by social workers because the Bill deals with a grave social problem about which we all feel very strongly.
        10.47 am
        Mr. Hayward: I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on introducing the Bill. I hope that it will have a fair wind and progress into law as quickly as possible.
        I also echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) about the sale of alcohol. I might perhaps disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), as I interpreted them, on the consumption of alcohol by the young. Personally, I have no objection to the consumption of alcohol by the young in a family situation, so long as they are brought up to appreciate the effect of very limited quantities. The danger of allowing young people to consume large quantities of alcohol as soon as they are 18 is that they have no previous experience of it and therefore tend to abuse it. The Bill seeks to tackle that problem by dealing with sales which do not take place in controlled circumstances. Inevitably, that is where the greatest dangers arise. At present, alcohol can be bought from the backs of lorries at carnivals, gymkhanas, and so on. It is in such circumstances that people are tempted to consume a large amount rather than to learn slowly the dangers of abuse. In so doing, they may put at risk not just their own lives but those of others.
        I share also the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South about the easy availability of large quantities of alcohol in supermarkets where it is not controlled in the way that it is, for example, in the family home or in a public house or club. It is too easy for people —some of whom may be under age—to buy alcohol in large quantities by taking it off supermarket shelves to the checkout. The checkout girl herself may be under-age. It is difficult for her to refuse, to call a supervisor, or to say to the person, "I am not going to sell you this large quantity of alcohol."
        Like my hon. Friends and, I believe, Opposition Members, I support the Bill. I believe it will close a loophole in the law regarding the sale of alcohol and help to prevent abuse. We wish to see a realistic and sensible consumption of alcohol. We all hope that our society can progress to that. This measure will go a small way to achieving that end.
        10.51 am
        Mr. Gardiner: I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on his energy and skill in getting the measure through, at least to its Third Reading. As he and other hon. Members have said, I have a considerable interest in the Bill, as it is substantially the same measure as I introduced in the last Session of Parliament, so I take some pride in at least a shared parentage.
        The Bill has an interesting history and teaches us much about the best approach to tackling the abuse of alcohol, which does, unfortunately, occur in our society. The Bill was promoted originally by the Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to which I occasionally offer parliamentary advice, in consultation with the Brewers Society and the Scotch Whisky Association, with helpful and constructive advice from the Home Office. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the help that his Department has given with the measure, both in the last Session and in this.

        647
        The Bill is an example of the trade's desire to ensure that its products are not abused by a minority of members of our community, and that those products should not be sold to those who are under age. The trade is prepared to support, and in this case initiate, legislation that will prove effective in promoting what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) called "sensible drinking".
        For thousands of years the moderate drinking of alcohol has played a significant part in civilised societies throughout the world. Alcohol is used for hospitality, for celebrations, in religious ceremonies and as an integral part of an enjoyable meal. There is also considerable evidence that, when taken in reasonable quantities, it improves health rather than worsening it.
        About 40 million people in the United Kingdom, consume alcoholic drinks of one kind or another—which is about 95 per cent. of the adult population. Almost all do so in moderation, and benefit accordingly. The United Kingdom has a relatively low per capita consumption of alcohol. It is the lowest among EEC countries. There have always been some individuals who misuse alcohol, and certain people who sell it in such a way as to encourage its misuse, but, the highest figures given official credence show that a very small minority of people who drink develop alcohol problems. The figure is a little over 1 per cent.
        In the United Kingdom there is extensive legislation to control the quality of alcohol and key aspects of its use. The trade bodies to which I have referred support all reasonable legislation to ensure that that is so. In a free society, responsibility for the proper use of alcohol lies ultimately with the individual, but society as a whole has a responsibility to promote its proper use. Parents, teachers and others who guide children and young people, the Government, public agencies, employers, trade unions, voluntary organisations, and sellers of alcoholic drinks should act responsibly and uphold the law.
        The drinks trade wishes to promote sensible drinking and to ensure that its products are not misused. The efforts of the trade are two-pronged and relate to research and education. The industry is not interested in participating in the numbers game. Anti-alcohol lobbies frequently feed the press with manipulated and misleading statistics, carefully selected to gain popular support for policies which, for example, would prevent any relaxation of licensing hours and penalise the vast majority of moderate drinkers by heavy taxation. The drinks industry should not be drawn into that kind of phoney war. Instead, its efforts should be, and are, directed at funding the necessary research to find out why some people develop a drinking problem and towards educating those who are recognised to be susceptible.
        The drinks industry makes grants and donations to over seven major organisations associated with research into alcohol misuse. It has also provided funds for research into various aspects of alcohol misuse to six institutions, nine universities and four hospitals. The efforts of the drinks industry to prevent abuse of alcohol follow similar lines to the Government's policy and are directed at target groups. Young people need to be educated on the strength of different drinks, on how alcohol is absorbed and eliminated from the blood stream, and on the harmful effects of excessive consumption. For this purpose, the Scotch Whisky Association, for example, has produced a
        648
        booklet, "Alcohol and Man", which is available to all schools, and has also produced films and videos on the subject. There is an Alcohol Advisory Centre booklet, "A Do-It-Yourself Guide to Sensible Drinking for Young People". The Wine and Spirit Asssociation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has produced a useful video for youth leaders. It is only by educating young people in this way, as they begin to come into contact with alcohol, that they will learn to drink sensibly and appreciate the harm of excessive drinking.
        The drinks industry is keen to promote research into the problem of drinking and driving. The Brewers' Association has produced a booklet for all people who drive, giving the essential facts about which every driver should be aware. The Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has recognised—I think ahead of the Government—that too few organisations appreciated the need to consider the relationship between alcohol and work, and to develop a coherent policy. The association has produced "Alcohol Policy Guidelines for Companies", which advises them on how to develop a rational policy by which employees with an alcohol problem can be identified and treated.
        Mr. Gow: What representations did my hon. Friend make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before his last Budget, proposing that there should be much greater—[Interruption.]
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Third Reading. As a very experienced parliamentarian, he knows that Third Reading is concerned only with what is in the Bill.
        Mr. Gardiner: I made representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before his last Budget and I am glad that he accepted most of them. However, I advise my hon. Friend that they were not directly related to this matter.
        It is vital that when those in the professions involved are able to detect alcohol dependency, they are trained to identify and treat the problem. The Scotch Whisky Association gives an annual grant to the Medical Research Council to train doctors, nurses and other members of the health care professions for this purpose. The Wine and Spirit Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland publishes a booklet, "Drinking and Alcohol—Questions and Answers". It contains information for adults on all aspects of alcohol, and sets out the beneficial and detrimental effects that it can have.
        Those research and education initiatives, together with this legislation, are vital in finding a solution to the problems of alcohol abuse. The answer lies, not in the manipulation of statistics, but in the recognition that while the majority of people indulge in only a harmless drink, a tiny minority abuse alcohol and must be helped. It is essential that all interested groups work with the drinks trade to find a solution to the problems, rather than indulge in an orgy of statistical manipulation.
        Within the framework of education and research, the drinks trade recognises its responsibility to detect any loopholes in the law, and the Bill is a case in point. It represents part of the industry's commitment to solving the problems of alcohol abuse and to promoting sensible drinking. By the Bill, the drinks industry, together with my right hon. and hon. Friends, is making a laudable initiative to prevent alcohol abuse.
        11.2 am
        Mr. Holt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) on introducing this modest measure. Indeed, he referred to it as a small Bill. However, the length of a Bill, no more than the length of a speech, does not denote its merits or strengths. It has been said that for speeches to be memorable they do not need to be interminable, and neither do Bills need to be overlong to be meaningful.
        I wonder whether the Bill is entirely correct. None would argue with its aims, but we must not continually give the impression that drinking is wrong. I am sure that many hon. Members were sad to hear today of the death of Lord Brockway. Until very recently he could be seen having a drink with his old colleagues in the Pugin Room. He was using alcohol, not abusing it; it was a means of enjoyment. Other people who used it in that way included Mannie Shinwell and Winston Churchill. We must be careful not to inhibit all drinking.
        Although the Bill is good in many ways, I have one major criticism of it, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East is not in the Chamber to hear it. As in many areas, Parliament has the means to do certain things, but fails to use them. Penalties for breaking the law should be so severe that no one would dream of doing so. Why do so many people abuse the litter, speeding and parking laws? It is because they know that if they are caught, they will not face too great an embarrassment. If those who sell liquor to youngsters under the legal age limit faced swingeing fines and the confiscation of their entire stock, they would soon insist on seeing a birth certificate before selling alcohol to anyone who might be under age. Such heavy penalties would, in some ways, obviate the need for some of this legislation. The Government have been namby-pamby with offenders, and that has caused many of the problems. If they increased the penalties available to the courts, more people would obey the law. We should use the Bill as a vehicle for that.
        I hope that the Bill reaches the statute book, but I fear that it will not prevent the timorous from saying, "Shall we or shan't we prosecute? Did they know that they had sold alcohol to someone under age?" If the retailer faced severe fines, he would take the necessary steps to ensure that the law was obeyed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that the checkout girls in a supermarket could not judge whether to sell alcohol to youngsters. The law should be changed so that only someone over a given age—perhaps 40—could work at a checkout—
        Mr. Hayward: Steady on.
        Mr. Holt: That should be the law where alcohol is sold.
        Mr. Hayward: Such extreme age limits are not necessary. The lower age limit for selling alcohol should be set at the age limit at which people are allowed to buy alcohol. My hon. Friend's proposal would not allow me to work at a checkout—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the question of age limits does not arise under this Bill.
        Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), with his activities with a funny little ball, is somewhat of a Peter Pan. However, I hope that he
        650
        appreciates the serious, underlying point that it is for the proprietors of supermarkets and other stores to ensure that those taking the money for alcohol are fit, proper and responsible. If the law comes down on that proprietor, he should not have the let-out of saying, "I am in the hands of my staff."
        Although it is right to introduce this legislation, the Government must also consider the penalties and controls so that, ultimately, we can prevent the far too many young people who are on the streets with bottles and cans of alcoholic liquor from indulging in anti-social behaviour. The Bill will not prevent that. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot be definitive when he answers, but I ask him to give a thought to how the penalties can be stiffened to ensure that people do not profit by selling alcohol to youngsters.
        11.7 am
        Mr. Douglas Hogg: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on introducing the Bill and carrying it through its parliamentary stages.
        The Bill's main purpose is to bring under the licensing regime the sale of alcohol from the backs of lorries and similar points of sale. It would, therefore, help the House if I reminded it of how the licensing regime is conducted. All sales of alcohol through retail outlets are subject to the licensing laws, the most important aspects of which are the restrictions on supplying the under age and on the hours of sale, and the various offences that relate to the manner of sale. The significant aim of the Bill is that all sales of alcohol should be treated as retail sales, and thus subject to the licensing laws, unless they fall within the scope of the exemptions set out in clause 1.
        Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of clause 1(1) prescribe various exempted sales, whereas paragraph (e) deals with quantity. If the nature of the transaction is such that it falls within paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) or if the quantity falls within paragraph (e), it is an exempted quantity or sale. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are probably what most people would describe as wholesale transactions—that is to say, a sale to another trader for the purpose of his trade, a sale to a registered club for the purposes of the club, a sale to a canteen or mess, or the sale to the holder of an occupational permission. Each such transaction is probably properly regarded as—I use a loose word—a wholsale transaction, to which it would not be right to apply the full rigour of the licensing laws.
        Paragraph (e) deals with quantity, to exclude what is defined as "wholesale quantity" from the full rigour of the licensing law. That provision is enshrined in the Bill because of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (M r. Forth). In Committee, he was concerned about the fear that was expressed by organisations such as the Majestic wholesaling company that their activities would be caught by a prohibition which, in effect, was designed to catch back-of-lorry merchants. They felt that that was unfair, and the Committee was persuaded of that view, the Government's position being one of neutrality.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire moved the amendment that is now enshrined in paragraph (e). It protects genuine wholesalers dealing in substantial quantities, provided that they trade from their ordinary

        651
        business premises, as defined in the Bill. That exemption was understandable, and it won the support of the Committee.
        During this debate, questions have been raised about sale by and to under-age persons. I shall answer those points briefly, because I am anxious to keep within the scope of a Third Reading debate. It is important to bear in mind that the Bill is to be treated in conjunction with the Licensing Bill has nearly completed its parliamentary process. In the Licensing Bill, the Government were conscious of and tried to meet several points that have been made by hon. Members in this debate.
        Wholesale sales of intoxicating liquor to or by persons under 18 on wholesale premises—to use a shorthand reference, the Majestic Warehouse—are covered by the provisions in clause 17 of the Licensing Bill. In particular, it is an offence for a wholesaler thus defined to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of 18. Moreover, it is an offence for a wholesaler to allow a person under 18 to make a sale of intoxicating liquor unless that sale has been specifically approved by the wholesaler or by a person over the age of 18 acting on his behalf. Some of my hon. Friends' anxieties are met by clause 17 of the Licensing Bill, which has nearly completed its parliamentary process.
        Another group of anxieties have been expressed by my hon. Friends. In broad terms, they relate to the sale of alcohol in supermarkets. The point was most forcibly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). I commend to him the provisions of clauses 16 and 18 of the Licensing Bill. Clause 16 greatly tightens the control in section 169 of the principal Act, the Licensing Act 1964. The law has been tightened up on sale to under-age persons. That provision applies to off-licences —for example, supermarkets—in precisely the same way as it applies to on-licences. I commend that clause to my hon. Friend.
        Clause 18 is also relevant to my hon. Friend's anxieties. That clause also provides—very much in the same terms as clause 17 does in the context of wholesale distributors—that the sale of alcohol by an under-age person should be effectively supervised and approved. By the interaction of the two pieces of legislation—that is to say, the one now before us and the one that is passing through the House —we have tried to meet the kind of anxieties that have so understandably been raised in the House and in Committee.
        My hon. Friends who have promoted the Bill are greatly to be congratulated. The Bill will significantly tighten the sale of alcohol. It brings into the licensing regime disorderly and ad hoc sales of alcohol. Such sales were previously outside the scope of the Licensing Act. That was undesirable, primarily because it resulted in the disorderly sale of alcohol and was in no way controlled by legislation. Of course, in turn, that led to the supply of alcohol to under-age people, or at least it provided the opportunity for that, which the House would deprecate. Having regard to those considerations, I warmly commend the Bill to the House. I hope that it will receive its Third Reading, and I congratulate my hon. Friends.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
      Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill
        Clause 2

          ACCESS TO INFORMATION RELATING TO MEMBERS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS ETC.
          11.17 am
          Mr. Hugo Summerson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, at end insert
          '; and

          (d) whether or not the member has any financial interest in the affairs of any health authority served by the council to which the member has been appointed.".'

          Clause 2(1) provides:
          "A Community Health Council shall maintain a register containing the name and address of every member of the Council and of every committee appointed by the Council whether alone or jointly with another Council and stating in the case of each member of the Council".
          Then there are three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I should like to add a fourth paragraph, (d), as set out in my amendment.
          This is an important amendment. We all know that those who serve on public bodies, in any shape or form, and have a financial interest in industry, or whatever, should declare any financial interest. After all, for right and proper reasons, hon. Members must declare their interests in a register.
          Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend, who is a new Member, would not wish to mislead the House. We do not have to register our interests; if asked, we do so voluntarily.
          Mr. Summerson: I thank my hon. Friend for that correction. Nevertheless, whether or not it is compulsory, it is right and proper that hon. Members should register their financial interests and the register should be open for public inspection.
          Exactly the same principle applies to this amendment. Community health councils exist to serve local communities and to represent them and their interests. Members of a community health council are, as the name implies, drawn from the local community, which is as it should be. Otherwise, the health authorities which serve the community could become remote from the members of the community. Many members of the community know nothing about their health authority. Indeed, authorities, divided as they are into regions and districts, can appear to be far away. For example, the offices of my regional health authority, which covers my constituency of Walthamstow, are based in Paddington. None of my constituents wishing to get in touch with it would think that it was based there; they would expect it to be based locally. Indeed, the offices of my district health authority, although based a little more locally, are some considerable distance away in a place not well served by public transport.
          Community health councils have been set up to represent the interests of local people. They serve these vital interests. I was about to say all too frequently, but I shall amend that. Now and again local people have cause for complaint and it is right and proper that they should have a body of citizens who can put those complaints to the relevant authorities and ask for action.

          653
          Clause 2 states:
          "A Community Health Council shall maintain a register containing the name and address of every member of the Council".
          That is right and proper because local people must know who their representatives are. It makes life much easier for them and in many ways for the authorities, both regional and district, to be able to look at the register and see who the members of the community health council are.
          The clause goes on to say that the council
          "shall maintain a register … of every committee appointed by the Council".
          It is important that those serving on the community health council should declare any financial interest they may have in the affairs of any health authority. Bearing in mind the immense sums spent these days on the National Health Service, it is important that those with a financial interest in the affairs of health authorities should have to declare it publicly through the medium of the register. The sums are of the order of £22 billion a year—
          The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Twenty three billion pounds a year.
          Mr. Summerson: The sum is £23 billion a year. That is an immense amount and all too often people and hon. Members do not realise that. It is only too easy to say £23 billion. It is only six syllables and it does not sound an enormous amount. One should think of all those noughts and remember that they are being spent not just once, but every year, and they are increasing. When such huge sums are involved it is only right and proper that local people should have a say in how the money is spent. Indeed, they will want to be assured that their representatives do not have any pecuniary interests.
          I know a man whose company is busy putting up advertisements for various medical products in NHS hospitals. For example, if he wishes to advertise baby foods, where more appropriate than in the waiting room where expectant mothers are congregating? He is getting right to his target market. He is not directly taking money from the NHS; he is providing a supplement to it to ensure that when expectant mothers finally have their babies they have a good idea of what sort of products are available for feeding their babies so that, I hope, they have strong, healthy families.
          Obviously, with huge sums in the system, there must be opportunities for speculation. A member of a community health council will have access to all sorts of information about the goings on in his local area, in which I include districts. If he has some sort of financial interest in the affairs of the health authority, that could be greatly to his advantage. We should not put temptation in his way. That is not to say that merely because members have their names on a register, temptation will automatically be removed, but that would act as a good, strong, firm check on any action which could perhaps transgress or infringe the rules.
          My amendment seeks to provide that the register shall state whether the member
          "has any financial interest in the affairs of any health authority served by the council to which the member has been appointed."
          That means that a member does not have to register his interest until he has been appointed. That is right. Someone may have been asked to join a community health council and it would be absurd to require him to register
          654
          any financial interest before being appointed. Once he has been appointed his financial interest can be seen and taken into account.
          I think that I am right in saying that any hon. Member wishing to speak in a debate on a matter in which he has a financial interest, although he has declared his financial interest through the register, must state openly in the House that he has that interest. That is right. My amendment does not mean that merely because someone has put his name on the register, he should not declare his interest in the community health council's proceedings.
          The paragraphs all form a coherent clause 2. Paragraph (a) states that for each member the register must contain
          "the name and address of the body which appointed him".
          It is hoped that bodies which appoint members will know in advance or will at least ask the provisional appointee about his financial interests. It is important that the process is started from the beginning. There is no point in taking a cuckoo into the nest, and suddenly realising that he is the chairman of the regional health authority. I realise that that is not likely, but the point of the law is to be certain.
          Paragraph (b) states that for each member the register shall state
          "whether or not he is a member of that body".
          That is clear, and I have covered it in my remarks.
          Paragraph (c) provides that the register shall state:
          "in the case of a member appointed by a voluntary organisation (within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977), that he has been so appointed."
          I have some difficulty in understanding what that means. It appears to be a non sequitur. The latter part of clause 2(1) provides:
          "and stating in the case of each member of the Council"—
          which meaning has to be carried to each of the paragraphs. In regard to paragraph (c), therefore, the clause reads:
          "stating in the case of each member of the Council…

          (c) in the case of a member appointed by a voluntary organisation (within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977), that he has been so appointed."

          Some of those words are redundant.
          I have to consider the meaning of clause 2 and establish whether amendment No. 4 adds to it what I hope it adds. It would ensure that all members of community health councils are there solely to represent the interests of the local community. They should be able to be single-minded in their deliberations and representations and have no possible form of financial speculation niggling away in the backs of their minds.
          Service for the community is what CHCs are about and I hope that it will be strengthened by the amendment.
          11.30 am
          Mr. Andrew Faulds: I have listened carefully to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) in support of his amendment. He is a personable young Member, eager to serve the House and his community. I am sure that he accepts that the only offence that I hold against him is that he replaced one of the most admirable hon. Members of this House—Eric Deakins—and will have a great deal to live up to to meet the performance and service that that former colleague brought to the House.
          On first hearing, the hon. Gentleman's arguments appear reasonable. I urge the House that, on closer examination, the amendment is not at all necessary. The

          655
          purpose of it appears to seek to ensure that financial impropriety by members of community health councils is prevented—an admirable aim, but it is not necessary in this case. I want to make some adverse comments on the arguments as to the advisability, as the hon. Gentleman sees it, of the amendment.
          In the first place, CHCs are not established to serve health authorities, as is implied in the amendment. Their function is to represent the interests of the Health Service and of the public in the districts for which they are established.
          Secondly, it would be difficult, to follow the argument that the hon. Gentleman advanced, to identify anybody who does not have a financial interest, in the broadest sense, in the affairs of a health authority, either as a consumer of services, or as a supplier of goods and services, or as an employee or even as a taxpayer.
          The third argument is whether the answer on the register as to financial interest is yes or no. This is what the hon. Gentleman wants included. It is not at all clear how that information would be used or how it would affect the status of members.
          The fourth point in rejection of the amendment is that community health councils are not strategic decision-taking bodies. They do not control the allocation of NHS resources as I think might be suggested in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
          In view of my adverse comments, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. I hope—dare I say I suspect—that I shall receive the Minister's support for my rejection of the amendment.
          Mrs. Currie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) yet again on getting his Bill this far. As I said in Committee, the Government have an interest in seeing that legislation that reaches the statute book is satisfactory. The amendments that we discussed in Committee did not cover the area of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has brought up. The amendments that we discussed then were purely technical. They did not affect the substance of the Bill.
          I understand that the Bill is designed to provide greater access to the work of community health councils than is currently provided by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, and that it strengthens the rights of members of the public to attend CHC meetings and inspect agendas, minutes and background papers, copies of which can be provided for a reasonable fee.
          In an eloquent and succinct presentation, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow discussed the role of the membership of CHCs and rightly said that, if they are to function properly, their membership must be correct and they must be seen to be working above board. In that respect, I have much sympathy with what he said.
          Before I comment in detail on the amendment, perhaps I could pick up some of the points that my hon. Friend made, confirm some of them and put them in context. My hon. Friend was right about the growth in health care. It means that the efforts of watchdog bodies such as CHCs to ensure that the growth in money and staffing goes to patient care are that much more important.
          Expenditure on the Health Service has risen to £23·5 billion this year, mainly because of the additional money
          656
          required for the pay review body agreements. They have given 15 per cent. extra to our nurses and 8 per cent. extra to our doctors. A sister's basic scale will now start at a higher level than the top rate of the previous scale. Our senior staff are about to experience some substantial increases in pay.
          The net result is that spending on the NHS this year is yet again the second largest element in Government spending—it is second only to social security. It has been larger than defence and education for some time, although in respect of defence there is perhaps not a consumer as there is in the NHS.
          The Health Service involves a substantial number of people, many of whom are perhaps not best placed to argue with the producers of the service when they need it, so the role of CHCs is important. There is also growth in the private sector. We should remind ourselves that CHCs examine the state sector, but I have no objection to their taking an interest in the private sector in so far as it impinges on health care needs in a neighbourhood.
          A lot more staff have come into the NHS recently. We have 60,000 more nurses—whole-time equivalents—more doctors, more physiotherapists and more occupational therapists. Indeed, we have more of just about everything, and yet many health care plans are predicated on more people entering the service. One of my worries is that that might not be quite so easy to achieve. We have previously recruited heavily among school leavers, but the number of school leavers is now dropping. That is presenting problems where the job market is active, as it is in London and my hon. Friend's constituency.
          It will be important for consumer watchdog bodies to be aware that we cannot simply expect to recruit large numbers of staff as we have in the past, for they simply will not exist. That is particularly true of young girls. Therefore, it follows that some patterns of care and treatment and some patterns of work in the NHS may have to change. The role of the more mature workers in the NHS will become relatively more important. The implication of that is that there will have to be more in-service training and perhaps a switch from the intensive efforts on initial training to in-service training, such as has occurred in teaching and education. I hope that our community health councils will note that changing pattern and will not expect our staff to look exactly the same in future as they have in the past.
          The main role of the CHCs are in representing patients' interests and seeing the patient as a consumer. Certainly there are many more patients now in whom they should take an interest.
          In recent years we have been looking after an in-patient load of about 6·5 million a year, taking account of the fact that some people are likely to be readmitted. As lengths of stay shorten, particularly in psychiatry, people will seek help if they have acute bouts of difficulty. That is not a bad policy; in fact it is a good policy and has been pursued for some time.
          Even if we take into account that there may have been some readmissions, it is certainly clear from research studies that the number of patients being looked after is far higher than it used to be. That means that the pattern of work is changing and the volume of work in some specialities is rising very fast, particularly in orthopaedics. The pattern of work between the hospital services, the community services such as the domiciliary health visitors

          657
          and district nurses, and the work loads of GPs are tending to shift and the role of the community health councils has become more complex.
          We do not expect that health care will cost any less in future; it will continue costing us more. We do not expect that in future we will be able to manage with fewer staff. We shall continue to need to use our staff very heavily and seek ways of rendering their efforts and their skills even more productive. I expect that we shall have to look after more patients in future.
          Later today we are to have a short debate about the health authority in Eastbourne. On much of the south coast the proportion of people over the age of 65 has risen to a quarter of the population and is rising fast. For that reason we are obliged to look at patterns of care and service which are a particular reflection of the increased needs of our rising elderly population. That is a problem in Walthamstow, in Warley East and in Derbyshire, South, but it is a particular problem in some parts of the country where large numbers of elderly people have chosen to settle and spend what they thought would be their last few years, but have become their last decades.
          Mr. Robert Hayward: My hon. Friend said that the problem of the rising proportion of the population who are elderly is moving away from what one might describe as retirement resorts. That is an important matter. Whereas previously it was assumed that there were concentrations of elderly people only in such places as Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and Eastbourne, in many parts of the country well over one in five of the population are of retirement age, and in some cases more than a quarter of the population are elderly people who are concentrated not only in retirement towns but in constituencies such as mine where people have chosen not to move away from their native communities.
          Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend note that that phenomenon occurs not only on the geriatric coast but in northern industrial towns such as my constituency where so many young people are moving away to find work elsewhere leaving behind the older population who are less mobile and create just as many problems as they do in Eastbourne?
          Mrs. Currie: Both my hon. Friends have made serious and important points. I must confess that I hope to do my best in the time that I hold this post to increase the proportion of elderly people in Britain. If I am successful in persuading people that by sensible modifications of their lifestyles in early and middle age they may thereby reduce the risks of preventable disease which stands at a high level in this country, it will not only be in Eastbourne where 25 per cent. of the population is over 65, it will be all over the country. In many parts of the country there is a rising number of people over 85. That offers us exciting opportunities.
          Perhaps we should ask our CHCs to take that into account and ensure that at least some of their members are drawn from the older age groups so that the needs of this group are not ignored. People do not lose their wits or their citizenship when they reach retirement age and it is important that the services are responsive to their needs.
          11.45 am
          One aspect of the improvement going on in the Health Service to which the community health councils have
          658
          contributed in their watchdog role, is the fact that we have much greater life expectancy. That means that the typical patient is no longer a young person. The typical patient is an older person and a women—in other words, an old lady. In the past women have tended to be a little acquiescent in their responses to care and treatment. As the patterns of demography and patient care have shifted in the directions that I have described, the role of a watchdog body becomes more important.
          The National Health Service is a huge organisation which employs 1·25 million people. It employs more people than any other organisation in this country. In fact it is the third largest employer in the world. I understand that it is third only to Indian Railways and the Red army.
          In any large institution the producers tend to have a very large say in the pattern and development of service. lf we want to know what to do about medical services we tend to ask doctors—
          Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I should be obliged if the hon. Lady would refer rather more to the community health councils, which are what the clause is really about.
          Mrs. Currie: I apologise. At the end of that sentence I intended to show exactly how it relates to the debate.
          If we wanted to develop services in pharmacy we would ask a pharmacist, and if we wanted to develop services in nursing we would ask nurses, if we wanted to develop services in optical work we would ask opticians. In other words, there is built into any major organisation the supposition, the implication and the inevitability that when we want to change a service we should ask the producers of that service. In future, we need to ask those who use the service what they think.
          This is a small Bill, to which our official approach is neutral. We would not have introduced it ourselves, but we do not object to it—other work offered to us later intends to redress that balance. Just as it has been said in the past that war is too important to leave to the generals, I would say that the medical health of our people and the circumstances that we are discussing are so important that we cannot leave them only to the producers.
          Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister has spoken about listening more to the users of our National Health Service. Did she see the fascinating opinion poll in The Independent yesterday which revealed that 29 per cent. of Conservative voters think that things are getting worse in the National Health Service and that 65 per cent. of the total population said the same?
          Mrs. Currie: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) should address that question to the people who commissioned the poll. When another organisation which is concerned about the role of the consumer in the NHS—the National Association of Health Authorities in England and Wales—commissions its poll every May or June, it finds that 88 per cent. of people who use the Health Service say that they were satisfied or very satisfied with it. I suspect that it has a lot to do with the way one asks the question.
          We hope that by developing our services and by developing an increasing responsiveness to the needs of consumers and potential consumers we may be able to get

          659
          better value for money and satisfaction in some of those services. In the end, our overall objective must be better health, not just better opinion polls.
          The problems of ensuring the interests of the consumer in health care are not quite the same as they are for cornflakes or chocolate. Health care is not an everyday product. In this area, the producer, the doctor, the optician or the dentist, has all the knowledge on his side. The consumer is at a considerable disadvantage. He is often in no position to argue because he—or, more likely she—is frightened or unwilling to complain and may find that he does not even know how to answer questions, let alone understand them, even though he may be in a great hurry to get something done.
          That is why community health councils were set up in 1974. Their role has been discussed and in 1981 it was reaffirmed in health circular HC81/15. It was reaffirmed again in 1985, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who confirmed that the status of community health councils would not be changed during the lifetime of that Parliament. I am glad to confirm that view.
          My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow commented at length on the membership of the community health councils. It would be helpful to remind the House that the regional health authorities appoint the community health councils, and that about 50 per cent. of the nominations come from the local authorities, although not all of them are councillors. Many of them will be people who have connections with the local council but who are not councillors. Their membership can be extremely valuable. The rest come from voluntary organisations and other interested bodies, including such august bodies as the Socialist Medical Society. Some of them make a worthwhile contribution. However, the community health council is intended to be composed of lay people. Our statutory instrument of 1985 made that absolutely clear.
          People are disqualified from appointment as members of a community health council if they are members of a regional health authority or of a district health authority. They cannot be members of both. They are also disqualified from appointment as a member of a community health council if they have been dismissed otherwise than by reason of redundancy from any paid employment with bodies that include a health authority, the Dental Estimates Board, the National Radiological Protection Board and an area health authority. There are strict rules about who can be a member of a community health council.
          We do not mind in the least if the members of a community health council are professionally qualified, but their job on the CHC is not to represent any professions. It is important that that should be so. Their job is to look after the interests of patients. There are other people on other bodies whose job it is to represent the professions. For example, on a teaching district health authority—the kind that I chaired in Birmingham from 1982—there are people who are nominated and appointed at the request of the teaching university. There is a nurse member, a consultant member and a general practitioner member. It is on the district health authority that we expect the
          660
          professionals to make themselves heard, if they so wish, as representatives of their professions, not as members of the community health council.
          It is also important that the membership should bear in mind exactly what are and what are not their responsibilities on the CHC so that they may discharge their work well. They have wide responsibilities which we expect them to exercise. They do not have to work entirely within the National Health Service. For example, a community health council in the city of Birmingham during the time that I was health chairman decided to investigate why patients were complaining bitterly about out-patient waiting times, particularly in the maternity hospital. There were a number of good reasons for that, some of which have been put right, although the others have not.
          One reason was the difficulty of getting to the new maternity hospital. The CHC negotiated with the transport authority and managed to arrange that buses should run into the main hospital complex and right up to the door of the maternity hospital, so that pregnant ladies could get off the bus and walk inside. That was of considerable benefit to them.
          Many community health councils have also become directly involved with employment linked to consumer needs. I have seen the work being done in east London. The community health council has joined with the district health authority to employ link workers and facilitators. It felt strongly that many local people, particularly the women whose English is inadequate, were having great difficulty in understanding the medical advice that was given to them. I thought that that work was excellent.
          I saw what was being done in the east end, met the community health council and was very impressed.
          Many CHCs are signing up with us for the Look After Your Heart campaign and for conferences on particular aspects of health care in their neighbourhoods. The people in east London whom I met were organising a conference on the health needs of the ethnic minorities and helped to reawaken my interest in haemoglobinopathy, from which some members of the minority communities suffer. Partly as a result of the discussions during my visit, we were able to launch the sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia cards a couple of weeks ago.
          Most important of all, the community health councils have an important statutory right, almost the right of veto. That is why it is important that their activities should be open to public scrutiny and that is why I have not resisted the Bill. It is also why my hon. Friend's amendment is unnecessary. The statutory responsibilities clearly set out what the members are expected to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore understand that I cannot commit myself to supporting his amendment.
          The right of veto is set out clearly in the 1985 statutory instrument. If there is a major change in health care in a neighbourhood, the district health authority has to issue a consultative paper and consult the local people. That does not necessarily mean closure, but usually it involves a major closure, or a shift of service, or a transfer of service between one hospital and another. There have been occasions when CHCs have protested to me about a change that they consider to be a major change under the statutory instrument. I have shared their view and have told the district health authority that it must consult the community health council, which has the right to suggest alternatives to the proposal.

          661
          Those alternatives must be considered by the district health authority. If the district health authority sticks to its original view, or to a view with which the CHC does not agree, and the regional health authority confirms what the district health authority wants but the community health council still objects, the matter must come before Ministers. That is a very important right, though not quite a veto because the responsibility remains with Ministers. However, it is the right to force consultation with Ministers. We take that right very seriously, with the result that I frequently meet members of community health councils to listen to their views on various proposed changes.
          There was a good example recently. I went back to the district health authority with the community health council's proposals, and I believe that we have managed to persuade the DHA that the CHC was right. That occurred in Liverpool where major changes are taking place. The city of Liverpool has 10 hospitals within a mile of the city centre, but the population is declining quite fast. Nevertheless, there are serious health problems that need to he addressed. A marvellous new £44 million hospital was built recently. The DHA now wishes to move some of the services on to that hospital site. That leaves it with the problem of what to do with the older and, very often, rather tatty facilities that it has in the city centre.
          One proposal involves turning Myrtle street hospital into a minor injuries day centre, thereby serving the city centre as a minor accident and emergency department. The proposal was that it should be open until 8 o'clock in the evening. The community council told me that it felt that the injuries centre, which is currently open all night, provides during the late hours an excellent, sensitive and caring service to the children of the inner city, some of whom are seriously at risk of being hurt by their parents. They drift in during the evening to seek help from the nursing and other staff, either because they are in fear of going home and being hurt or because they feel that they need sanctuary. The members of the community health council told me that they regarded the service as invaluable and that it would be tragic for it to be lost for the sake of a few thousand pounds. I listened to what they and their Members of Parliament had to say, came to the conclusion that they were right and communicated my views to the district health authority. I told the district health authority that the community health council had contacted local GPs who were willing to provide some of the services. On that basis, we were able to agree that the Myrtle street day centre should remain open much later. I left it to the community health council, local GPs, consultants and the district health authority to decide what time it should close.
          12 noon
          Not all community health councils are good. It bothers me that some of them oppose everything as a matter of course. That is a pity, because much of what we are all trying to do is intended to improve the Health Service. We now have the largest ever capital hospital building programme and we are slowly replacing grotty buildings in Warley, Walthamstow and Derby with new ones fit to take us into the next century.
          I hope that community health councils—particularly in areas where the Health Service has been neglected but is now rapidly coming up to scratch—will realise that they are not Her Majesty's Opposition. Their job is to represent
          662
          the interests of consumers, who may be better served by the construction of new buildings, getting rid of grotty old properties and trying to keep to budgets rather than trying to break them. Not everything in health care can be a priority, and a community health council that realises that fact is serving local people better than one that opposes everything as a matter of course.
          The role of community health councils does not conflict with that of district and regional health authorities or family practitioner committees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned. I suspect that sometimes the role of community health councils becomes confused. The regional health authority is the strategic planning authority. We provide it with money for hospital and community services—the system is different in Scotland. We allocate money directly to family practitioner committees, which cover services that are not provided by hospitals, particularly those relating to independent contractors, family doctors, dentists, opticians and local pharmacists. The regional health authority allocates money and delegates responsibility to district health authorities, which run local and hospital services and community services such as district nurses and chriopodists. District health authorities also contribute to planning.
          District health authorities normally cover a population of 200,000, although in London the figure tends to be smaller. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow feels that the DHA is not situated centrally in his constituency. In Derbyshire, the district health authority covers 500,000 people in an area ranging almost from Manchester down to Birmingham. There are only two district health authorities, two community health councils and a single family practitioner committee. However, I reckon that it offers a jolly good service. The fact that some of my constituents must travel 20 miles to the headquarters of the district health authority is a matter that we must accept. We envy the concentration of services in London.
          The amendment confuses the roles of community health councils and health authorities. It talks about serving health authorities, but a community health council is not established to serve a health authority. Its function is to represent the interests of the public. The Bill serves a purpose because it is intended to open the activities of community health councils to the public in certain significant and small ways.
          The amendment mentions "any financial interest". The word "any" is dangerous in legislation as the courts always interpret it in its broadest possible sense. I suspect that it would be almost impossible to identify someone who does not have any financial interest in the affairs of a health authority, partly because almost all of us are consumers of the National Health Service, partly because many of us are suppliers of goods and services—the National Health Service is the largest employer in the country and many of us have family connections with people who work for it —and partly because as taxpayers we are all interested in it. The average family, not only people who pay income tax but those who pay VAT, contributes £1,600 a year to the Health Service.
          The wording of the amendment suggests that the only answer to the question that it poses would be yes or no. It is not clear how the information that it seeks would he useful or what difference it would make to the status of members of community health councils. I do not know

          663
          whether the amendment would result in people who have a financial interest or those who do not have a financial interest being excluded. In the light of the comments that I made earlier, my hon. Friend might accept that, as we are all taxpayers and have a financial interest in the National Health Service it would be wise to think that only people with a financial interest should be members of community health councils.
          Mr. Summerson: I shall give an example to help my hon. Friend the Minister. My father died two years ago, in a National Health Service geriatric hospital in Inverness. The care and treatment that he received was quite outstanding. If my mother, who still lives in Inverness, were a member of a community health council and a director of a company supplying services to the regional health authority—and perhaps, therefore, to that hospital —would it not be right that she should have to declare an interest?
          Mrs. Currie: As a general principle, we would always expect members of public bodies to say whether some aspect of their personal or business lives might influence the opinions that they are offering. My hon. Friend is going too far, as the good lady that he mentioned would have a strong interest in ensuring that the local health service was cost-effective and efficient, that it delivered health in response to the health needs of local people and that it was available when she needed it. In that regard, other interests would be affected.
          Should anybody serving on a public body such as a community health council or a district health authority have a financial interest in the outcome of a discussion—particularly if there was to be a vote—we would expect him to declare it and take guidance from the chairman about whether it was sufficiently relevant for him not to vote or be present. The community health council does not take such decisions, except with regard to its right of veto and to delay any major changes in the health authority. Its role is to take decisions about somebody else's decisions. It does not run a hospital or employ staff directly, except in very small numbers. Its main job is to make representations about the interests of consumers.
          I do not see any overriding need to legislate along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has suggested. Community health bodies are not strategic, decision-making bodies and do not control the allocation of National Health Service resources. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
          Mr. Corbett: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) had a wry smile on his face when the Minister congratulated him on the Bill and made it clear that she was not opposing it. It will be within his memory, as it is within mine, because I was here on the same Friday, that a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench shouted "Object" and blocked progress. That led to my hon. Friend getting up on a point of order and venting his anger. Better one sinner who repenteth—
          Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend must not go too far. I very rarely vent anger in the House. I occasionally vent disagreement.
          Mr. Corbett: My hon. Friend did it, so he will know what he was doing.
          664
          The Minister paints a picture of the NHS with which few members of community health councils could agree. Apparently there are no waiting lists, no closed wards, no cancelled operations, no shortage of specialist nurses, no shortage of midwives and no shortage of training opportunities. Indeed, this is heaven. I can tell the Minister, if she needs telling, that my local community health council has a much more realistic view. In the Good Hope hospital, which the Minister will know, which serves people in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), a Government Whip, a ward was closed temporarily about 10 months ago, and remains closed.
          I was interested in what the Minister said about the value that the Government attach to community health councils. Presumably, as soon as the hon. Lady leaves the House, she will get in touch with the South Manchester health authority. She will probably know that the South Manchester health authority agreed, on the casting vote of the person in the chair, to close immediately geriatric and rehabilitation wards at Burton house at Withington hospital, and psychiatric beds at the same hospital. There is nothing new about that. However, it was done without proper consultation with the community health council. Because of what the Minister said and the tales that she told about Liverpool, I expect her now to get in touch with that health authority and make known her displeasure at its lack of proper consultation with the community health council. I hope that in her usual quiet and persuasive manner she will persuade the authority to undo that decision until there has been adequate time for consultation. I do not know whether the Minister wants to rise to give me that assurance, or perhaps I can take it on the nod. That is how I shall take it.
          Mrs. Currie: The hon. Gentleman should never take my nods on the nod. We are in touch with all Manchester health authorities. In fact, I had the pleasure of meeting a small delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) this week, and we have been in touch with the three Manchester health authorities more recently. They have a statutory obligation not to overspend, and I have no doubt that they will also bear in mind the recent ruling in the courts that because a change may be temporary, that does not rule out any possibility of consultation.
          Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for that. They have a statutory duty not to overspend, but they also have a statutory duty to consult. The recent court decision underlines that point. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will be delighted when he reads the Minister's words on Tuesday.
          There is an even simpler argument against the amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) than that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East and the Minister. The purpose of the Bill is to open up the proceedings of community health councils and their papers to members of the public. I would hope that that is totally unexceptionable. If that is the case, and if the hon. Member for Walthamstow has worries about the misuse of a position on a community health council by one of its appointed members, the amendment will not stop that. If somebody is looking for naked commercial advantage from the proceedings of a

          665
          CHC, he, or she, under the terms of the Bill, has only to sit at the back of the room when the council is discussing an item out of which he or she may see an opportunity to make a bob or two.
          I find myself in the embarrassing position of agreeing with the Minister's arguments against the amendment. Also, it is not often that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East and I are able to agree. I hope that on that basis, the hon. Member for Walthamstow will take all the advice that has been offered in such a free and kind manner and see the wisdom of withdrawing his amendment.
          12.15 pm
          Mr. Summerson: I have listened with the greatest care to all the advice that has been flooding in for the past hour or two. As the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) referred to my predecessor in Walthamstow, Eric Deakins, I hope that I shall be allowed to refer to him briefly. On the occasions when I met Eric Deakins, I always thought that he was a pleasant man. Indeed, on one occasion when we were both invited to address a large gathering of teachers who set up a howl of rage and execration as soon as I entered the hall, it was a great relief to see the friendly face of Mr. Deakins smiling at me from the platform. It is now a matter of history that the good people of Walthamstow preferred a Conservative candidate to a Labour one.
          Mr. Corbett: Not for long.
          Mr. Summerson: We shall see.
          As I said, I have listened carefully to what has been said. Huge amounts of money are being spent on the Health Service. Indeed, £23·5 billion is now being spent on the NHS, which I think I am right in saying is about three times more then when we came to power in 1979. Community health councils doubtless have a great deal of influence, especially in these days of putting more services out to tender to get better value for money and to provide even more funds to be ploughed back into the NHS. Nevertheless, having listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, her usual charm and perspicacity have persuaded me to withdraw the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to do so.
          Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
          Order for Third Reading read.
          12.17 pm
          Mr. Andrew Faulds: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
          Now that we have at long last come to this happy stage of the Third reading, I do not want to detain my colleagues for too long from the later-in-the-day constituency engagements. The Minister has played a notable role in that. I have heard some extraordinarily lengthy pronouncements on a number of Third Readings, but I think that today's must take the biscuit.
          I want briefly, because of the interesting history of the Bill, to enlarge slightly on how it came about. My hon. colleague the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) was responsible in the previous Parliament for introducing this Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Bill which he thought was an admirable little measure, and of course I shared that view. But the Prime Minister, towards the fourth year of that Parliament, decided that things were a bit sticky for the Government and that they had better go to the country before they got worse. She went to
          666
          the country, and, unfortunately for us and the people of Britain, won the election. [Interruption.] I am glad that I have the agreement of the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber.
          One of the unfortunate results of that victory was that this minor Bill fell, before it got to the Lords, on the dissolution of that Parliament. Although I have been here now for many many years and have put my name forward for most of the ballots over those years, I have never once been drawn earlier than 14th. I cannot remember what I did with that effort. In the first ballot of this Parliament I drew the 19th place. It was clear that, with that number, I was unlikely to be able to introduce a major matter of personal or public interest that would ever land on the statute book. I was fortunate enough to engage in discussions with members of the Public Bill Office. Out of that sagacious exchange came the suggestion that I should support an admirable little Bill that had fallen in the previous Parliament and stood a good chance of getting on to the statute book in this Parliament. That was how my support for and introduction of the Bill came about.
          The Bill's purpose is explicit in the title. I need not enlarge on that too much, but perhaps for the record I should say that this legislation would require all meetings of the community health councils and their committees to be open to the public, and that is admirable. The Bill would require them to publish agendas—again, that Is admirable—and permit the public to inspect and copy reports and the background papers to those reports, and permit meetings and documents to be closed to the public only for specified genuine reasons.
          I am delighted that I have the broad agreement of the House and the Minister's support in introducing the Bill and furthering its advance on Third Reading. Because of the Bill's rather strange history, I should say that when I discussed the advancement of the Bill in Committee I was advised by parliamentary counsel that the earlier version had certain technical errors that should be put right. We pursued those errors in Committee and put them right.
          Parliamentary counsel's arguments were based on the understandable reason that the Bill applied the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, to comunity health councils. Legislation of this kind, which picks up bits of Bills by reference to earlier Acts, tends to be untidy, especially as the Local Government Act was not intended to cover community health councils. Minor modifications to that Act were necessary to accommodate the different nature of community health councils. The Department of the Environment, which takes the lead interest in the Local Government Acts, drew attention to some "drafting infelicities", which I think is the phrase, and parliamentary counsel suggested amendments that secured technical improvements to the Bill in Committee. They affected neither the substance nor the objectives of the Bill.
          As I have made clear, this is not a major piece of legislation. It is a tidying-up, good little Bill that provides public access to the proceedings of CHCs and their reports. I am sure that I shall have the Chamber's support. I very much commend the Third Reading, with the earnest hope that none of my colleagues will hold us too long in further discussion on this issue.
          12.23 pm
          Mrs. Currie: I cannot allow the Third Reading of this important Bill to pass without uttering a few comments, starting with congratulations to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). I mentioned in Committee that when I was a child he used to frighten me. I listened to "Journey into Space"—
          Mr. Corbett: Now the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend have swopped places.
          Mrs. Currie: That is a line for the gossip columns this Sunday.
          I used to clutch my father's hand while listening to that dreadful science fiction rubbish, as I now realise it to be, and there was the sainted voice of the fine actor that the hon. Member for Warley, East was once, and I suspect still is, scaring the life out of the nation's children. It was a very long time ago. On those occasions and in his sensible, intelligent remarks today he has done much better than he has when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box and he has felt obliged to use his actor's training to try to shout her down. On those occasions, he does his erstwhile profession a disservice.
          Mr. Faulds: The Minister is being naughty because she is provoking me into further utterances which I had hoped not to have to make. I am not interested in her comments on my previous profession. I was an extremely distinguished actor and I still am. I still have those talents, but of course I do not abuse them in this Chamber. I simply use them to a limited extent.
          If the hon. Lady thinks that my interventions when the Prime Minister is speaking are made simply from a wish to create a small performance, she could not be more wrong. I profoundly disagree with the Prime Minister's philosophy and thinking and consequent damage that she has done to the community of Britain.
          Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please return to the Bill.
          Mrs. Currie: The community health councils to which the Bill refers were established in 1974. They operate under current legislation—the National Health Service community health council regulations 1985, some of which I quoted earlier, and the current circulars HC81/15 and HC85/11. Their duties are to represent the interests of the public in the Health Service in their districts. They are not by themselves strategic bodies or decision-making bodies. They do not run any parts of the Health Service, although one or two have decided, commendably, to use some of their allocation of funds to employ staff in a role that helps to facilitate the relationships of patients to the Health Service, especially when there are some communication problems. I commend that, although we would not want them to expand that role to the point where they were trying to vie with the district health authority which perhaps should have been fulfilling that role in the first place.
          The community health councils have certain rights. A CHC has the right to relevant information from the local district health authority and the family practitioner committee. I sometimes wish that the CHCs spent more time looking at the work to which the family practitioner committee relates. The bulk of our patients see their GP rather than have contact with the hospital. That is one of
          668
          the best parts of our system. Our GP system acts as a gateway system. It is one reason why we have better health and more effective use of health care money than many other countries.
          The CHCs have the right of access to district health authority premises. They have asked for rights of access to private sector establishments and homes. I am minded to resist that because I want them to exercise their statutory duties as regards district health authority premises. I have noticed with interest that in some parts of the country, especially where there has been a growth in the private sector for residential care and nursing homes, the community health council has been able to obtain the co-operation of the owners of those homes. In one place—I think it is Blackpool—a consumers' guide to the homes has been drawn up stating what is available and what is not. Local people, especially in areas where there is a large proportion of elderly people, perhaps even very elderly people with elderly children trying to look after them, have found such publications extremely useful. That is a fruitful aspect of work where CHCs can make progress.
          As I said, the CHCs have a right to be consulted by the district health authorities on proposals for substantial developments or variations in local services, and that right extends to family practitioner committees; the CHCs must be consulted by the FPCs on proposals for substantial change.
          The CHCs also have the right to meet their district health authorities and family practitioner committees once a year, and the Bill refers to such meetings. That is extremely valuable. It is to be hoped that that will be the minimum, especially in areas where there is much substantial change. It was deemed wise by my predecessors to write it into legislation that the community health council has the right to an annual meeting and the right to be consulted by the local family practitioner committee about changes in the provision of general practice and pharmaceutical services. In the next couple of years, as the reforms outlined in our White Paper on the primary health care services, "Promoting Better Health", are introduced, the community health councils may well be directing rather more of their attention to the services outside hospitals, especially those provided by local doctors. I hope so; they have much that is valuable to contribute.
          There are 194 community health councils—rather more than the number of district health authorities, partly because since the reorganisation in 1974 it has been regarded as wise in some parts of the country, especially in London, to amalgamate some of the smaller health authorities that were losing population very quickly. We have just done that by amalgamating Brent and Paddington and North Kensington district health authorities to create the Parkside health authority. None of the boundaries of the community health councils have changed, so there are slightly more of them.
          In 1986-87, the community health councils spent a total of £7·2 million, which works out at about £37,000 per community health council. That has tended to increase slowly, but it has kept roughly in line with inflation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security gave a commitment on 29 April 1985 that we would retain community health councils for the life of this Parliament. That was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health at the annual general meeting of the Association of Community Health Councils of

          669
          England and Wales on 3 July 1986. We have no proposals to change in any substantive way the work that the community health councils do, although we recognise that there my he some benefit in the minor changes proposed in the Bill. While we would not have chosen to legislate on CHCs, we feel that the Bill does no harm. Perhaps the hon. Member for Warley, East should not attribute to me quite such ecstatic support as he suggested, but the Government are neutral, and we would not seek to oppose the Bill.
          It has been suggested that the Bill's provisions are onerous for small bodies such as community health councils. I do not agree. Apart from anything else, the community health councils have budgets of £37,000 on average. Provided that they are well-organised, it is quite within the CHC's resources to implement the Bill's provisions. The CHCs themselves advocate openness and are bitterly critical of lack of openness elsewhere. Therefore, provided that they sincerely wish to be as open as possible with the public they serve, they will not need bureaucratic mechanisms to comply with the Bill. I had better repeat that the community health councils must comply with the provisions of the Bill within existing resources. Having said that, I await the decision of the House on Third Reading.
          12.33 pm
          Mr. Corbett: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will take no offence if I say that modesty is not one of the traits normally associated with him. However, he is being far too modest in describing the Bill as modest. He may have noticed that his is a 90p Bill; that is the price that members of the public pay for it. The Bill with which we started the day was a 45p Bill and the one that we shall be discussing very soon, I hope, is a £1·60 Bill. My hon. Friend need not be too modest because he has pitched it about right and his Bill is clearly exceptionally good value for money.
          670
          My serious point touches on the Minister's remarks about community health councils having to carry out their-obligations under the Bill within existing resources. It relates to the provisions for councils to charge a fee for copies or extracts of various documents. If the councils decide that it is proper to make a charge for documents, I hope that they will relate that charge to the ability of the person making the inquiry to pay. The House will recall that as recently as a week ago we were debating ability to pay. It is important that we should not let unreasonable charges be an impediment to people obtaining documents to which it is proper for them to have access. Perhaps may put it this way. So far as I know, no councils charge members of the public for copies of council minutes and I should deprecate such a practice very much. I hope that, by and large, community health councils will find no need to impose any charge.
          Mr. Faulds: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him just to back me in saying that although I cannot refer to my colleague the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) as the only begetter of the Bill, I think we should remember that it was originally his and that he has had assistance since then in getting his Bill, with my help, on to the statute book? I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend would just make a word of commendation.
          Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It often happens that a Bill falls by the wayside for one reason or another and is then picked up by someone else. As my hon. Friend has said, that is basically what happened in this case. Perhaps one should take a more relaxed view of these matters—if it is nice to have one father, it must be even better to have two. I congratulate my hon. Friend. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading and that a general election will not stop it reaching the statute book.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Access to Medical Reports Bill
Considered in Committee.
[SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]

Access to Medical Reports Bill
  Clause 1

    RIGHT OF ACCESS
    12.37 pm
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
    'and prepared after the date of commencement of this Act',
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain that although I have tabled a number of amendments which appear quite substantial, many can be dealt with fairly briefly. I am pleased to say that amendment No. 1 is one of those.
    The purpose of the amendment is to exclude explicitly any retrospective right of access. The right of access under the Bill will thus apply only to reports prepared after the Bill becomes law. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): Events this morning have meant that we have perhaps slightly longer to discuss certain aspects of this important and valuable little Bill than we might otherwise have expected. I welcome this opportunity. As I was not able to be present for the Second Reading on 12 February, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on getting his Bill so far.
    This important, small Bill is part of a general trend towards greater access to patient records, greater openness about health care, and greater awareness of the need for co-operation between practitioners and the patients whom they seek to assist. This is a feature of a noticeable change of attitude in recent years, which, broadly speaking, we welcome.
    The Government's overall attitude towards the Bill is one of neutrality. We would not have sought to promote it ourselves. My task throughout has been to try to ensure that the details of the legislation are effective and will achieve what the promoter seeks, without causing undue difficulties for those who have to implement them.
    Therefore, on that basis, the amendment is not essential, but I am sure that it will assist the passage of the Bill.
    The Bill seeks to change the attitude, which has been deeply held for a long time, that records belong, not to the patient, but to the doctor. That attitude has been held in the belief that general access would harm the patient.
    When efforts are made to put into legislation the shifts of attitude that are occurring, that should not be done retrospectively but should take us on from where we are. The Association of British Insurers has made that point strongly, as has the British Medical Association, which represents the medical profession, and I felt obliged to put that to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) whenever I met him to discuss the details of the Bill. I am glad therefore that he has tabled the amendment. He knows that, broadly speaking, he has my support, and that of many of my hon. Friends, in
    672
    everything that he is seeking to do to open up patients' access to their medical records. It is important that we have the full co-operation of all concerned.
    It is important that those who are calling for these changes, including employers and insurers, and, perhaps more importantly, the practitioner who writes the records and deals with the health care of a person, should not feel that records of days gone by, when the law did not exist in this form, or when attitudes were different, should be open to scrutiny.
    I know that part of the hon. Gentleman's objective is to improve the quality and standards of the records. He, and many Conservative Members, feel that if records are more open to scrutiny, that will result in exactly what he wants. On that basis, we do not seek to object to the Bill. Indeed, at all stages I have tried to advise him in small but important ways on how the clause might be improved. I wait to hear the will of the House on this amendment.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister's wise advice on the amendment meets the anxieties of some of those who are likely to be affected by it. I hope that those who will be tolerant towards the purpose of the Bill. While the amendment makes it clear that retrospection is not intended, or implied, it would be unfortunate if that rare circumstance arose where the tick of a clock marking the end of one day and the beginning of another gave one individual rights while keeping those rights away from another. I am sure that if such problems arise, there would be a sensible way around them, without sticking to the letter of the law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

  INTERPRETATION
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, after 'to' insert
  'the physical or mental health of'.
  I should like to respond positively to what the Minister has just said. I acknowledge that although she has many other fish to fry, albeit it in polyunsaturated oils, on her political agenda, and in spite of her difficulties in other areas, both she and her Department have taken a special interest in the Bill. That is significant, because the Bill cost only £1·60. If we encourage hon. Members to measure the value of their Bills by the price of them that will only detain the House further on Fridays, because more expensive Bills mean more clauses. I do not know that I would go all the way with that advice.
  Amendment No. 2 is also formal. It is one of a series of amendments. We shall deal later with amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which seek to bring the Bill into line with the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1984 for access to computerised medical records. The Bill provides a definition of "medical report" that is consistent with those that have been adopted in the Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 1987. The Government believe it sensible to keep the definitions consistent on all counts, insofar as they are in the public domain. That is why we have used that definition in the Bill.
  12.45 pm
  Mrs. Currie: We welcome the amendment, which clarifies the definition of "medical report". Without it, the Bill would have included, for example, character references supplied by a medical practitioner. As the hon. Gentleman said, the background to the definition lies in the Data Protection Act, a major piece of legislation promoted by the Government, when issues such as what may be included in the report were dealt with in considerable detail in Committee and on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. It is therefore eminently sensible to make good use of that experience; it is helpful if legislation is reasonably consistent and there is the benefit of having a precise definition.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks when he introduced the amendment. There is a considerable background to access to medical records that goes well beyond the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the commitment given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), when he was a Home Office Minister, that patients should have far better access to their medical records. Voluntary negotiations are continuing and we are hopeful that there will be some progress. I certainly want progress on developing draft guidelines for general access to medical records, which I hope will be achieved either this summer or in the autumn. It is now a year since my right hon. Friend made his commitment. A year may be a short or a long time in politics, but it is certainly long enough for progress to be made in negotiations between intelligent people. It is in the interests of everyone, and especially the health and welfare of patients, that progress should be made. We believe that the amendment improves the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  CONSENT AND NOTIFICATION OF RIGHTS
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 1, leave out from 'apply' to end of line 6 and insert—
  'and before obtaining such consent has—

  (b) informed the individual in writing of the individual's right under this Act—

  (i) to have access to the report before it is supplied by the medical practitioner provided that the individual has contacted the practitioner and arranged to have access within the period specified in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section (Access before supply of report) below.

  (ii) to have access to a report which has been supplied for a period of six months from the date on which it was supplied; and

  (iii) to seek the correction of information which is incorrect or misleading in accordance with section 5(2) below; and

  (iv) to prevent the supply of a report in accordance with section 5(3) below; and

  (c) invited the individual in writing to give notice in writing to the person seeking the report, when giving the consent referred to in this section, indicating whether he or she wishes to have access to a report before it is supplied.'.

  The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss the following: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6,
  New clause 1—Access before reply of report
  New clause 2—Application to the court
  Mr. Kirkwood: As the Minister said earlier, the House is conscious of the fact that this Bill received a formal Second Reading. Although I understand that the House wishes to proceed to a later important debate, as some substantial issues arise in this group of amendments I wish to spend a few moments considering them in some detail.
  The amendments are an attempt to strengthen and clarify the individual rights provided in the Bill, whose aim is to give people the new right to see the medical reports that their general practitioners, or any other doctors who have been responsible for their care, provide to an insurance company or an employer. Such reports are already supplied strictly with the consent of the person concerned, as is right and proper, but, at present, they are not available as of right to that person. The essence of the Bill is to make them available as of right.
  Amendment No. 3 contains several important changes that repay some consideration. It will ensure that people are more fully informed of their new rights when they are asked to consent to a medical report being obtained. At present, a person applying for an insurance policy—or for a job, for that matter—is sent a form by the insurance company or the prospective employer. Normally, that form requests permission to approach the person's doctor. Under clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill as it stands, they will also have an additional right to tell them of their new right of access and any other rights that are contained in the Bill. Some of the amendments extend such rights—for example, by allowing the correction of mistakes. If the amendments are passed, the current notification provisions will be extended.
  I wish to be open and honest with the Committee. I have discussed the Bill with the Association of British Insurers and others. Like the Under-Secretary of State, that association has other fish to fry, but it has co-operated and tried to make the Bill as practical and workable as possible. The association was concerned, and made representations to me to the effect that the Bill contained some worrying features—for example, that there was no time limit for seeking access. It rightly suggested that, under the Bill as it stands, in certain circumstances a doctor could not know whether a patient was likely to want to see the report and, therefore, he might quite properly feel obliged to hang on to it for a considerable time before sending it out. That would involve intolerable delays. It was certainly not my intention to do that. The amendments will remedy that defect.
  Another problem that the association saw was that, as the Bill stands, a doctor might immediately supply a report, only to discover later that the patient expected to discuss it before it was sent. I have suggested a useful procedure, and I shall be happy to adopt it to eliminate that uncertainty and make it easier to obtain access.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I may have misunderstood the basic purpose of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. Is it implicit that a report may not be sent by a doctor unless the patient agrees with it, or is it implicit that a report may not go forward unless the patient has seen it? If it is a matter of seeing the report, why can it not simply be covered by what I assume to be normal office practice? A doctor may copy the report, which he would surely do in any event for his own records.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has probably slightly misunderstood the Bill. There are clear provisions. I know that the amendments are long and complicated, but amendment No. 6 substantially deals with checks and balances and with what the patient can do in terms of amending reports or preparing statements if he considers that he cannot persuade the doctor that there has been an explicit error. Indeed, the patient has three options. He may withdraw his consent to the medical practioner supplying the report. We have tried to take careful account of such matters and provide a proper balance.
  I stress that in no sense are we asking for the medical practitioner to change his judgment. That would be quite improper. We are trying to give the patient a balanced right, to make sure that any inaccuracies are corrected and matters relating to judgment are at least subject to his statement, in an attempt to elucidate his point of view. I hope that that has dealt with the point, as I am anxious to win the support of the Committee.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the general principle which the hon. Gentleman seeks to advance in this important Bill, but I wonder where this complex amendment takes us. Is it implicit in the amendment that at some point the individual may say, "I shall go elsewhere. I am not going along with this"? The insurer may say that a second opinion is required. At what point might that happen?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am giving the right to a patient to withdraw his consent. If there is an irreconcilable dispute between the medical practitioner who is supplying the report to an insurance company or an employer and the patient— it may prejudice a job or an insurance policy—under the amendment the patient has the right to say, "I would prefer not to have this report shown to my prospective employer or insurance company. I would prefer no report to be given." Then the medical practitioner would be in breach of his ethical duty to his patient if he supplied the report.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in these matters. I have been through the amendment line by line with both the ABI and the BMA. That combination, together with the infallible reasoning and inspection of the Minister, gives the amendment an impeccable pedigree. If the hon. Gentleman does not take my word for it, I hope that he will accept the word of the ABI, the BMA and the Minister.
  If the amendments are passed, the new consent forms would ask the applicant explicitly to indicate whether he or she wanted to see the report before the doctor supplied it. That is the function of paragraph (c) in amendment No. 3. If the applicant agreed, the insurer or employer would pass that information to the doctor when contacting him for a report. The doctor would be required to give the patient up to 21 days to see the proposed report. Taken with new clause 1, amendment No. 3 would allow for that procedure which would replace the present provision in clause 4. If the Committee agrees with the amendments, it would be necessary to remove clause 4.
  We have attempted to clarify other matters, but I shall not go into them all because it would detain the Committee too long. However, I must refer to one or two other issues.
  The amendments will omit the 90-day time limit that was in the original Bill. In proposing the limit I was
  676
  thinking of job applications and applications for insurance policies, and, indeed, the proposal is uncontroversial in those contexts. But, having again had the benefit of consultation with the ABI and BMA, I confess that I did not appreciate that the limit would also apply in other circumstances, for example, claims after death. Occasionally, an insurer will deal with a death from an illness which would normally have a long incubation period. When a death occurs from such a disease shortly after a policy has been taken out, there is a prima facie case for an investigation into whether there has been a fraudulent application. I understand that an insurance company may be reluctant to pay unless a doctor confirms that the illness was not known to the patient when the policy was obtained. That raises basic conflicts with the principle of medical confidentiality. There are strong feelings on the subject in the medical profession. I have tried to steer a path through the difficulties but have to report that I have not succeeded.
  It has become clear that any proposal I could make would raise extremely powerful objections from either the insurance industry or the BMA. The issue is far more complex than any other element in the Bill and it has been made clear that my pursuing the matter might jeopardise the Bill. I hope that the House understands that, in the circumstances, the wisest course is to drop clause 3(2). I am satisfied that clause 3(2) would change the law significantly and make it illegal in certain circumstances for an insurance company to contact a doctor after the death of an insured person. Omitting clause 3(2) will preserve the status quo and insurance companies will be able to contact a doctor, and doctors will be free, though not necessarily obliged, to reply.
  1 pm
  Amendment No. 5 partly reflects the new time limits that I have mentioned. The hon. Member for Ealing, North tabled amendment No. 13. Clause 7 requires a doctor to keep a medical report for five years after it has been sent to the employer or insurer. A medical report is drawn up for a specific purpose. It is not a medical record. I hope that the House is not labouring under any confusion about the two. A medical report is much more finely focused. Clause 7 requires an excessive period of retention. The need is to ensure that someone who has been turned down for a job or insurance should be able to establish whether information or a misjudgment on the report was responsible. That need should arise at or shortly after the time when the application is turned down. Amendment No. 10 would reduce to six months the time for which a report should be kept.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the distinction between a medical record and a medical report. In the light of his long conversations with insurers and others, can he confirm that a medical report's purpose is to establish whether an individual is basically fit and free of illness or disease? Will he confirm that it is not a detailed investigation but a general statement?
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am happy to confirm that it is not a complex in-depth medical investigation. It is, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, a statement of the applicant's fitness to undertake a job or for an insurance policy.
  When the hon. Member for Ealing, North speaks to amendment No. 13, I hope that he will bear in mind the fact that a balance must be struck and that, if only for

  677
  reasons of space, the time for which reports must be kept should be reduced. It is difficult to keep reports for five years. Indeed, they may have to be filed separately. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require reports to be preserved for 10 years.
  Amendment No. 6 is fairly complicated. I have dealt with a substantial part of it in attempting to assuage the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Ealing, North in an intervention. The amendment contains the procedure for dealing with errors. If the patient sees the report before it is sent off and discovers that it is incorrect or misleading, he would be able to ask that it be amended. If the information was demonstrably wrong, the doctor would he obliged to amend it and there would be no difficulty about that. However, if the doctor did not accept that there was a mistake, he or she would not change the report but instead would invite the patient to provide a written statement setting out his or her view of the disputed matter. That statement would be included in the report that would go to the employer or insurer along with the doctor's report.
  I stress that a patient cannot force a doctor to change his or her professional opinion or to suppress any particular facts. If there is a difference, the solution in the Bill is that both options should be set out. However, if a patient sees a report and decides that it is wholly unacceptable he could prevent the report from being supplied. That is the effect of subsection (3) in amendment No. 6. I accept that that may jeopardise his or her prospects of securing the insurance policy or the job, but it is right that an individual should have the freedom to make such a decision.
  Finally, new clause 2 seeks to provide a basic mechanism for enforcement. The Bill is deficient in terms of the sanctions available to individuals under the new rights that it provides. If an individual considers that an employer, an insurer or a doctor is failing to comply with any of the Bill's requirements, he or she can apply under new clause 2 to the courts for an order to ensure compliance. That is an appropriate way to deal with the enforcement provisions.
  I apologise to the Committee for detaining it at some length on this group of amendments which make substantial changes to the Bill that received a formal Second Reading. Therefore, it was only fair and proper that the Committee should spend a moment or two considering some of the consequences that flow from this set of amendments.
  The amendments are the fruit of substantial consultation. They strengthen and clarify the Bill and I hope that they will find favour with the Committee.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I greatly respect the care with which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has prepared the Bill and all the research and discussion that lies behind it and the amendments. I know that his interest is deep and genuine and that the Bill follows up his work in the House on other matters.
  I am worried that implicit in the amendments is a right for, indeed an invitation to, a patient to disagree with the doctor and to invite him to change an opinion to which, presumably he will have given due consideration and careful thought, backed up with a medical examination.
  Under the amendments, the patient has the right to say to a doctor, "I do not accept what you, Mr. Professional Doctor, say about me in the important matter of my fitness
  678
  to be insured in the way that I seek to be insured, or for the employment or the job that I seek. I do not agree with your medical assessment. After your seven years of medical training, all your experience in hospitals and the rest, I John Bloggs or Harry Greenway say that you are wrong." If a patient says to his doctor, "I cannot agree with you" he is telling his doctor that he is wrong. I do not say that an individual has no right to tell his doctor that he is wrong, but his opinion is based on a hunch or an idea. We have to beware of the slim knowledge that all of us who are not doctors have of medical and other related matters.
  We may have views about psychological matters, such as behavioural problems, a similarly expert question, but teachers with a good deal of expertise in child behaviour and child psychology might find themselves in difficulty if they challenged the careful assessment of a psychologist.
  I shall not seek to divide the House, but I am fundamentally opposed to the amendments. The hon. Gentleman says that an individual should be able to say that he does not accept a doctor's medical report. He may accept the good intentions of the doctor's report, but to challenge it means that he does not accept it. In those circumstances, a more satisfactory solution would be for the patient to say that he intends to seek a second opinion.
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman says that to challenge a medical report would not be to question the good intentions of the medical practitioner, but that is not an accurate description of what the relationship should be between a patient and his doctor. The medical report is a matter of judgment. The doctor will consult the medical records and perhaps examine the patient, after which it becomes a matter of judgment.
  As it is a matter of judgment, if the patient does not share that judgment he should be able to say to his doctor that he has got it wrong. That is the purpose of the Bill. If the doctor disagrees with him, he should be able to say to the patient, "I shall put a note to that effect on your records, but I think you are wrong." I see nothing wrong with that.
  Mr. Greenway: This is a semantic argument. The hon. Gentleman referred to a disagreement. I used the word "challenge", which is a parliamentary term and it may be too strong a word for what we hope will be a modest disagreement. If a doctor said to his patient, "You have cancer" and the patient's reply was, "I do not", that amounts to challenge. There are people who are told that they have cancer, but who, somehow, know that they do not. There can be disagreement or challenge on as big a matter as that, but that is not what we are dealing with.
  We are dealing with a small disagreement or a small challenge about what a doctor says in a medical report that is necessary for insurance or employment. A patient who is dissatisfied with a report prepared by his doctor should be able to say to him, "I have nothing against you personally, but I intend to seek a second opinion." That is how it should be handled, rather than there being an argument between the doctor and the individual about the contents of the report.
  Mr. Corbett: I should like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to help me with a matter that follows from the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that we are talking about medical reports that are prepared

  679
  for a specific purpose at the request of an employer or insurance company. The reports will make judgments based on medical records held by a doctor, but not all those records may necessarily have been prepared and kept by that doctor. Someone may have moved and their records may have followed when that move involved a change of doctor.
  I do not understand why the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire thought that it would not be necessary to keep a copy of the report. It will be compiled from records and may involve a medical examination. I should have thought that the copy would be a proper part of a patient's medical records and I cannot foresee a GP not wanting to keep a copy, as it would be part of a package of the patient's medical records.
  1.15pm
  I should like further to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about medical practitioners being able to decline to disclose what is in the report where he or she is of the opinion that it is likely to cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the individual. I do not want to start a semantic argument about the difference between harm and serious harm, but amendment No. 7 worries me because the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire wants to insert:
  "or would indicate the intentions of the practitioner in respect of the individual."
  I accept that clause 6 is a difficult part of the Bill. It argues about patient's access to reports, and in that regard it is opening another door, but it says that when a medical practitioner properly makes a judgment that door will be slammed shut. I am not sure that the amendment properly deals with that matter.
  We must assume that there is a reasonable relationship between the patient and GP. If either side does not like the relationship it has the right to end it. The GP can say, "On your bike" and the patient can say, "I am dissatisfied with you, so I shall find another doctor." What will happen when a doctor looks at the patient's medical records and thinks, "Blimey O'Reilly, if I put that in the report and show it to the patient it will cause serious harm"? Let us suppose that it will cause serious mental or emotional harm. What will happen? Is the GP expected to communicate the contents of the record to the patient? I suspect not, judging by amendment No. 7. When patient and GP come face to face, the patient will say, "will you please let me see a copy of the report that you propose to send to the insurance company?" The doctor will say, "No I cannot do that." The patient will ask, "Why not?" the doctor will reply, "I cannot tell you." The doctor is acting quite properly because the Bill allows disclosre to be withheld where it would be likely to cause serious harm. So the patient persists and says, "Why can't you tell me?" and the doctor says, "I just can't tell you." That leaves a great yawning chasm. It could be interpreted as mistrust at its best, and the patient may feel something akin to deep and terrifying despair and think, "My godfathers, I have a dreadful disease and will drop dead at the end of next week and that is why the GP is not telling me." Of course, that will be rare and, I hope, would occur only in extreme cases. However, it is an interesting point.
  The Bill is all about access and one would hope that the GP, in the difficult circumstances in which he or she
  680
  reached the conclusion that to reveal a report would be likely to cause serious harm, would want a relationship with the patient that would enable him or her to indicate in some way why such action was being taken.
  I have to say rapidly to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and the Committee that I think that I have uncovered the problem, but I do not know what the answer is.
  Mrs. Currie: Is that not just typical of the Labour party?
  I have listened to the exchanges of the past few minutes with a great deal of interest. It would probably help the Committee if I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that this is a limited Bill and that much of what he was concerned about is being discussed elsewhere in the efforts we are making to try to achieve voluntary agreements between the Government and the medical profession. Perhaps I should also warn the Committee that I have been a little reluctant to commit a great deal of officials' time, particularly scarce parliamentary counsels' time, to ensuring that every "t" is crossed and every "i" is dotted. I wanted to wait to see whether the Bill made progress. Should it be the will of the Committee and the House that it should so do, I shall try before it reaches the other place, to ensure that some of the necessary tidying up is attended to. We would not wish to see a Bill go on the statute book that could cause anyone major difficulties.
  As I understand it—this is my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North—the Bill covers the following possibilities. An individual seeks insurance or renewal of insurance or is involved in an existing or potential contract of employment and in order to maintain or promote that contract, the insurer or employer asks for a medical report. The requester—the employer or insurer —must under the Bill and the amendments before us notify in writing the individual concerned, who for these purposes we should call "the patient". If the patient wants to see the report, he has to say so in writing and quickly. If he does not like it, he can change it and prevent it from being sent. I am looking to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) to see that I have got that right because it is quite complex stuff.
  I can well understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, but I shall offer him a rather different anecdote, which shows why I am increasingly minded to be sympathetic to moves to open up access to medical records. Not long ago I went to the family practitioner committee in my neighbourhood. It has very good people and has recently computerised its records. It proudly punched up my cervical smear test record and said, "You have not had one for ages. You are due for one now." I said, "But you haven't got any of my cervical cancer smear test records on your computer, I had one as recently as—" and I gave the date. It punched more buttons and the computer record was a total blank.
  The reason for that was that it had the wrong NHS number. It had one digit wrong. I knew that and I was probably the only person in the entire country who did. It had punched in "LNUN" instead of "LNVN". That was clearly a mistake in somebody's handwriting, possibly one that had been around for a long time.
  It is valuable for a patient who is concerned about accuracy and about ensuring that it is his medical record that has been examined to have the right of access. If,

  681
  however, he prevents the document from being sent, the insurer or the employer will know and can draw conclusions. If the patient is content or does not bother about it and the report goes to the insurer or employer and perhaps produces an adverse reaction, he will still have the right to see the document, but only within a time limit. Under the amendment, the limit will be six months, and we may debate later whether to have a longer period. It is reasonable to have a time limit.
  This is not a debate about general access to medical records. It is about an individual's need to know what is said about him or her in a particular document in which he or she has a strong pecuniary interest. It is not a small matter because we may be talking about the possibility of a person losing his job or about someone who is unable to get car insurance to allow him to drive. It is not a small matter to someone like me. I am an asthmatic and, in the past, have been offered insurance only at much increased rates. I regard myself as generally rather fit and I have not had an attack in a long time. I would challenge such attitudes. I can envisage circumstances in which an individual's entire life is affected by an individual report on an individual occasion which is not accurate, not full enough or about the wrong person. That can happen in families in my sort of constituency where father and son frequently have the same name.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we are not talking about medical reports, we are talking about a medical snapshot at a given time? If we are not, what are we talking about?
  Mrs. Currie: That is right, but, as I am not the Bill's promoter, I am sure p that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will respond. The individual is not an innocent, uninterested bystander. A potential pecuniary contract is involved. It is wise to allow a person access to a report which could substantially affect his livelihood. That is why we do not seek to oppose the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) referred to "serious harm", which as he knows is the wording in other legislation. From time immemorial, patient records have been regarded as belonging to the doctor. In the current state of the law there is no way that a patient can gain access to those records. The doctor has an absolute veto over them. Surely, in a world of intelligent, educated people, that cannot be right. It no longer fits in with our general view that the patient is a co-operative animal in the treatment of his condition. Every effort should be made to win his co-operation to provide him with information about his condition. The more people live long, happy and fruitful lives, even with chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes, the more it makes sense to move in this general direction.
  I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the co-operation of the Association of British Insurers. I am sure that it is in insurers' interest to get accurate reports. It is in the interests of all of us, since we pay the insurance rates, that insurers should not take inordinate risks that will fall on the rest of us. If this proposal becomes law, guidance will be issued. It will not be instituted by the Government, as this is not a Government Bill, but will be issued, I understand, by the medical profession through the British Medical Association. The Government stand ready to assist in drawing up guidelines.
  682
  The Bill is somewhat vague. If I may offer the faintest hint of criticism of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, it is that I am surprised that, after years of debating these matters, he originally put on the Table a Bill which made a number of well-meaning and well-sounding comments but did not give any power or teeth to what he intended doing. I am sure that, because of the discussions in recent weeks, some of those points will be put right.
  Amendment No. 3 ensures that employers and insurers will advise individuals in writing of their right to have access to a medical report, but it puts the onus on the individual to make the necessary arrangements with the medical practitioner within 21 days of notification that a report has been requested. That seems sensible.
  The amendment provides for access to a report within six months of its supply to the employer or the insurer. It gives the individual the right to amend or notify a report that is considered to be inaccurate or misleading and to prevent a report from being sent to an employer or an insurance company. The amendment also provides that individuals should be advised that if they wish to have access to a report they should make known in writing their desire to do so. In other words, the amendment sets out clearly the gateways through which the individual must pass. It spells out the rights that form the cornerstone of the Bill.
  1.30 pm
  I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the validity of consent. The amendment deletes any reference to validity of consent lasting for 90 days, as originally suggested. It is interesting to hear the views of the Association of British Insurers and the British Medical Association on this matter, and the amendment maintains the status quo. However, between now and the Bill's arrival in another place, the hon. Gentleman might like to give more thought to the matter. Although 90 days was too restrictive, a time limit of some kind might be desirable. I offer him merely the thought—it is not a recommendation —that the legislation requiring prescriptions to be offered before spectacles can be issued refers to a validity period of two years. That seems wise, as a person's health can change during that period, and beyond that period we would expect a further prescription to be called for. But if the hon. Gentleman makes progress, perhaps he will devote his time and attention to such issues.
  New clause 1 provides that if the individual makes no arrangements to see the report, the practitioner may pass it on. It also provides a necessary time scale by which action is to be taken.
  We regard amendment No. 5 as an improvement to the Bill, because it provides that people have the right of access by making an application within a time period—in this case six months. That right was lacking in the Bill as originally drafted and without it individuals would not have been able to find whether errors had been made in the original report.
  Amendment No. 6 provides the right to amend or modify an inaccurate or misleading report and inserts the right for an individual to withhold consent—a further deficiency in the Bill as originally drafted.
  The Government believe that the amendments represent a considerable improvement on the rather vague drafting that was originally placed before us and would preserve the intentions of the Bill if the House wishes it to proceed.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I crave the indulgence of the Committee. I have listened carefully to the debate, which has been both instructive and constructive. As the Minister said, some of the issues are being discussed in other places on other more substantial legislation. I am sure that the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will raise its head during our discussions, and I am sure also that both he and I will want to keep an eye on the matter. I assure him that I shall weigh very carefully his remarks as well as the Minister's helpful recommendation and her comment that the Government will assist and try to clear up some of the vaguer aspects of the Bill. In my own defence, I remind the House that we are all amateurs when it comes to parliamentary draftsmanship. We need to strike a balance between the violence that is done to the English language and the clarity of legislation; but perhaps that balance is not right in the Bill as drafted and I am happy to accept the Government's kind offer to assist us.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) raised some substantial issues. Matters such as the freedom of retention of documents were gone into in some detail with the BMA and other bodies. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that when one is ninth or 10th in the private Member's ballot one is not really master of one's own destiny. The hon. Gentleman spent much time constructively criticising the Access to Personal Files Bill, which I introduced last year. The same applies this year, but more so. My position is even less strong than it was last year. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that we shall pay close attention to what he said and seek to make adjustments in the other place if the measure finds favour with the Committee. If the Committee is prepared to accept the amendments, we shall pay careful attention to all that has been said.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I was most interested in what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister said. Although this is a small measure, I enunciated an important principle. If the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance that he will pay attention to that principle, I shall be happy.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I give that assurance. If we had more time, I believe that I could give substantial reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. I shall seek to do so at some other time or place. I hope the Committee will feel that these important and complicated amendments, vague though they may be, have been properly discussed and will allow them to pass.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 disagreed to.

Clause 5

  GIVING OF ACCESS
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
  `(a) make available to the individual for inspection—

  (1) within the period specified in subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section (Access before supply of report) above a copy of a medical report relating to that individual which the practitioner intends to supply for employment or insurance purposes; or

  684

  (ii) a copy of a medical report relating to that individual which the practitioner has supplied for employment or insurance purposes within the previous six months.'.

  No. 6, in line 17, at end insert—
  '(2) Where an individual notifies a medical practitioner that a medical report which the practitioner intends to supply for employment or insurance purposes contains information which in the individual's opinion is incorrect or misleading the practitioner shall:

  (a) if the information is incorrect or misleading, amend the report accordingly;

  (b) if the practitioner does not accept that the information is incorrect or misleading, invite the individual to prepare a statement in writing setting out his or her views in relation to the disputed information and the practitioner shall attach any such statement to any report relating to the individual which is supplied for employment or insurance purposes.

  (3) Where an individual has had access to a report which a medical practitioner intends to supply for employment or insurance purposes the practitioner shall, notwithstanding any consent given under section 3 above, refrain from supplying the report until such time as the individual has given written consent for the report to be supplied.'.—[Mr.
  Kirkwood.]
  Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

  EXEMPTIONS
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
  `or would indicate the intentions of the practitioner in respect of the individual'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I can deal with these amendments very briefly. They are designed to bring the Bill into line with the Data Protection Act 1984. Some Members may feel, as I do, that that Act has some way to go before it can be regarded as a model disclosure Act. The Government have stressed, however—quite properly, in my view—the need for single common standards for disclosure, particularly in the limited area of medical information. I have sought to improve on the Data Protection Act, but I accept that it would not be helpful to have two conflicting sets of complicated rules.
  Amendment No. 7 adopts the basic premise found in section 1(3) of the Data Protection Act, which rules that while an opinion is disclosable an expression of intention is not. I fully accept that. Amendment No. 8 deletes a minor divergence from the standard laid down in the Data Protection Act about access to health records. Amendment No. 9 adopts the exemption on national security grounds contained in that Act and specifies identical procedures.
  Mrs. Currie: When we considered the Bill in detail we found one or two slight difficulties. For example, information relating to national security could have been released in a way that was possibly not desirable. We drew the hon. Gentleman's attention to those deficiencies and we are pleased that he has tabled amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which not only achieve consistency with the Data Protection Act, but, in one or two cases, will possibly be very much in the national interest. We are therefore glad to see the amendments and do not oppose them.
  Mr. Corbett: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about single common standards, but amendment No. 9 is unacceptable. With regard to the Data Protection Act, single common standards are all right only if the standards themselves are all right.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government wish to extract from the Data Protection Act this kind of cover for material, the release of which, it is said, would jeopardise national security. Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly where this might lead. The hon. Lady will know that a judgment was delivered yesterday, affecting a group of ex-service men and women, who, as part of their service, were forced to take part, in the sense of witnessing, in tests with nuclear weapons in Australia about 25 years ago. The result of that judgment is that they are now free to sue the Crown for what they say are diseases caused by having to undertake those duties.
  I can imagine a Minister of the Crown getting a piece of paper and writing, "I say that the release of that information would jeopardise national security", then handing it to a general practitioner, and saying, "That is secret, because I say that it is secret." That is what the amendment allows the general practitioner or medical practitioner to do. At least those ex-service men and women can now go to court. One hopes that the Government will see the sense of trying to deal with that matter more sensibly, but that is up to them. However, if Ministers could have taken the action that I have just described, that information may never have come out. It could have been buried, locked deep away in a doctor's file. I hope that the Minister will not try to persuade the Committee that nobody would ever do that.
  Unhappily, the clause could be used restrictively by Ministers. I do not doubt that they would do it with their hands on their hearts and say that they were right, but that would not make it right. I cannot for the life of me see the need for this measure in the context of medical reports. What, in a medical report, could jeopardise national security?
  We should remember that access to medical reports is for employment or insurance purposes. Will the fact that I occasionally suffer from corns jeopardise national security? Probably not. Let us imagine that I have a disease which at the moment is incurable, but with which I can cope because I have medication to help me. If a doctor states such facts about an individual in a medical report, in what possible circumstances would a Cabinet Minister come down the road on a great charger, waving a bit of paper, and saying, "Keep that quiet. If they found out about that in the Kremlin, all hell would be let loose."?
  Never mind the other arguments about the Data Protection Act 1984; we are talking about opinions and judgments formed on the basis of facts. Medical records overwhelmingly record the facts of a patient's health over the years. It is a fact that I broke my elbow at the start of the general election in 1979. I am quite clumsy. The Minister will no doubt rib me about that later. It is a fact that I started last new year by tripping over a kerbstone, which I did not see, falling against a wall and cracking a couple of ribs. That is a medical fact, which will be on my medical records. I hope that everything else on my medical records are matters of medical fact.
  Medical records also record treatment. One goes into the surgery complaining about belly ache or whatever, there is an examination, a bit of chat, "Take this" or "Do
  686
  not take the other", one is told to stop eating this, that or the other. That treatment is recorded in the medical record. As we have said, those records are gone through for report purposes. There may or may not be an examination, but a report is drawn up. Because the circumstances outlined in amendment No. 9 relate to facts and do not deal with anything other than opinions and judgments formed on the basis of those facts, what use is that information for insurance purposes? The sort of questions asked are: "Is the applicant in reasonably good health? Yes/No. Has the applicant suffered from any major illness or disease during the past … years? Yes/No. If yes, give details."
  1.45 pm
  I understand why the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had to table the amendment. I hope that he will forgive me for phrasing it that way. It was not his idea. The Minister's paw prints are all over it. I am making a song and dance about it because the Home Secretary has promised us a White Paper on reforming the Official Secrets Act by the end of next month. I bet that any new Act will be as restrictive as the current Act, but more smartly written. When we object to the sort of provision contained in the amendment being part of the Official Secrets Act mark II, the Home Secretary will say, "What is all the fuss about? It is already contained in the Access to Medical Records Bill and the Data Protection Act, so I am doing nothing new. What are you worried about?" That is the danger.
  This amendment is taking a mighty big Exocet to impose a small provision. I cannot envisage any circumstances in which it could possibly be justified.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I wish to allay the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Someone might enter a sensitive job in the security services with a serious health problem. Should that be known? There may be circumstances in which it might help the security of the state for that fact not to be made broadly known.
  Mr. Kirkwood: What?
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman might express surprise, but it all depends on the circumstances. Such a health problem should certainly be known to a prospective employer. It is the use of that information from that point onwards that is in question. In certain circumstances, the security of the state could be at risk, so I support the amendment.
  Mrs. Currie: When it comes to firing Exocets, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has just shown us how it is done. I wonder how much advice he has sought from his many hon. Friends who have actively supported improved access to information, especially to medical records. Indeed, on many occasions they have been more active supporters than the Government. The hon. Gentleman's words were not really part of today's debate, but part of a quite different debate that he may seek to have through the usual channels. If he felt so strongly about the matter, I am surprised that he did not discuss it with the Bill's sponsor or make any effort to verify the status of the amendment.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the people who yesterday were granted the right to sue the Government, but I am sure that he does not expect me to comment on

  687
  that. He should remember that the Bill seeks to increase, not diminish, access to information. Perhaps he should give further thought to whether he wants to jeopardise its passage in the way that his strong words have suggested, and also to whether it would be appropriate to do that today.
  We asked for amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 to be included partly because it is wise and sensible not to have a wide diversity of legislation on similar issues. It makes sense to have legislation on similar issues. It has long been the Government's view—whichever colour the Government happens to be—that it is wise to include a provision that, where national security might be involved, there should be an exclusion. That has long been the practice. As a student I well recall spending many hours listening to the row between Mr. Wilson and the D Notice Committee. Efforts were then made of a similar kind, perhaps unnecessarily. We firmly believe that national security issues are likely to arise in relation to medical reports only on extremely rare occasions. Therefore, it is in the interests of the individuals concerned, and perhaps hon. Members, that the clause should be inserted. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have such strong views on that topic—observing the Opposition Benches, it does not look as though the other 220-odd Labour Members share his views—they may take them up in debates on that topic elsewhere or at different times. It may well be that if the Bill proceeds in its passage today, they may wish to take them up in the other place. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman may like to take some proper advice about it. It is for the promoter of the Bill to decide whether the amendment should stand or be withdrawn. It is our view that it improves the Bill. We would wish to take further advice if the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wants to withdraw it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: This has been an interesting debate. All things being equal, and if I were in charge of the legislative programme of Her Majesty's Government, the wording of the clause, and particularly that of amendment No. 9, is not what I would have wanted. I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that it is the most acceptable agreement that could be reached in the time available. I hope that he will continue to discuss this important matter, but not in Committee this afternoon.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 8, in page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).
  No. 9, in line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  '(3) A medical practitioner shall not disclose to an individual any part of a medical report containing information whose disclosure a Minister of the Crown has determined would jeopardise national security; and a certificate signed by a Minister of the Crown certifying that a disclosure would jeopardise national security shall be conclusive evidence of the fact.
  (4) The powers conferred by subsection (3) above on a Minister of the Crown shall not be exercisable except by a Minister who is a member of the Cabinet or by the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate.
  (5) This section shall not be construed as excusing a practitioner from making available to an individual so much of a medical report as may be made available without causing serious harm or indicating the practitioner's intentions as mentioned in subsection (1) above or without revealing the
  688
  information or identity mentioned in subsection (2) above or without disclosing the information mentioned in subsection (3) above.'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
  Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

  RETENTION OF REPORTS
  Amendments made: No. 10, in page 2, line 40, leave out `five years' and insert 'six months'.—[Mr. Kirkwood]
  No. 13, in line 40, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.— [Mr. Greenway.]
  No. 11, in line 42, leave out subsections (2) and (3). —[Mr. Kirkwood.]
  Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'extends' and insert 'does not extend'.
  I understand that matters such as those proposed in the Bill will be dealt with properly in Northern Ireland by making an Order in Council, hence the need for the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

  ACCESS BEFORE SUPPLY OF REPORT
  `(1) Where an individual has given written notice in accordance with section 3(1)(c) above to a person seeking a medical report indicating that he or she wishes to have access to a report before it is supplied by a medical practitioner the person shall not apply to a practitioner for such a report unless he or she has—

  (a) notified the individual in writing that a medical report is being sought and that the report will be made available to the individual by the practitioner before being supplied provided that the individual arranges for such access within twenty one days of the notification referred to in this paragraph being given;

  (b) notified the medical practitioner in writing that the individual wishes to have access to the report before it is supplied and of the date on which the notification referred to in paragraph (a) above was given and of the practitioner's obligation to refrain from supplying the report in accordance with subsection (2) below.

  (2) Where a medical practitioner has received notification under subsection (1)(b) above the practitioner shall refrain from supplying a report for a period of twenty one days from the date on which the notification referred to in subsection (1)(a) was given unless the individual has been given access within that period.
  (3) Where a medical practitioner has not received notification under subsection (1)(b) above but before supplying the report has been notified by the individual in writing that the individual wishes to have access to the report before it is supplied the practitioner shall refrain from supplying a report for a period of twenty one days from the date on which the individual gave notification unless the individual has been given access within that period.'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

  APPLICATION TO THE COURT
  `(1) An individual who considers that a person has failed, or who has reasonable grounds to consider that a person is likely to fail, to comply with any requirement of this Act in relation to a medical report containing information about the individual may apply to the court and the court may order the person to take such steps as are necessary to comply.
  (2) The jurisdiction conferred by this section shall be exercisable by a county court or, in Scotland, by the sheriff.'. —[Mr. Kirkwood.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill, as amended, to be reported.
  Bill reported, with amendments.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  1.54 pm
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This is an important measure and I am grateful for the forbearance shown in its early stage. It had a formal Second Reading. Today's debate has been of considerable assistance to me.
  This is an important advance which to some extent is the consequence of my private Member's Bill which I introduced last year. There are continuing arguments about access to medical records, as opposed to medical reports, and I have been substantially encouraged by the Minister during both the early stages and today's proceedings. The Government's attitude is always crucial to any private Member's Bill, and I have been especially fortunate in that respect. I have greatly appreciated the helpful and positive spirit in which the Minister has approached the Bill and our discussions. I extend that commendation to those to whom we are never supposed to refer—the officials in the DHSS.
  The BMA has supported the principle of the Bill from the outset. I am grateful to it for that, for the considerable time that a great many of its staff have devoted to helping me with the fine detail, and for their practical suggestions which have improved it. I acknowledge the contribution of the ABI, which expressed anxiety about some of the Bill's implications. I have tried to be as helpful as possible on those points and it is now satisfied that the measure is workable. The Bill has benefited as a result.
  As the House will recognise, the Bill comes from a fairly familiar stable—the freedom of information campaign. Finally, I wish to pay tribute to its members and their energetic and resourceful director, Mr. Maurice Frankle, who has been ever present at my side. I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading. If so, I look forward to taking the opportunity in the other place of tidying it up and tabling any technical amendments that may be necessary.
  1.56 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on steering this complex and important Bill towards the statute book.
  This morning I received a letter telling me that an insurance policy that I took out years ago and had forgotten about matures next week. I shall be the richer for it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The drinks are on the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Greenway: The drinks are on the Bill's promoter. It is interesting that I did not have to have a medical for that insurance policy and I have never had to have a medical for any other insurance. I have had one medical for employment purposes and that was 31 years ago, although I have had several jobs since. So I wonder how much the Bill will be applied. We are talking more about an important and valuable principle than about what will be a widespread practice.
  The general principle of giving people access to medical records is in tune with the times, in the spirit of freedom to see what is written about one and people's ability to receive medical information about themselves which they could not take previously. Many people can be told that they have a fatal illness who could not have taken being told that years ago. I hope that nobody will receive such information as the result of a medical report for insurance or employment purposes.
  It is some years since the Inner London education authority established the principle that teachers should have the right to see reports written about them for employment purposes. Much can rightly be said about the inadiquacies of ILEA. I supported its abolition, although I have reservations about it. That principle was as important as that which is enshrined in the Bill, and was analogous to it. It gave teachers the right to see what was written about them. It helped to improve relationships between heads and teachers working with and for them and between teachers, inspectors and others concerned with the education service. As a result, children have benefited.
  1 believe that people at work and those who want to insure themselves, as I have been able to do with the happy result that I have mentioned, will be helped by the Bill.
  2 pm
  Mr. Corbett: I have been critical of parts of the Bill, for reasons which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) understands. I congratulate him on getting this far and hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading so that it might go to the other place and reach the statute book.
  It is a shame that we have to advance at a snail's pace, step by tiny step along the road to more freedom of information. It is a pity that the Government do not yet understand the need for a proper freedom of information Act to open doors which remain locked for no good reason and to enable and encourage citizens to play a much fuller part in our democracy on the basis of much greater knowledge of what is going on.
  That remains an ambition. I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be with me when I say that I hope that if the Bill reaches the statute book, it will not be regarded as an end. It should be a spur to those of us on both sides of the House who want the repeal and rewriting of the Official Secrets Act and the arguments turned on their head. The present arrangements should be swept aside. There should be a presumption in favour of people knowing more about what is going on and on what basis decisions are taken by the Government and others.
  People should know why decisions are taken and have the information on which they are based. Such decisions

  691
  have a large and often lasting effect on the lives, welfare and fortunes of every citizen in these islands. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed.
  2.2 pm
  Mrs. Currie: I am not sure that I accept the criticism of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) about the Government's view on freedom of information. He was not in Birmingham when I was involved in social services there. I felt strongly that access to social services records was important, but it was a social worker who went to court and tried to stop us. The case ended up in another place where, many years later, I was vindicated. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on these matters.
  Today's progress with the Bill helps the Government in their discussions elsewhere. We are always keen for progress to be made voluntarily. Satisfactory resolution of complex issues such as those that have been raised today relies on co-operation and agreement. Such legislation is not workable without the willing consent of all concerned.
  The Bill has been much improved in Committee, so we do not oppose its Third Reading. We look forward to seeing what progress it makes elsewhere.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Medical Examination of Children at Risk Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.4 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  My purpose in bringing forward the Bill is to attempt to introduce a simple specific measure for the protection of children while recognising the understandable rights of parents. It seeks to provide a tool for social workers and health visitors who carry the onerous responsibility of protecting children, making their work easier and more effective.
  It remains a challenge to us all at a time of rising prosperity and improved housing, health care and education, that there remain about 200 children a year who lose their lives at the hands of their parents or guardians, and a further 30,000 children on local authority at-risk registers.
  Child abuse is not a simple homogenous phenomenon. It may include physical abuse, sexual abuse, or child neglect. The debates and the outcry in our newspapers range from fury that there are not more intrusive and draconian measures to remove children from their homes, to the debate surrounding the Cleveland case, suggesting that the workers were overzealous and acted too swiftly.
  My measure addresses both ends of the spectrum. It is a limited measure which will ensure that a child is seen without summarily removing it from the family home. I should like to place the Bill in the context of other developments trying to tackle the scourge of child abuse. The Home Office has an important role. The recent improvements where children are able to provide evidence by means of a video link and their evidence need not necessarily be corroborated by an adult must make sense. There is no evidence to suggest that children are inherently less truthful than adults. Of course, the appalling situation in which the court appearance was at least as traumatic as the original abuse must be counteracted.
  There should be tougher penalties for those responsible for harming children, although that has to be seen in the context that the vast majority of abuses take place within the family and that there will be problems involving the reporting of offences if we develop an increasingly punitive atmosphere in which they are discussed.
  It is also important that more information about the criminal record of those who work with children should be provided. However, the investigation, the prosecution and the punishment play a small part in comparison with the importance of improving prevention. The Department of Education has taken steps to improve the training of teachers and their skills in detecting child abuse. There are plans for preparation for parenthood programmes and educational programmes encouraging children not to talk to strangers. However, the primary responsibility must lie with the DHSS. In the light of successive inquiries and concern, it has introduced a series of welcome initiatives.
  Since the Maria Colwell inquiry 15 years ago, there have been 35 inquiries into cases where children have lost their lives. Each inquiry has repeated the need for agencies to work together. I hope that the DHSS will bring forward its guidelines about working together. Of course, the community and the various professions involved have a

  693
  part to play. Similarly, there are attempts to standardise inquiry procedures. Child abuse inquiries have often been horrifically expensive and unedifying occasions. Frequently they have been witch hunts where the professional workers, parents, friends and anyone associated have been denigrated and villified with little constructive outcome.
  Mr. Richard Holt: My hon. Friend was wrong to use words such as "witch hunt". The Cleveland inquiry was in my constituency and I find that remark offensive. The inquiry sought to discover the truth. Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss was magnificent in the chair. Such remarks are intemperate and I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw them.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has made an important point. The Cleveland inquiry was very different from other inquiries into incidents where children lost their lives. By no means did I mean to imply that the leaders of the inquiry had conducted themselves in such a way. Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss and Louis Blom-Cooper have been models in trying to combine the various interests and provide a considered report in an atmosphere of great heat. Often it is the press treatment of the individuals involved that has been particularly unedifying. All of us would hope to find a way of dealing with these appalling cases without necessarily establishing a laborious machinery for doing so. As for my hon. Friend's example of the Cleveland inquiry, my hon. Friend the Minister is to be congratulated on acting so firmly in setting up a statutory inquiry into what seems to be an idiosyncratic set of circumstances that relate to a problem that has only recently come to light.
  The maintenace of national statistics is a further important development. Problems can now be analysed and assessed in their proper and considered context. In his Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986 my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) improved the rights of parents and grandparents and made it possible for regulations to be made to cover those who are at home under a care order. In the case of both Tyra Henry and Jasmine Beckford there was a care order in place; the children were the responsibility of the local authority, yet they slipped through the net. We eagerly await action to implement the remainder of the measures that are provided for in my hon. Friend's Act.
  Training is fundamental. Initiatives have been taken, but I remain doubtful about the full effect of the Seebohm report, which recommends that all social workers should be generic. Special skills, training and knowledge are fundamental when dealing with cases of child abuse and child neglect. Increased resources have been made available for the personal social services, and inevitably the problems of an ever-increasing elderly population take up more and more time. There should be specially trained and skilled social workers, with supervision and clear line management guidance to deal with cases of child abuse. Training needs to be given to deal with the confusing multiplicity of orders available.
  A point that emerged from the Kimberley Carlile inquiry was that the power to issue a warrant is not widely recognised. I am pleased that the DHSS responded so swiftly by clarifying the section 40 warrant procedure under the 1933 Act. A comprehensive review of the legislative framework is needed, and much work has been
  694
  done on that. The White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services" recommends many improvements to the legislation dealing with child protection. It recognises the rights of parents and recommends that the powers of social workers should be clarified and improved. However, the White Paper does not cover adequately the need for medical assessment. A major recommendation in the White Paper is the introduction of an emergency protection order. If there are worries about a child's safety apart from the section 40 warrant the only provision is a place of safety order. That means removing the child from home. Under the emergency protection order, removal would take place when it was reasonable to believe that damage to the child's health or well-being was likely unless the child could immediately be removed from home and kept in a place of safety. It is time limited to eight days and gives greater power to the parents, but it provides for the removal of the child. The important point for the protection of children, for the respect of parental rights and for the use of the power by social workers in my Bill is that it requires the child to be seen, but it expressly does not provide the power to remove the child from the home. Recently, the Family Rights Group's solicitor, Katherine Gieve, wrote about the order. She said:
  "the Family Rights Group's experience suggests that it would be preferable to distinguish clearly the search for evidence of abuse from the need for a child to be removed from a dangerous situation. These two may run side by side, but they may not: a child should not be summarily removed from home in order to find out if there is a risk in being there."
  The Bill gives social workers and health visitors power to ensure that a child is seen. It is extraordinary that many children who lost their lives were not seen. All sorts of excuses were given about why the child could not keep an appointment or was not available at the time of contact. The clear power in the Bill will ensure that the child is properly seen, measured, weighed and assessed.
  It should not be underestimated how difficult it is for a social worker to visit a family and say, "I need to see your child, and I ask you to take the child's clothes off because I must see whether the child is being neglected or injured." The social worker arrives at that home as a visitor.
  A medical assessment has much broader acceptability. Medical assessments are part of our day-to-day lives. Indeed, we have just had a debate about them. For the most part, child health clinics are not threatening places. Medicals before attending school and throughout a child's life are straightforward, non-provocative occasions.
  Some people have written to me in response to the Bill asking for all child health assessments to become a statutory requirement. They have suggested that child benefit should hinge on attendance at a child health clinic. I have not been convinced of the merits of that argument.
  Parents' rights are considered in the Bill. The European Court of Human Rights recently decided that any parent whose access to a child is restricted can challenge that decision. The Cleveland cases have drawn attention to the fact that the parents' position must be considered. However, not only their rights but the traumatic effect of removing a child from the home must be considered.
  I shall give a quotation from a letter sent by the director of the National Children's Bureau, Ronald Davie, to The Times. He said:
  "There are many circumstances when the removal from his family of a child at risk may add further crippling emotional damage to the harm already done. There is therefore a conflict of potential risk to the child. The professional judgement

  695
  needed in the individual case is typically complex and made no easier by the frightening consequences for the child—psychological or physical—of getting it wrong."
  None of us should underestimate how difficult it is to make such judgments.
  Under the Bill, parents have a right of appeal; it is rather like paying a parking ticket. They must either produce the child for a medical within the required time of three days or appear in the juvenile court or before a magistrate to explain their objections. The specification of a child health clinic, a medical centre or, if necessary, a hospital gives a certain amount of discretion to the person making the order, according to what is likely to be required by way of further tests.
  Some children may require only a weighing or sighting. For others it may be necessary to have specialist paediatric help to hand, and others may need an X-ray. It is possible to require further assessment if it is necessary.
  I realise that the inclusion of a health visitor and general practitioner as people who can require an order is breaking new ground. I think that the medical profession is re-evaluating its traditional code of confidentiality, and its relationship with the patient must be questioned in the light of child protection. As long ago as the Maria Colwell inquiry, the GP had a significant part to play. The GP also had a part to play in the Kimberley Carlile inquiry. It is right and proper for the medical profession to reconsider where its first duty must lie when a child's health and welfare are at risk. Similarly, an NSPCC worker is empowered to make the order, but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to include a police officer because, above all, the order will be available for children who are at risk or may be vulnerable, as opposed to a child in specific danger. A child in danger will remain the subject of emergency protection orders or a warrant.
  I believe that the provision of 72 hours—three days —is a balanced move. A week is too long and 24 hours is too little. It recognises that it is at the time of assessment that a crisis within a family can be precipitated.
  The Bill has received widespread support. The National Children's Bureau, National Children's Home, the Children's Society, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Association of Social Workers have all argued—I would not argue against it—that this should become part of comprehensive reforming legislation for our child care law. They agree that the gap needs to be filled. I should like to quote Jim Harding, the director of child care for the NSPCC. He was a member of the commission of inquiry in the Kimberley Carlile case. He said:
  "This Bill will afford greater protection to children without removing them from their parents. Medical examinations and assessment could help provide evidence of child abuse but more importantly could allow for a child who has been abused or neglected to be seen and offered help … The need for a Medical Examination Order was emphasised by the Commission of Inquiry … This child's tragic death might have been avoided had such an order been available to the professional agencies involved. It will offer greater protection to the thousands of children at risk of abuse and neglect in Britain today."
  I hope that the Minister will find a way to bring forward his legislation at the earliest opportunity and I hope that he will find a way to incorporate this measure, into that legislation. Whether one is concerned about excessive intrusion of workers or about their lack of action, I believe
  696
  that this small, discreet and specific measure has an important part to play in respecting parents, safeguarding children and adding to the tools necessary for those charged with the responsible work of protecting the young.
  2.23 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst): I know that the House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on the manner in which she has spoken to her Bill. The House benefits from her wide experience in social work and as a juvenile court magistrate. She has applied to the preparation and presentation of the Bill the diligence and attention to detail that does her credit.
  In 1985 the NSPCC celebrated its centenary. It is sad that 100 years after the society was founded it is still necessary for it to exist. I have the honour to sit on the society's central executive committee, and I therefore see at first hand something of the wide extent of its activities. There has been a good deal of publicity recently about the sexual abuse of children. However, non-sexual, ordinary physical abuse, alas, continues. The society's literature provides details of some horrific cases.
  The society can provide statistics for the thousands of known cases per year, but how many cases are unknown or undiscovered? A feature of the recent sexual abuse cases is that the publicity produced a number of adults who came forward to give details of their experiences as children—cases of which nothing was known at the time.
  The extent to which parents sometimes seek help from the society is encouraging, but there are many instances when the society is given information by neighbours who are worried about what may be going on. The society's officers make further inquiries. They call at the home and, if they are allowed access, can perhaps form a view. Possibly it is necessary just to give a little help or advice. The fears may be ill-founded. If the problem is found to be serious, the officers can go to court, obtain a place of safety order, and the child is removed, but what happens if the officers cannot see the children? What happens if they are told repeatedly that the child is ill or is staying with grandparents? The social worker and NSPCC officers are faced with a dilemma—either they apply for a place of safety order on what may be flimsy and second hand evidence, and the child is removed from the home, or they ignore the situation and hope that all is well. There is no middle course. A number of recent cases have demonstrated the clear gap in the law. The Bill seeks to fill it.
  Neighbours and relatives may be aware of what is happening and be anxious about whether there is child abuse, but may be hesitant to report it because they fear that the child will be taken from the home. Surely it is more likely that these cases will be reported if, as under the Bill's provisions, it will lead simply to examination of the child so that further steps can be taken or fears laid to rest.
  The Kimberley Carlile inquiry recommended that an assessment order, such as is provided for in the Bill, should be available so that the child can be produced for examination, but not necessarily removed from the home. If that power had existed it might well have avoided some distressing cases, such as those which were the subject of the Cleveland inquiry.
  I can confirm that the NSPCC warmly welcomes the Bill and the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for

  697
  Surrey, South-West in bringing it forward. The NSPCC thinks that an assessment order as provided for in the Bill would be helpful to social workers. We are awaiting the Cleveland report and expect a wide-ranging review of child care law and subsequent legislation to implement it, but that, of necessity, will take time. The Bill could be passed and the powers in it activated rapidly. I hope that the Government will feel able to give it their support. I hope, too, that I have allowed time for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health to say that that is what he will do.
  2.27 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): The answer to the last observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is "just about", but "not very much". I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) will accept my apologies because I shall not have time to pay her the full tribute that I would otherwise have paid both to her assiduous pursuit of this matter and her experience in the many activities that give her her expertise.
  To avoid my comments being cut off by the ruthless actions of the Chair, the clock, or whatever it may be before I have said much, I shall try to distil my message into some basic points.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West has acknowledged, we have put forward a range of proposals for the widespread reform of child care law because we, too accept the need for reform. As we said when I set up the Cleveland inquiry in July last year, and as we have said a number of times since, we think it right to look again at some of our proposals in the light of the outcome of that inquiry and the inquiries into the Kimberley Carlile and Tyra Henry cases in the intervening period. We do not intend to use this additional information and these additional reports as an excuse for delaying the introduction of legislation. I cannot, for reasons which the whole House understands, give any undertaking about the introduction of any particular Bill at any particular point, but it remains the Government's clear intention to get on with this as soon as possible.
  We considered a proposal not dissimilar to my hon. Friend's when we were preparing the White Paper. However, we thought that on balance the emergency protection order that we proposed was the right way forward. A number of people support my hon. Friend's view that the proposal or something like it, was suggested in Louis Blom-Cooper's report on one of the child abuse cases. Therefore, I can undertake that we will re-examine the arguments, in the light of my hon. Friend's Bill, today's debate and what emerges from the Cleveland inquiry report as well as the other report, before attempting to reach a final conclusion.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Private Members'Bills
  SECURITY SERVICES (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Not moved.

  PLANNING PERMISSION (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day'?
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that there may have been a mistake. I thought that I heard the Government Whip objecting. I think that he was doing so erroneously, in the belief that the Bill would slow down planning procedures. That is not the intention of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to discuss his Bill now. I distinctly heard objections coming from a number of quarters. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Dykes: Friday 17 June.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 17 June.

  HOSPITAL CONSULTANTS (TRANSFER AND REVISION OF CONTRACTS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  No day named.

  HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK (TOBACCO SMOKING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Ian McCartney: On behalf on the hon. Member concerned, Friday 6 May.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 May.

  BLACKLISTS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Ian MaCartney: Friday 6 May.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 May.

  ABORTION (TREATMENT OF NON-RESIDENT WOMEN) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  SCOTTISH CONSTITUTION (REFERENDUM) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington): On behalf of the hon. Member concerned, Friday 6 May.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 May.

  BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Second Reading what day?
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Friday 6 May. Second Reading deferred till Friday 6 May.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 3rd May, the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to the First Scottish Standing Committee may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at that hour, any Amendments which may have been selected by Mr. Speaker may then be moved, the Question thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then put the Main Question or the Main Question, as amended.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  CORONERS BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Coroners Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, New Clauses and New Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Eastbourne General Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  2.32 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: I welcome the opportunity to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the number of people on the waiting list at Eastbourne general hospital and the length of time that patients have to wait before seeing a consultant and before an operation can be performed.
  This debate is part of a paradox. We all know that spending on the National Health Service this year will be £23 billion—up by more than one third compared with 1979, after allowing for inflation. We know that there are 13,000 more doctors and dentists and 65,000 more nurses working for the National Health Service than there were in 1979. We know, too, that a week ago yesterday nurses were awarded a pay increase averaging 15.3 per cent., backdated to 1 April, and funded in full by the Government—or, perhaps I should say, by the taxpayer. In Eastbourne, phase 2 of our district general hospital will be complete before the end of this year and it will be operational next year.
  All of that sounds and is—most impressive. In Eastbourne, however, waiting lists have been getting bigger, and waiting times longer. I will compare the figures for December 1979 with those for March 1988, giving the number of patients on the waiting list for our district general hospital without an admission date for the key specialties.
  For general surgery, the figures are 395 for 1979 and 491 for 1988; ear, nose and throat, 269 in 1979 and 561 in 1988; orthopaedics 518 in 1979 and 1,104 in 1988; ophthalmology, 69 in 1979 and 398 in 1988; oral surgery, 18 in 1979 and 175 in 1988; gynaecology, 363 in 1979 and 777 in 1988. Overall, the number of patients on the waiting list without an admission date has virtually doubled, from 2,006 in 1979 to 3,905 in 1988.
  The number of patients on the waiting list is only part of the story. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the length of time that they have to wait is far more important. The notional waiting time for ophthalmology increased from 25 weeks last year to 39 weeks this year, for gynaecology from 39 weeks last year to 58 weeks this year, and for ear, nose and throat operations it more than doubled from 26 weeks last year to 59 weeks this year. So the position has been getting worse.
  It is easy to be mesmerised by statistics. The National Health Service exists, however, not to provide figures for Ministers and others to produce, but to heal the sick and, wherever possible, to prevent our people from becoming sick. I shall give two examples of the way in which those statistics actually affect my constituents. In both cases, I have been authorised to give the details to the House.
  On 11 February this year, Mr. B. wrote to me as follows:
  "My wife is on the waiting list for a hysterectomy peration. She went to see our GP in January 1987. He made an appointment for her to see Mr. Shardlow at the district general hospital, which she eventually did on 29th June 1987. She was told there was a waiting list of up to two years. My wife is a very patient person, and has been waiting now for almost eight months. Unlike my wife, I am not patient, and resent the fact that the quality of her life is not as it should be. In desperation, I am writing to you, hoping that in some way you can suggest something more that I can do."

  701
  On 17 February I wrote to the chairman of our district health authority. The manager of the district general hospital replied on the chairman's behalf on 25 February:
  "I have discussed this with Mr. Shardlow, who is the consultant responsible for Mrs. B's care. He has confirmed that Mr. B's account of the case is accurate and that there is a wait of approximately two years for non-urgent operations."
  On I March I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health. On 24 March, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs.Currie), who is to reply to this debate, explained that Eastbourne health authority had been allocated £155,000 from the waiting lists fund, which would mean that an extra 150 gynaecological operations, mostly hysterectomies, and 250 extra ear, nose and throat operations could be performed.
  I sent a copy of my hon. Friend's letter to the chairman of our district health authority, who replied three days ago, on 26 April, in the following terms:
  "You ask me about Mrs. Irene Barber. Regrettably, all that she says in her letter to you is correct. The earliest that it is possible to open the temporary surgical unit is the beginning of October. That unit will certainly remove a number of people from the waiting lists, but whether Mrs. Barber will be fortunate, I am unable to say, since this is a decision to be made by the consultant nearer the time. The best estimate I can give of the date on which Mrs. Barber will have her hysterectomy operation is not less than six months from now and not more than 18 months from now."
  I ask my hon. Friend to note the words,
  "not less than six months from now and not more than 18 months from now."
  Mrs. Barber was put on the waiting list for a hysterectomy operation on 29 June 1987–10 months ago today. Even if her operation is carried out midway between the dates given to me by the chairman of the district health authority, she will have been waiting for 22 months. I advise my hon. Friend that for a woman, aged 72, to have to wait 22 months for a hysterectomy operation is unacceptable to her Member of Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that it is unacceptable to her, too.
  I wish to give another example to the House. Mrs. G wrote to me on 22 March:
  "I am 42"—
  30 years younger than Mrs. B—
  "and need a hysterectomy. I have been told the waiting list for this is two years. As I am in a lot of pain, amongst other symptoms, I am absolutely appalled at this terribly long waiting list. I would ask for your help, please."
  I wrote to Mrs. G's consultant on 30 March in the following terms:
  "I spoke to your patient and my constituent Mrs. G, on the telephone this afternoon. She tells me that you saw her earlier this month, and that she would have to wait for two years for her hysterectomy. Is that really so, please?"
  The consultant replied on 8 April:
  "Overall, the waiting time for the person who comes up when their name is called forward is about two years for a hysterectomy.
  I repeat that that letter was dated 8 April.
  We have the statistics that matter much, we have the patients who matter more and we have my hon. Friend the Minister who, mercifully, has the power to bring about an improvement in a situation that certainly I, and I suspect she, believe to be unacceptable.
  The Eastbourne health authority has an outstanding chairman and general manager. On the basis of figures that I have seen, it is one of the most efficient health authorities in the country. It is not wasting money. The problem is
  702
  that this year it is receiving only 85 per cent. of the amount to which, under the Government's RAWP formula, it is entitled. The revenue cash allocation for the current year is £47·4 million—£47 million short. Mrs. Barber and Mrs. Grayling and the growing numbers on our waiting lists are a direct consequence of giving to Eastbourne only 85p in every pound that the Government say that it needs.
  The regional health authority is proposing that Eastbourne should receive 96 per cent. of its RAWP target in 1994—so, even then, it will not receive the amount which, according to the Government, it should receive. It needs a supplementary allocation from a supplementary waiting list fund. That would at least halt the rise in the length of time that my constituents are having to wait for operations.
  My hon. Friend knows that the whole of my constituency and parts of the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) are served by the Eastbourne health authority. Each of my hon. Friends has an engagement in his constituency today. Although they cannot be here, each has authorised me to say that I speak on behalf of all four of us. Even if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot this afternoon announce any specific measures to help to resolve a problem that is becoming worse all the time, I hope that she will agree to consider very carefully the facts that have been drawn to her attention in this debate, and to which her officials will have drawn her attention since they first knew a week ago that the debate would take place.
  If my hon. Friend's constituents were faced with the same problems as those that face my constituents, I know that she, too, would raise the matter with the appropriate Minister. I remind her of the advice given in St. Luke's gospel:
  "Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him."
  Today's debate is only the start. My hon. Friends and I will continue to raise these matters with the Minister of Health and with my hon. Friend until justice is done for the people of Eastbourne.
  2.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on securing the debate. Of course, I am aware of his interest in and concerns about health services in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I met my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members whom he mentioned—my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardell), and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—on 10 February, and we had a most useful discussion.
  Eastbourne health authority serves a population of around 180,000, but more than 25 per cent. of those people are over 65. From 1983–86, there was an increase of 10·5 per cent. in the number of people aged over 85. The overall population is also rising. Between 1981 and 1986 Eastbourne's population increased by more than 30,000. So the population is increasing and the average age is rising. We are aware of the pressures—particularly the over-85s—and have been studying them in the light of the resource allocation working party.

  703
  One of the recommendations in the National Health Service management board's interim report on RAWP is that an over-85 age band be introduced into the national calculations by which we allocate resources. That will particularly benefit South-East Thames region, which covers my hon. Friend's constituency. In fact, in setting targets for districts in this current year, 1988–89, South-East Thames regional health authority incorporated the 85-plus age band in its allocation formula to the districts, and that helped districts such as Eastbourne. Our national review analysis research on the issue is complete. We are considering recommendations, and shall shortly make announcements.
  Partly as a response to demographic pressures, the funding of Eastbourne health authority has been substantially increased. In 1982, when the health authority was created, its cash allocation was £34|·5 million. In addition, £2·3 million was allocated for smaller capital schemes within the district. The initial money is the basis of funding and is not the whole story. Last year, 1987–88, the initial cash allocation had jumped to £41·8 million. On top of that, there was £3·2 million for smaller capital schemes.
  Cost improvement schemes since 1984–85 have also improved, through better efficiency, with a substantial movement of nearly £2 million within the authority to improve patient care. There has also been the sale of land and surplus property since 1982–83, which has provided the district with £4·7 million on top of that. In these ways, we expect the health authority to make itself more efficient and use the cash released for improved patient care.
  In 1987–88, the year just ended, adding together all the funding elements for that year, total funding stood at £46·6 million, which is clearly a substantial increase—25 per cent.—over 1982. This year's initial allocation is a further increase of 13 per cent., up to the £47·4 million that my hon. Friend mentioned. That increase is clearly much more than inflation, and it is the highest increase of all health authorities in South-East Thames region.
  On the capital side, since 1982, a total of almost £40 million has been allocated to Eastbourne, the major share of which is for the new district general hospital phase II, which is costing £16·6 million. There has also been refurbishment at Hellingly—I gather that the health authority has some interesting ideas about developments there—plus a new chiropody school that cost almost £1 million, and two health centres. The Forest Row health centre is costing nearly £400,000, and the Seaford health centre, which is costing £1·44 million, was opened by my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale last year. There are considerable developments going on.
  That achievement is translated into more staff. From 1982–86, front line staff increased by 75 whole-time equivalents. I note with interest that there was a substantial rise in the number of general practitioners, dentists and opticians. That should have been sufficient to keep pace with demographic change and many of the increasing demands placed on them. Most of all, it means that far more patients are being treated in Eastbourne. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the figures. In 1982, there were 22,500 in-patients. In 1986, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 24,800—an increase of over 10 per cent. For day cases, the increase
  704
  was even larger—34 per cent. Overall, there has been a small reduction in out-patient attendances, but that is largely due to a change in obstetric attendances, which, again, is a feature of the demography of the area. But, for example, there has been a rise of over 14 per cent. in the number of gynaecological out-patient attendances. Again, to look at where things are going well, there has been a 25 per cent. increase in general surgery in-patients. Clearly, some of the consultants and staff are working harder and are enabled thereby to increase their productivity.
  One of the calculations that it is possible to do on this data, and which I have had done in the week since the debate was called, which shows day cases as a percentage of all in-patients and day cases, demonstrates that there is considerable variation between specialities in this district. Day case work is valuable. It tends to increase throughput faster than costs, and patients like it. In 1986 in general medicine, general surgery and opthalmology the district was among or close to the bottom 10 per cent. of districts in the entire country. Yet for trauma, orthopaedic surgery and gynaecology it was in the top 10 per cent. of districts. It may be, therefore, that some of the consultants need to share their worthwhile experiences with their colleagues.
  I met the district general manager, Mr. Sully, and the chairman, Mr. Platt, of the Eastbourne district health authority early this morning. They came to my office here at the House of Commons at my request. I am deeply grateful to them for giving me so much of their time today and I am satisfied that they are aware of my concerns and those of my hon. Friend. I do not feel that all the difficulties are due to funding, for, as I have indicated, increased funding has been relatively generous whereas the level of activity around the district is distinctly variable.
  My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the waiting lists and I told him that we share his anxiety. The picture is possibly not as black as painted. For example, the numbers on the longest list, trauma and orthopaedics, were starting to come down during 1987, partly because the district received £110,000 from the waiting list initiative last year and partly because it managed to do some 94 additional hip replacement operations in six months. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right that other lists remain stubbornly high and are tending to increase.
  This year Eastbourne's main priority is to reduce its gynaecology and ENT waiting lists. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said about his constituents, Mrs. Barber and Mrs. Grayling. If he would be kind enough to allow me, I shall look again at the details of those cases. He will realise that the decision when to operate is not mine but their clinicians'. That £155,000 that we have made available to district health authorities is available now and we do not expect it to be held over until October or any other arbitrary date. We expect it to be used promptly.
  I noticed that the health authority issued a press statement on Thursday 21 April about a committee of inquiry into services for women in the area. The committee has now reported to the health authority on problems in maternity and gynaecological services. Several recommendations have been made to the health authority which may include the appointment of an additional specialist and the realignment of clinical responsibilities between consultants.
  In the light of what my hon. Friend said, I am surprised that the health authority has asked its general manager to report back in July. It seems entirely right that it should

  705
  acquire a sense of urgency about this matter and report back sooner. Perhaps it cannot report back in May, but I would expect it to deal with the issue at the June meeting and I should like to know if it does not.
  My hon. Friend should not assume that because patients have no booked date they will never be seen or will be seen only by chance. I obtained the latest figures for the quarter June to September 1987 and I established that Eastbourne health authority admitted 1,696 cases from the waiting list to the hospitals who did not have booked admission dates. The median waiting time for these cases was 10 weeks. Therefore, it is not entirely a matter of gloom.
  I am also told that in Eastbourne the September 1987 figures, again the latest available, show that 95 per cent. of those admitted as in-patients or day patients were admitted within 12 months, which is roughly the same as the national average. That suggests, as do some of the other figures that my hon. Friend mentioned, that a list of two years is both most unusual in this district and most unacceptable to those concerned. I think that I have made my remarks about gynaecology clear to him and the district health authority, and we expect action on that.
  Some of these difficulties were made much worse last year by the temporary closure of half the operating theatres for three months during the summer. They were very much in need of upgrading and redecorating. Nevertheless, I take the view that arrangements should have been made for as many patients as possible to be treated elsewhere. It is not good enough to close theatres, keep the staff on and leave patients waiting. I gather that some 300 waiting list cases were lost during that period.
  I have taken another close look at the figures for ophthalmology, which is one of the bad waiting lists. Although Eastbourne's throughput figures are generally good, they are only around average in gynaecology and among the lowest 20 per cent. in the country in ophthalmology. If in ophthalmology the district were to reduce the length of time that beds are left empty between patients from six days to even the regional average of three days, which is still too high, and if in the same specialism the throughput was increased from its low level of barely 75 per cent. of the national average, a lot more patients would be seen and perhaps a lot more patients would be able to see.
  706
  My calculation is that between 250 and 300 more ophthalmology patients would be attended to, which would virtually clear the waiting list. I am told that they are all busy doing out-patient clinics. I have suggested to the health authority that it needs to review its links between its general practitioners, clinical assistants, out-patient clinics, in-patient work and day case work in a speciality such as ophthalmology to ensure that people are not merely seen and sent away without treatment.
  The district is doing other things which are helping to develop services in other important areas. To be fair to it, we should note them. An extra consultant paediatrician will shortly be appointed. Staffing levels for midwives and those who care for the elderly will be improved. Temporary out-patient clinics in, for example, rheumatology, are to be made permanent and more homes in the community for people with mental handicaps will be opened.
  I have indicated my concern, which I hope my hon. Friend recognises. I am giving some thought to how districts that face rapid increases in the number of very old people in their areas during the next few years should manage their affairs to avoid a build-up of waiting lists. I have therefore asked my officials to consider whether a study would be useful, perhaps building on expertise elsewhere and possibly looking at several districts on the south coast, including Eastbourne. If we decide to proceed on those lines, I hope that my hon. Friend could give such a study his full support. I put the same point to the chairman this morning. He said that the authority would co-operate enthusiastically with such a study, which would be of wide interest.
  Service provision in the district will be invigorated when the second phase of the district general hospital becomes operational next year. It will provide another 350 beds for elderly psychiatric patients and general medical patients, and there is to be a 120-place psychiatric day hospital. More money will therefore go to Eastbourne in the coming years to help run services from this major capital development.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock till Tuesday 3 May, pursuant to Resolution of the House of 25 March.

ENVIRONMENT

  East London (Housing)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what type of housing is envisaged for the five areas of new housing in east London announced on 20 April; how many will be for sale and how many for rent; under whose auspices the development will take place; what total amount of expenditure is envisaged; who will be responsible for funding; and what is the anticipated time scale from commissioning of consultants' reports and the commencement of the first construction.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A mix of housing in the five areas is envisaged. It is too early to comment on the nature of that mix, which will depend on planning and other considerations. Similarly it is premature to comment on the other matters raised by the hon. Member as these will be amongst the topics covered by the appointed consultant.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations took place between his Department and the London boroughs involved before he made his announcement on the consultancy studies of the prospects for new housing on five sites in east London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No special consultations took place between the Department and the London boroughs involved. The Department keeps in general contact with all London boroughs.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the leader of Newham council was notified of his announcement of consultancy studies of the prospect for new housing in five areas in east London; and when the original announcement was made.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I wrote to the leader of Newham council on 21 April, the day following my announcement.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) of 20 April,Official Report, column 825, he will involve the London boroughs concerned with the work to be undertaken by the consultants commissioned to carry out studies on the five sites for housing development in east London; and if he will make a statement.

  London boroughs

  Housing capital expenditure (outturn)

  £ million

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  City of London

  1·5

  0·8

  0·6

  1·3

  2·4

  1·2

  5·5

  Barking and Dagenham

  4·9

  3·5

  4·1

  4·7

  2·7

  5·5

  7·5

  Barnet

  12·1

  7·7

  8·1

  12·3

  11·8

  12·1

  14·3

  Bexley

  5·7

  6·8

  7·3

  8·2

  9·5

  7·5

  4·3

  274
  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is intended to involve the London boroughs concerned as appropriate.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) of 20 April,Official Report, column 825, what is the consultancy fee allowed for in the study of the five sites for housing identified in east London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The commission will be let by competitive tender so no fee has yet been determined.

  General Development Order
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposal to amend and consolidate the General Development Order 1977.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I gave details of our proposals to amend and consolidate the GDO in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on 4 February 1988,Official Report, columns 711–12. We are now considering comments received in response to the consultation paper we issued that day. We expect to make the new order later this year.

  Households
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he or his officials have yet held a meeting with members of the South East Regional Planning Conference to consider the new projections of household numbers to 2001; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend expects to meet members of the conference for this purpose soon.

  Sunday Sports
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many major spectator sporting events were held on Sundays in 1987; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This information is not held centrally.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report, for each London borough, for each year since 1980–81, (a) total HIP expenditure (outturn); (b) HIP expenditure funded by capital receipts.

  Mrs. Roe
  [pursuant to her reply 26 April 1988 c. 137–8]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  275

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Brent

  27·9

  25·1

  28·7

  32·9

  42·9

  25·4

  26·5

  Bromley

  8·7

  7·8

  10·2

  14·0

  22·0

  11·6

  12·4

  Camden

  53·9

  29·2

  30·8

  41·0

  35·9

  41·0

  74·8

  Croydon

  7·7

  8·7

  11·7

  15·9

  15·6

  15·7

  17·7

  Ealing

  19·1

  16·2

  18·7

  23·1

  24·8

  18·2

  20·4

  Enfield

  9·9

  9·2

  10·9

  11·3

  12·9

  12·3

  15·4

  Greenwich

  21·6

  17·7

  17·3

  20·4

  21·7

  15·1

  32·6

  Hackney

  25·2

  25·7

  39·2

  31·5

  46·4

  33·2

  54·5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  23·5

  20·3

  27·0

  36·4

  25·7

  19·1

  21·8

  Haringey

  37·3

  25·5

  38·6

  49·8

  37·1

  29·8

  35·9

  Harrow

  5·7

  3·8

  7·0

  9·3

  8·5

  6·6

  9·4

  Havering

  4·6

  4·0

  4·6

  6·9

  7·7

  12·5

  8·7

  Hillingdon

  11·8

  11·6

  14·2

  16·3

  18·0

  15·6

  16·8

  Hounslow

  11·6

  8·5

  11·3

  16·8

  16·9

  11·1

  11·2

  Islington

  46·3

  38·9

  58·7

  40·2

  49·2

  31·9

  64·3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  23·8

  25·1

  24·8

  23·1

  30·5

  21·4

  22·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·8

  3·0

  4·0

  6·7

  7·1

  5·9

  5·8

  Lambeth

  52·6

  35·6

  32·2

  46·8

  45·2

  44·1

  56·2

  Lewisham

  32·2

  21·8

  27·9

  33·8

  30·2

  21·3

  34·2

  Merton

  7·3

  6·5

  7·6

  7·1

  6·1

  7·7

  10·0

  Newham

  27·4

  16·1

  17·7

  33·2

  41·0

  28·8

  33·1

  Redbridge

  5·6

  6·0

  4·6

  10·0

  13·7

  14·4

  7·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  5·8

  4·7

  5·0

  4·9

  6·2

  4·3

  54·1

  Southwark

  42·2

  30·2

  46·5

  49·8

  37·0

  43·0

  47·4

  Sutton

  4·5

  3·9

  5·2

  6·8

  10·4

  5·0

  4·2

  Tower Hamlets

  14·8

  9·1

  6·7

  9·9

  11·3

  12·0

  27·6

  Waltham Forest

  13·3

  10·3

  12·3

  13·3

  16·1

  12·7

  14·5

  Wandsworth

  24·9

  21·9

  28·5

  36·0

  39·8

  46·1

  51·0

  Westminster

  17·5

  20·1

  22·0

  22·7

  26·1

  20·1

  19·1

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list, by local education authority in England and Wales, the latest figures on racial harassment in school; and if he will make a statement on what guidelines his Department has issued to education authorities on racial harassment.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistical information on incidents of racial harassment in schools is not collected centrally.

  Advice on dealing with racial harassment was issued in October 1983 in the form of a paper published by HM inspectorate, on "Race Relations in Schools". The paper was based on detailed discussions with a number of urban and county LEAs. Copies were sent to all chief education officers and all teacher-training institutions. The paper identified a range of actions which schools might take to encourage good race relations. HMI continue, in the course of their regular visits and formal inspections, to offer advice and guidance on good practice.

  Computer Courses (Women)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will express the number of women(a) applying for and (b) starting computer courses at universities and polytechnics over the past five years as a percentage of all domestic applicants and starters; if he will take steps to promote (i) more such courses and (ii) a higher proportion of women students in such courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures for applicants are available only for the universities. They are:
  276

  Women as Proportion of All Applicants for Courses in Computing1

  Percentages

  1982

  22·9

  1983

  20·3

  1984

  18·2

  1985

  16·0

  1986

  15·4

  1987

  15·1

  1 There was a change in the basis of subject coding for universities in 1985.

  Figures for the numbers of students starting computing courses and the proportion who were women are:

  Universities in the United Kingdom1

  Polytechnics in England

  UCCA acceptances

  Percentage of females

  New enrolments2

  Percentage of females

  1982

  1,901

  21·7

  2,170

  22·9

  1983

  1,935

  19·7

  2,955

  19·9

  1984

  2,070

  16·5

  3,205

  17·4

  1985

  2,214

  16·4

  3,841

  17·9

  1986

  2,276

  16·1

  4,595

  17·1

  1 There was a change in the basis of subject coding for universities in 1985.

  2 Full-time equivalent.

  The information shows that there has been a substantial increase in overall enrolments on computing courses in recent years, reflecting demand from students and the priority which institutions and the funding bodies have given them.

  The numbers of women taking these courses are increasing, though more slowly than the numbers of men. Policy on student admissions is for the institutions themselves, within the law as it relates to sex discrimination. The Government's policy for the national curriculum is in part intended to counter premature specialisation in schools and to increase the number of girls who have the grounding in mathematics and kindred

  277
  subjects which will enable them to study for the qualifications which admit to courses of higher education such as computing.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the per capita spending on education in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) West Germany, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) Japan.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The readily available information on current public expenditure on education per capita is given in the table:

  Country

  Year of data

  Expenditure per capita at 1983 prices £1

  United Kingdom2

  1983

  269

  Gennany, Federal Republic of

  1983

  253

  USA3

  1982

  458

  Japan4

  1982

  216

  1 At purchasing power parity; expenditure adjusted to calendar year, where necessary, using consumer prices indices.

  2 Excludes expenditure on nursing and paramedical courses at DHSS establishments.

  3 Includes capital expenditure.

  4Excludes public subsidies to private education.

  Language Teaching
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received the report of the committee established to advise on what children should know about language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am publishing today the report of the committee chaired by Sir John Kingman. I asked the committee to advise what, in general terms, children need to know about the English language, and in consequence what they should have been taught and be expected to understand on this score at ages 7, 11 and 16. I am grateful to the committee for its hard work. It has produced an interesting report which will contribute to discussion about the teaching of the English language and about the importance of the grammatical structure of the language and of the correct use of the spoken word.

  English is one of the core subjects in the national curriculum as proposed in the Education Reform Bill now before Parliament. I am now appointing a working group on English to make recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study for English as a whole. The working group's terms of reference are set out in the table. I am specifically asking the English working group to take account of the relevant recommendations of the Kingman committee in its work on attainment targets and programmes of study.

  The working group will be chaired by Professor Brian Cox, Pro-Vice Chancellor and John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at Manchester University. Its membership will be:

  Mrs. Diane Billups, Head of Broughton Junior School, South Humberside.

  Ms. Linda Cookson, Senior Tutor, Cental School of Speech and Drama.

  Mr. Roald Dahl, Writer.

  Mr. Roger Samways, Adviser for English and drama, Dorest LEA.

  278

  Professor David Skilton, Head of Department of English, UWIST; designated Head of the School of English Studies. Journalism and Philosophy at the new University of Wales College of Cardiff.

  Mr. Brian Slough, Deputy Head, Kettering Boys' School, Northamptonshire.

  Professor Michael Stubbs, Professor of Education with special reference to the teaching of English in Education, Department of English and Media Studies, University of London Institute of Education.

  Dr. Charles Suckling, Chairman, Bradbury, Suckling & Partners Ltd, Scientific Consultants, member of Kingman Committee.

  I expect the group to begin work in early May.

  I shall be considering the Kingman committee's other detailed recommendations in due course in the light of public comment on its report and of the English working group's recommendations.

  NATIONAL CURRICULUM: WORKING GROUP ON ENGLISH TERMS OF REFERENCE
  Preamble
  1. The Education Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, proposes the establishment of a National Curriculum of core and other foundation subjects for pupils of compulsory school age in England and Wales. For most of these subjects, including English which is a core subject, the Government wishes to establish clear objectives—attainment targets—for the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils of different abilities and maturities should he expected to have acquired at or near the key ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16; and, to promote them, programmes of study describing the content, skills and processes which need to be covered during each key stage of compulsory education. Taken together, the attainment targets and programmes of study will provide the basis for assessing pupils' performance—in relation both to expected attainment, and to the next steps needed for the pupils' development.
  2. Both the objectives (attainment targets) and means of achieving them (programmes of study) should leave scope for teachers to use their professional talents and skills to develop their own schemes of work, within a set framework which is known to all. It is the task of the working group to advise on that framework for English, which is a core subject. The framework should ensure, at the minimum, that all school leavers are competent in the use of English— written and spoken—whether or not it is their first language.
  3. The Kingman Committee, established to advise the Secretary of State on what children should know about language, has made recommendations for attainment targets for knowledge about language at the ages of 7, 11 and 16. The working group should build on these to recommend attainment targets covering the grammatical structure of the English language. But English comprises both language and literature, including poetry and drama. The working group's recommendations on learning about language and its use should draw upon the English literary heritage; should promote the reading of great literature and the knowledge and appreciation of literature; and should indicate the types of literature which all pupils should cover in the course of their studies.
  The Task
  4. The Government has made it clear that it expects most curricular time at primary level to be taken up by the core subjects of English, maths and science. But it is important that in the primary phases attainment targets and programmes of study in the core subjects are looked at together as well as individually. The working groups on mathematics and science are well-advanced towards their final reports. The English working group is therefore asked to give immediate attention to recommendations on attainment targets for ages 7 and 11 and the associated programmes of study and to submit a report on these to the Secretary of State by 30 September 1988.
  5. By the same date, the working group is asked to submit a progress letter to the Secretary of State on its provisional thinking about the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils of different abilities and maturities should be

  279
  expected to have attained and be able to demonstrate around the end of the academic year in which they reach the ages of 14 and 16.
  6. By 30 April 1989 the working group is to submit a final report to the Secretary of State, setting out and justifying its final recommendations on attainment targets for the key ages of 14 and 16 and the associated programmes of study.
  Approach
  7. The working group should consult informally with relevant interests and have regard to the work of the other subject working groups, in particular that on Welsh. Additionally it should take account of:

  (a) the broad framework proposed by the Task Group on Assessment and Testing for assessment and testing;

  (b) the need for attainment targets which reflect the fact that in the primary stage, particularly for 7 year olds, English will support learning in all other subjects, and will be developed by how those are taught;

  (c) the contribution which, more generally, English can make to learning about other subjects and the contributions which these subjects can make to learning about English, including the promotion of development of good written and spoken English in all subjects;

  (d) the recommendations of the Kingman Committee on attainment targets for children's explicit and implicit knowledge about language at ages 7, 11 and 16;

  (e) best practice and the results of relevant research and curriculum developments;

  and the issues covered in the supplementary guidance to the Group's Chairman.

  Technology
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to set up a working group to recommend attainment targets and programmes of study for technology within the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are from today establishing a working group on design and technology. The group will advise on attainment targets and programmes of study for technology within the national curriculum for secondary school pupils. The science working group which we appointed last summer is making recommendations about technology for primary school pupils.

  The design and technology working group will also advise on attainment targets and programmes of study for information technology, and on a framework for design across foundation subjects, for all pupils of compulsory school age. The working group's formal terms of reference which include guidance on the approach to technology within the national curriculum are set out below. We are grateful to Lady Parkes, a governor of the BBC and a member of the Secondary Examinations Council, for agreeing to take the chair of a working group on design and technology. The other members of the group are:

  Ms. Krysia Brochocka—Educational design consultant

  Mrs. Elsa Davies Educational Liaison Officer, British Institute of Management

  Mr. Malcolm Deere—Education Adviser (Curriculum), TVEI Unit, Manpower Services Commission

  Mr. Denis Filer—Director of Engineering, ICI plc

  Mr. Terry Gibbons — Head of Design Faculty, Gwendraeth Valley School, Dyfed

  Mr. John Hammond—Lecturer in Computing Science, City University

  Dr. Philip Hunter — Chief Education Officer, Staffordshire

  280

  Mr. Ben Kelsey — Adviser for Business Education, Hampshire Local Education Authority and Director of the National Business and Information Studies Project

  Mr. Paddy O'Hagan — Head of Faculty, Design and Technology, Northolt High School, Ealing.

  The group will start work as soon as possible. We are asking it to give interim advice by 31 October and final advice by 30 April 1989.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP

  Terms of reference
  Background
  1. The Education Reform Bill currently before Parliament provides for the establishment of a national curriculum of core and other foundation subjects for pupils of compulsory school age in England and Wales. For most subjects, including technology, the Government wishes to establish clear objectives — attainment targets — for the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils of different abilities and maturities should be expected to have acquired by the end of the academic year in which they reach the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16; and to promote them, programmes of study describing the content, skills and processes which need to be covered during each key stage of compulsory education. Taken together, the attainment targets and programmes of study will provide the basis for assessing a pupil's performance, in relation both to expected attainment and to the next steps needed for the pupil's development.
  2. Both the objectives (attainment targets) and means of achieving them (programmes of study) should leave scope for teachers to use their professional talents and skills to develop their own schemes of work, within a set framework which is known to all. It is the task of the Working Group on Design and Technology to advise on that framework for design and technology.
  The Task
  3. The science working group is already looking at attainment targets and programmes of study for primary technology. The design and technology group should focus on the final two key stages, as defined in the Education Reform Bill—that is, the secondary phase—building on the work of the science group for the primary phase.
  4. The working group is asked to submit an interim report to the Secretaries of State by 31 October 1988 outlining:

  (i) the contribution which design and technology should make to the overall school curriculum and how that will inform the group's thinking about attainment targets and programmes of study;

  (ii) its provisional thinking about the knowledge, skills and understanding which pupils of different abilities and maturities should be expected to have attained and be able to demonstrate at key ages;

  (iii) its thinking about the programmes of study which would be consistent with the attainment targets provisionally identified.

  5. By 30 April 1989 the working group is to submit a final report to the Secretaries of State setting out and justifying its final recommendations on attainment targets and the programmes of study for design and technology. In addition, the working group should recommend attainment targets and programmes of study for design and for information technology in the first two key stages, for primary pupils, to supplement the recommendations of the science working group.
  Approach
  6. In approaching its task the working group is to view technology as that area of the curriculum in which pupils design and make useful objects or systems, thus developing their ability to solve practical problems. The working group should assume that pupils will draw on knowledge and skills from a range of subject areas, but always involving science or mathematics. They should be taught the principles and practice of good design, the application of theoretical knowledge, and within that context the practical craft skills needed for realising their designs in wood, metal, plastics, textiles and other materials. They should also learn about the variety of modern materials and technologies in use in the

  281
  industrial and commercial world. Pupils should prepare for the world of work by learning how to work in teams as well as by themselves; by understanding the importance of functional efficiency, quality, appearance and marketability; and about the importance of working within financial and technical constraints. Modern business practice increasingly involves the use of IT. Technological education should equip pupils with basic IT skills and develop an awareness of the potential use of IT and computer technology whether in the business office, or manufacturing or commerce.
  7. Technology as described above is an activity which goes "across the curriculum", drawing on and linking in with a wide range of subjects. The group should start from the basis that technology is an area of study in its own right, with its own distinctive objectives and content. This does not necessarily mean that technology must be a separately timetabled subject: schools will be free to teach technology how they choose, provided that the activity is coordinated as a clear programme and directed towards the distinctive objectives of technology. By the end of the third key stage of their compulsory education pupils should have acquired a firm basis of skills, knowledge and understanding in technology. This will provide a broad foundation on which pupils can build in undertaking technological work as defined in paragraph 6 in more specialised contexts, including other subject areas during the fourth key stage, whether for GCSE or otherwise.
  8. Design will be an essential part of technology as defined above, but will also draw on and contribute to other areas of the curriculum. The Working Group is asked to consider design in all its aspects throughout the period of compulsory education, identifying and recommending attainment targets for those of particular importance in technology and recommending a framework within which other aspects will need to be developed in other subjects. The group should work on the basis that the distinctive objectives of design and technology are that a pupil at the end of his or her compulsory education, should:

  (i) be able to design and make artefacts and systems, applying scientific or mathematical and other knowledge and skills;

  (ii) be familiar with designing processes and have had experience of applying them to real life tasks within typical constraints (time, money etc) with due regard to cost, marketability, social, environmental and other relevant factors;

  (iii) appreciate the importance of design and technology in society, historically and present day, particularly as it affects the economy.

  9. The use of computer and information technology and other advance technologies in control, simulation and data

  Body

  Subject

  Due date

  Date of publication

  Interim Advisory Committee on School teachers' pay and conditions

  Pay and conditions of school teachers in England and Wales 1988–89

  31 March 1988

  19 April 1988

  Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching of the English language

  Teaching of English

  Spring 1988

  29 April 1988

  Committee of Inquiry into A levels

  A level examinations

  April 1988

  Early Summer 1988

  Committee of Inquiry into Discipline in Schools

  Behaviour and discipline in schools

  End 1988

  Early 1989

  Task Group on Assessment and Testing

  Assessment and Testing arrangements for national curriculum

  January 1988 and Spring 1988

  First report: 12 January 1988 supplementary advice: shortly

  National curriculum subject working groups on

  Programmes of study and attainment targets

  Science

  Summer 1988

  Summer 1988

  Mathematics

  Summer 1988

  Summer 1988

  English

  Autumn 1988 (primary)

  Autumn 1988

  storage and retrieval is becoming increasingly important in our society. This fact should he reflected in the use of computer and information technology across the school curriculum. Each subject group as it is set up is being asked to consider the scope for using computer and information technology in its subject and to frame appropriate attainment targets. However the design and technology group is asked to provide within the national curriculum a focus for the developments of computer and IT awareness, and skills such as keyboard skills and basic programming, by recommending appropriate attainment targets at the four key stages together with a supporting programme of study related to IT and basic computer skills and to awareness of the uses of advanced technology.
  10. In carrying out its work the group should consult informally and selectively with relevant interests including industry and have regard to the work of other subject groups, particularly the work of the science group on primary technology. Additionally the group should take account of

  (i) the broad framework proposed by TGAT for assessment and testing;

  (ii) the contributions which design and technology can make to learning about other subjects, and other subjects can make to learning about design and technology;

  (iii) best practice and the results of any relevant research and development, and in particular developments under TVEI.

  and the issues covered in the supplementary guidance to the Group's Chairman.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the names of all statutory bodies, committees of inquiries and task groups and other similar bodies which are due to report to him in 1988, with details in each case of the subject matter of the reports; when the reports are expected to be submitted to him; and when they are likely to be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 28 April 1988]: The information required is listed in the table. The list excludes Her Majesty's inspectorate and standing advisory bodies such as the University Grants Committee and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
  283

  Body

  Subject

  Due date

  Date of publication

  Student support review

  System of supporting students in higher education

  Summer 1988

  Government proposes to publish its conclusions, in the light of the report, in Summer 1988

  Working Party on funding of university extra-mural departments

  Transitional arrangements for transfer of funding of liberal adult education in university extra-mural departments to Universities Funding Council

  Summer 1988

  Not yet decided

  Records of Achievement National Steering Committee Report

  National guidelines for introduction of Records of Achievement

  Autumn 1988

  Autumn 1988

  Visiting Committee of the Royal College of Art

  Financial and academic provision of the RCA

  August 1988

  Not published

  Visiting Committee of Cranfield Institute of Technology

  Financial and academic provision at Cranfield supported by DES funding

  August 1988

  Not published

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr Roc Sanford
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an independent inquiry into the circumstances under which charges were brought, and criminal proceedings conducted against Mr Roc Sanford by the Metropolitan police on the grounds of the possession of drugs.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. An inquiry supervised by the Police Complaints Authority has already been carried out by the Metropolitan police. Its findings are still being considered.

  Child Care
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has in relation to the number of teachers, social workers, medical staff and associated staff who have been vetted by police before they are employed in jobs where they work with children; and whether his Department keeps information as to the number of people refused employment and the reasons therefor.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest figures available are for the period 17 July 1986 to 31 August 1987. During this period, there were 161,276 requests for police checks under the arrangements introduced for the protection of children. Information about the professions for which these checks were carried out is not held centrally.

  Information is not held centrally about the number of people refused employment as a result of information provided through these arrangements, as it is for employing authorities to determine what action to take in the light of this information and the other circumstances of the case.

  Minicab Drivers (Assaults)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on the number of assaults on minicab drivers in east London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Comprehensive information about such assaults is not routinely collected and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I am 284
  informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that his records show that in the period 1 January 1988 to 25 April 1988 there were 18 cases of theft or robbery involving cab drivers in the Leyton area in which there was also some degree of assault. These cases may include incidents in which licensed taxi drivers as well as minicab drivers were involved. We fully support the efforts which the police are making to prevent such crimes taking place and to bring to justice those who perpetrate them.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of keeping a prisoner on remand in(a) prison and (b) police cells.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During the financial year 1986–87, the latest year for which information is available, the average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner in custody in a local prison or remand centre was £231. During the same period, the average weekly cost of keeping a prisoner on remand in a police cell was £651.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost which has fallen on police authorities in England and Wales as a result of prisoners being remanded to police cells in the first quarter of 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Information on the costs which have fallen to police authorites in England and Wales as a result of prisoners being remanded to police cells in the first quarter of 1988 is not available, but the amount reimbursed by the prison department in the first quarter of 1988 to police authorities in respect of claims received for prisoners being remanded to police cells is £18,316,638.

  Firemen
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many otherwise unemployed persons are employed as part-time firemen by fire authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not held centrally.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the practice of immigration officers handing files relating to individual applicants to those applicants.

  Mr. Renton
  It is not the practice of immigration officers to hand files to applicants. The individual case which I assume the hon. Member has in mind was an isolated error for which apologies have already been made.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest statistics available on the number and percentage of cases in which he did not uphold the decision to refuse entry clearance after representation by right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Appeals against refusal of entry clearance are properly a matter for the immigration appellate authorities.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population per 100,000 inhabitants on 1 February 1987 and for each year

  Prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in member states of the Council of Europe on 1 February, 1983–87

  Member state

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Ranking on 1 February 1987

  Percentage increase February 1983 to February 1987

  Austria

  114

  114

  112

  109

  103

  1

  -10

  Belgium

  2

  72

  67

  64

  69

  8=

  2

  Cyprus

  30

  39

  33

  32

  38

  16

  28

  Denmark

  63

  70

  68

  69

  69

  8=

  10

  France

  68

  74

  80

  81

  89

  5

  31

  West Germany

  103

  104

  100

  92

  84

  7

  -18

  Greece

  35

  40

  37

  37

  40

  15

  15

  Ireland

  37

  48

  47

  52

  54

  13

  46

  Iceland

  35

  32

  34

  36

  37

  17=

  5

  Italy

  65

  76

  78

  77

  57

  11=

  -11

  Luxembourg

  72

  78

  69

  92

  99

  3

  37

  Malta

  29

  30

  28

  27

  28

  19

  -5

  Netherlands

  28

  31

  34

  35

  37

  17=

  29

  Norway

  52

  48

  51

  51

  50

  14

  -3

  Portugal

  53

  69

  87

  96

  85

  6

  60

  Spain

  60

  38

  51

  61

  67

  10

  11

  Sweden

  65

  57

  58

  56

  57

  11=

  -12

  Switzerland

  58

  62

  68

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Turkey

  2

  171

  147

  130

  100

  2

  2

  United Kingdom

  191

  188

  90

  94

  96

  4

  16

  England and Wales

  87

  86

  88

  92

  94

  3

  8

  Scotland

  101

  90

  97

  109

  109

  3

  9

  Northern Ireland

  1162

  1156

  135

  125

  121

  3

  1-25

  Source: Council of Europe, Prison Information Bulletin, number 9 and earlier issues.

  1 Based on additional figures provided by the Northern Ireland Office.

  2 Not available.

  3Not shown.

  British Citizens Overseas (Franchise)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the Government's proposals to extend the franchise for British citizens overseas; and what plans he has for consultation about this matter.
  286
  since 1983 in the United Kingdom; what information he has as to the comparable figures for each member state of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  Information published by the Council of Europe is shown in the table. The Council of Europe publishes information on the prison population in member states twice a year in its "Prison Information Bulletin'', copies of which are held in the Library.

  The figures for different countries are unlikely to be strictly comparable because the definitions of prisons and prisoners vary from one country to another, reflecting different legal and administrative systems. Such differences may have a substantial effect on the comparisons. However, the most recent information indicates that on 1 February 1987 the prison population per 100,000 inhabitants in the United Kingdom, at 96, was the fourth highest among 19 member states; for seven of the 19 states, including France and Germany, the rate was over 80 per 100,000 inhabitants. Between February 1983 and February 1987, the prison population per 100,000 inhabitants increased in 13 of the member states. In England and Wales the increase was 8 per cent. This increase was substantially lower than in several other countries: Portugal (60 per cent.), Ireland (46 per cent.), Luxembourg (37 per cent.), France (31 per cent.), Netherlands (29 per cent.) and Cyprus (28 per cent.).

  Mr. Hurd
  During this Parliament I intend to bring forward legislation to extend the eligibility of British citizens living overseas to register as electors in this country. I have placed in the Library copies of a consultation paper which the Home Departments are issuing today to representatives of the local authorities,
  287
  electoral registration officers, and main political parties. This discusses possible ways of giving effect to our manifesto commitment to British citizens overseas.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Personal Computers (Exports)
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received concerning the effect of current restrictions on the temporary export of personal computers by British business men; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am aware of the problems which controls on the temporary export of personal computers have been causing British business men. In agreement with Her Majesty's Customs, steps have been taken to ease the burden. An export licence will no longer be required for the temporary export to most free world destinations of many small personal computers for the visitor's own use.

  Radioactive Packages (Export Licences)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether any export licences were granted in the years(a) 1970 to May 1979, and (b) May 1979 to the present to Amersham International plc, or its predecessor, the Radiochemical Centre, for shipments of radioactive packages from the United Kingdom to the Centre Etudes Nuclêairs at Mol in Belgium.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to make public information of this kind.

WALES

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what courses are available in Wales for nurses and midwives to undertake further training to improve the scope and standard of their skills.

  Mr. Grist
  The following courses are available in Wales to enable nurses and midwives to undertake further training to improve the scope and standard of their skills:

  Courses approved by Welsh National Board
  (a) Courses approved by the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (WNB) and qualifications recorded on the register of nurses, midwives and health visitors. This training covers First and Second level registration.

  Registered General Nurse

  Registered Mental Nurse

  Registered Mental Handicap Nurse

  Sick Children's Nurse

  Enrolled Nurse (General)

  Midwifery

  Health Visitor

  (b) Courses approved by the Welsh National Board as continuing education.

  District Nurse

  District Enrolled Nurse

  Fieldwork Teacher

  Practical Work Teacher

  Advanced Diploma in Midwifery

  Certificate of Further Education

  Practice Nurse

  Supervisor of Supervised Practice

  288

  Assessor of Supervised Practice

  General Intensive Care Nursing for EN(G)

  Operating Department Nursing for RGN/RSCN

  Operating Department Nursing for EN(G)

  Accident and Emergency Nursing for RGN

  Orthopaedic Nursing for RGN

  Orthopaedic Nursing for EN(G)

  Oncological Nursing for RGN

  Cardiac Nursing for RGN

  Burns and Plastic Surgery Nursing RGN

  Nursing Elderly People for RGN/ENG(G) RMN/ EN(M)/RNMH/EN(MH)

  Special and Intensive Nursing Care of the Newborn for RGN/RSCN/RM

  Family Planning Nursing for RGN/RMN/RNMH/ RSCN/RM/RHV

  Principles of Intensive Care for RGN/RSCN

  Continuing Care of the Dying Patient and the Family

  Care and Management of Persons with Aids

  (WNB Revised) Developments in Mental Handicap Care

  Nursing Elderly People

  Introduction of Promotion of Continence and Managment of Incontinence

  Introduction to the Understanding and Application of Research

  Teaching and assessing in Clinical Practice

  WNB/CCETSW Working together with Mentally Handicapped People: The Team Approach

  Community psychiatric nursing

  Refresher courses for nurse teachers and midwives

  Courses which are not directly approved by, or under the control of the Welsh National Board
  (a) Courses run by University College of Wales, Cardiff. Batchelor in Education (full nursing option for any nurse wishing to become a nurse teacher)
  Postgraduate Certificate/Certificate in Education (enabling nurses to register as teachers of nurses)
  (b) Courses run by University College of Wales, Swansea, Institute of Health Care Studies.

  Diploma in Nurse Training

  Diploma in Health Visiting

  Research Appreciation Course

  Research Training Programme

  Advanced Diploma in Midwifery

  Diploma in Health Visiting Care

  Refresher Courses for Nurses and Health Visitors

  working in the Community

  Introduction to Counselling

  Advanced Counselling

  Care of the Patient with Cancer

  Bereavement in Pregnancy and the Early Neonatal Period

  Practical Work Teacher and Field Work Courses

  Promotion of Continence and Better Management of Incontinence in the Community

  Welsh Nurse Management Development Course

  Standards of Care and Quality Assurance

  Supervisor of Supervised Practice

  AIDS: The Nursing perspective

  (c) Courses run by the University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff

  BN (Bachelor in Nursing)

  BN (Masters in Nursing)

  Health Visiting and District Nursing Course

  Fieldwork Teacher and Fieldwork Courses

  (d) Courses run by the North East Wales Institute of Higher Education, Wrexham

  Bachelor in Education (contains full nursing option for any nurse wishing to become a nurse teacher) Diploma in Nursing Studies

  Health Visiting and District Nurse Training Course

  Practical Working Teachers Training for Health

  Visitors and District Nurses

  Courses for the Enrolled Nurse who wishes to become a District Nurse

  Primary Nurse Course

  (e) Courses jointly run by South Glamorgan School of Nursing and South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Bachelor in Nursing (4 year part-time course; leads to Diploma in Nursing Studies after 2 years)

  (f) Course run by the Manpower Consultancy Service of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  Welsh Management Development Scheme for Nurses and Professions Allied to Medicine

  (g) Schemes run by the National Health Service Training Authority

  General Management Training Schemes. 1, 2 and 3 which together form the National Accelerated Development Programme for management training in the NHS. The scheme is open to nurses and midwives

  (h) Courses run by the Open University

  A systematic approach to Nursing care

  Mental Handicap: patterns for living

  Coronary Heart Disease

  Drug use and Misuse

  Caring for Older People

  Caring for Children and the Young

  Mental Health problems in Old Age [from May 1988]

  In addition to these courses, district health authorities in Wales run their own post-basic education courses geared

  Clwyd

  E. Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwy-nedd

  M. Glam

  Pembs

  Powys

  S. Glam

  W. Glam

  WHC-SA

  Wales

  Medical and Dental (Hospital based)

  246

  167

  288

  134

  336

  59

  15

  630

  274

  —

  2,149

  Medical and Dental (Community based)

  41

  30

  57

  31

  56

  11

  17

  44

  34

  —

  321

  Nursing and Midwifery (Hospital based)

  3,296

  1,926

  3,939

  1,796

  4,671

  565

  992

  4,171

  3,059

  —

  24,415

  Nursing and Midwifery (Community based)

  375

  244

  415

  235

  489

  111

  112

  425

  366

  —

  2,772

  Professional and Technical

  535

  333

  684

  367

  686

  115

  117

  1,341

  590

  3

  4,771

  Works and Maintenance

  221

  159

  300

  161

  404

  39

  91

  400

  271

  166

  2,212

  Administrative and Clerical

  779

  517

  947

  560

  1,067

  166

  171

  1,424

  798

  495

  6,924

  Ambulance

  187

  141

  256

  185

  283

  46

  114

  193

  157

  —

  1,562

  Ancillary

  1,221

  795

  1,562

  812

  1,978

  204

  372

  1,859

  1,395

  12

  10,210

  Total all staff

  6,901

  4,312

  8,448

  4,281

  9,970

  1,316

  2,001

  10,487

  6,944

  676

  55,336

  A breakdown between hospital and community staff for 1987 is not yet available. Overall figures as at 30 September 1987 are given in the table.

  Clwyd

  E. Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  M. Glam

  Pembs

  Powys

  S.Glam

  W. Glam

  WHCSA

  Wales

  Medical and Dental1

  287

  197

  345

  165

  392

  70

  32

  674

  308

  —

  2,470

  Nursing and Midwifery

  3,673

  2,194

  4,337

  2,088

  5,413

  679

  1,125

  4,752

  3,503

  —

  27,764

  Professional and Techincal

  553

  345

  725

  370

  723

  131

  118

  1,407

  621

  —

  4,993

  Works and Maintenance

  217

  154

  311

  151

  401

  31

  90

  388

  249

  176

  2,168

  Administrative and Clerical

  800

  518

  965

  541

  1,097

  174

  193

  1,490

  824

  485

  7,087

  Ambulance

  191

  150

  245

  186

  279

  46

  119

  207

  166

  —

  1,589

  Ancillary

  1,186

  729

  1,492

  770

  1,860

  216

  359

  1,818

  1,368

  12

  9,810

  Total all staff

  6,907

  4,287

  8,420

  4,271

  10,165

  1,347

  2,036

  10,736

  7,039

  673

  55,881

  1 Figures for 1987 are not yet available; 1986 figures included.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the average payment and the percentage increases in the Welsh water rate in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the table:
  290
  to meeting their own individual needs. These include staff nurse development programmes for newly qualified staff nurses.

  Hospitals (Staffing)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the recommended staffing levels by patient category in Welsh hospitals; and what are the current staffing levels.

  Mr. Grist
  There are no recommended staffing levels by patient category in hospitals. The determination of appropriate staffing levels is an operational matter for individual health authorities.

  Staff numbers by individual hospitals are not held centrally. With the exception of medical and dental staff and nursing and midwifery staff, information which is held centrally does not distinguish between community and hospital based staff.

  The table provides a breakdown by authority, and between hospital and community based staff where appropriate, at 30 September 1986:

  Welsh Water Authority: average household bill

  £

  Percentage1

  1975–76

  37·44

  —

  1976–77

  43·91

  17·3

  1977–78

  47·66

  8·5

  1978–79

  44·11

  (7·4)

  1979–80

  49·08

  11·3

  1980–81

  60·38

  23·0

  1981–82

  66·76

  10·6

  291

  £

  Percentage1

  1982–83

  281·34

  21·8

  1983–84

  86·35

  6·2

  1984–85

  92·77

  7·4

  1985–86

  103·91

  12·0

  1986–87

  114·01

  9·7

  1987–88

  122·61

  7·5

  1988–89

  134·57

  9·7

  1 Percentage increase over previous year.

  2 The rateable value was increased from £120 to £124 in 1982–83.

  Notes: Comparable figures are not available for 1974–75 for the average household.

  In 1978–79 the average bill decreased by 7·4 per cent. over the previous year.

  Gross capital expenditure in 1986–87

  £ million

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Local authorities

  53·004

  41·956

  87·344

  27·665

  80·329

  15·357

  62·458

  61·611

  Direct central Government:

  (i) health1

  6·109

  7·405

  6·976

  2·579

  6·753

  1·269

  10·726

  12·167

  (ii) roads

  27·584

  19·414

  8·508

  25·162

  9·199

  3·222

  3·813

  2·253

  (iii) agricultural grants2

  1·971

  4·245

  0·400

  2·361

  0·362

  4·757

  0·066

  0·254

  1 Health authority capital expenditure, excluding residual WHCSA expenditure.

  2 Net of EC receipts and excluding the Agriculture Improvement Scheme.

  For details of regional development grant and regional selective assistance expenditure, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 24 February, Official Report columns 215–16.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing for each county and for each district in Wales the number and the cost of schemes approved by his Department under the urban aid programme since 1974.

  Mr. Grist
  Information prior to 1979–80 is not available in the form required. Since that time the total allocations made to individual local authorities and the number of new schemes approved are as follows:

  Local authorities

  Allocation £ million

  Number of new schemes

  Clwyd County Council

  10·2

  57

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  3·6

  39

  Colwyn Borough Council

  0·2

  6

  Delyn Borough Council

  7·8

  47

  Glyndwr District Council

  0·2

  4

  Rhuddlan Borough Council

  0·2

  5

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  7·7

  70

  Dyfed County Council

  3·4

  29

  Carmarthen District Council

  0·2

  4

  Ceredigion District Council

  0·1

  2

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  1·4

  17

  Llanelli Borough Council

  5·2

  50

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  2·4

  22

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  2·3

  26

  Gwent County Council

  5·7

  50

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  7·7

  109

  Islwyn Borough Council

  3·4

  70

  Monmouth District Council

  0·2

  2

  Newport Borough Council

  8·3

  98

  Torfaen Borough Council

  2·7

  48

  Gwynedd County Council

  4·9

  30

  Central and Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table indicating the capital expenditure by central and local government departments in each of the counties of Wales for 1986–87.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  A breakdown of the totality of central Government expenditure in Wales is not readily available in the form requested. However, for the major programmes within my responsibility, the information is estimated to be as follows:

  Local authorities

  Allocation £ million

  Number of new schemes

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  0·1

  3

  Arfon Borough Council

  2·5

  34

  Dwyfor District Council

  0

  0

  Meirionnydd District Council

  0·9

  2

  Ynys Môn Borough Council

  1·0

  10

  Mid Glamorgan County Council

  9·3

  82

  Cynnon Valley Borough Council

  4·2

  68

  Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council

  5·3

  67

  Ogwr Borough Council

  2·9

  34

  Rhondda Borough Council

  8·0

  101

  Rhymney Valley District Council

  4·6

  36

  Taff-Ely Borough Council

  1·5

  21

  Powys County Council

  0·6

  9

  Brecknock Borough Council

  0·4

  3

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  0·1

  4

  Radnor District Council

  0·1

  1

  South Glamorgan County Council

  9·9

  129

  Cardiff County Council

  8·3

  87

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  2·2

  32

  West Glamorgan County Council

  4·8

  59

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  3·7

  61

  Lliw Valley Borough Council

  0·8

  9

  Neath Borough Council

  3·4

  40

  Swansea County Council

  6·7

  83

  Welsh Crafts Industry
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make an announcement concerning the future financing, structure and marketing of the Welsh crafts industry.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I announced a comprehensive packagoe of support for the Welsh craft industry on 27 April. The arrangements have been welcomed by all the key bodies involved, including the Welsh Development Agency, Mid-Wales Development and the Wales Craft Council.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those primary schools in Powys which(a) have classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction of first or second language pupils, (b) have classes of first or second language pupils where some of the teaching is through the medium of Welsh, and (c) teach no Welsh or where Welsh is taught as a second language but not used as a teaching medium.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  POWYS SCHOOLS WITH SOME CLASSES WHERE WELSH IS THE SOLE OR MAIN MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
  School Names

  Banw County Primary School

  Carno County Primary School

  Llanfair Caereinion County Primary School

  Machynlleth County Primary Junior

  Trefeglwys County Primary School

  Ardwyn Nursery and Infants School

  Machynlleth County Primary School

  Ysgol Maesydre

  Hafren County Primary School

  Llanfyllin County Primary School

  Ysgol Glantwymyn

  Ysgol Pennant

  Llanwrtyd Wells County Primary

  Cwmtwrch County Primary School

  Ysgol Gymraeg Ynyscedwyn County Primary

  Ysgol Y Bannau

  C. in W. Llanerfyl School

  Trefonnen C. in W. School

  POWYS SCHOOLS WITH TEACHING THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH AS A FIRST OR SECOND LANGUAGE
  School Name

  Llanbrynmair County Primary School

  Llanwddyn County Primary School

  Meifod County Primary School

  Pontrobert County Primary School

  Cynlais County Primary School

  Gurnos Infant School

  Penycae County Primary School

  Bronllys County Primary School

  Llanfihangel C. in W. (A)

  Velindre C. in W. School

  POWYS SCHOOLS WITH NO TEACHING THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH
  School Name

  Aberhafesp C. P. School

  Abermule Dolforwyn School

  Arddleen C. P. School

  Berriew C. P. School

  Caersws C. P. School

  Carreghofa C. P. School

  Dolfor C. P. School

  Leighton C. P. School

  Llandinam C. P. School

  Llangurig C. P. School

  Pantycrai C. P. School

  Penygloddfa C. P. School

  Trefnanney C. P. School

  Tregynon C. P. School

  Ladywell Green N. & I. School

  Guilsfield C. P. School

  Llanidloes C. P. School

  Buttington/Trewern C. P.

  Brynhafren C. P. School

  Churchstoke C. P. School

  Maesyrhandir C. P. School

  Oldford Nurs. & Inf. School

  Treowen C. P. School

  Franksbridge C. P. School

  Llanbister C. P. School

  Llandrindod Wells C. P. School

  Llanfihangel Rhydithon C. P

  294

  Bwlch-Y-Sarnau C. P. School

  Rhosgoch C. P. School

  Presteigne C. P. School

  Radnor Valley C. P. School

  Crossgates C. P. School

  Mount Street C. P. School

  Libanus C. P. School

  Builth Wells C. P. School

  Cray C. P. School

  Defynnog C. P. School

  Trecastle C. P. School

  Ysgol Thomas Stephens

  Gurnos C. P. Junior

  Penrhos C. P School

  Glanrhyd C. P. School

  Abercraf C. P. School

  Caehopkin C. P. School

  Colbren C. P. School

  Crickhowell C. P. School

  Llanigon C. P. School

  Cradoc C. P. School

  Hay-on-Wye C. P. School

  Llangynior C. P. School

  Talgarth C. P. School

  Irfon Valley C. P. School

  POWYS SCHOOLS WITH NO TEACHING THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH
  School name

  Llanfaes C.P. School

  Llanfechain C.I.W. School

  Manafon School

  Montgomery C.I.W. School

  Gungrog C.I.W. Infants School

  Bettws C.I.W. School

  Forden C.I.W. School

  Llandysilio C.I.W. School

  Castle Caereinion C.I.W.

  Beguildy C.I.W. School

  Gladestry C.I.W. School

  Howey V.C.P. School

  Newbridge-on-Wye V.P.

  Nantmel C.E. School

  Clyro C.I.W. School

  Ffynnon Gynydd School

  Knighton C.I.W. School

  Rhayader C.I.W. School

  Llanelwedd C.I.W. School

  Llanfrynach C.I.W. School

  Cwmdu C.I.W. School

  Talybont-on-Usk C.I.W.

  Llangattock C.I.W. School

  Llangorse V.P. School

  Kerry C.I.W. School

  Llansantffraid C.I.W. Aided

  Sarn C.E. Aided School

  Whitton Dame Anna Child's End

  Glasbury C.I.W. (A) School

  Llanbedr C.I.W. (Aided)

  Archdeacon Griffiths Primary School

  Priory C.I.W. Primary School

  St. Joseph's Roman Catholic V.A. School

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those primary schools in Clwyd which(a) have classes where Welsh is the sole or main medium of instruction of first or second language pupils, (b) have classes of first or second language pupils where some of the teaching is through the medium of Welsh and (c) teach no Welsh, or where there are classes where Welsh is taught as a second language but not used as a teaching medium.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: The information is as follows:

  CLWYD SCHOOLS WITH SOME CLASSES WHERE WELSH IS THE SOLE OR MAIN MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION
  School name

  Ysgol Gymraeg Mornant

  Ysgol Glanrafon

  295

  Ysgol Terrig

  Ysgol Dewi Sant

  Ysgol Gwenffrwd

  Ysgol Glan Morfa

  Ysgol Bod Alaw

  Ysgol Dinmael

  Yr Ysgol Pentrefoelas

  Ysgol Gynradd Tynyfelin

  Ysgol Gynradd Cerrigydrudion

  Ysgol Gynradd Henllan

  Nantglyn County Primary School

  Rhydgaled County Primary School

  Ysgol Tan-y-Fron

  Ysgol Llannefydd

  Ysgol Bro Aled

  Twm O'R Nant School

  Llanarmon District County School

  Bro Cernyw School

  Ysgol Min-y-Ddol

  Clocaenog School

  Ysgol Gynradd Pentrecelyn

  Ysgol Caer Drewyn

  Ysgol Bryn Tabor

  Ysgol Y Llys

  Ysgol Bodhyfryd

  Ysgol Penbarras

  Ysgol Heol Caer

  Ysgol Hooson

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanrhaeadr

  Llangwm County Primary School

  Ysgol Gynradd Tremeirchion

  Ysgol Reoledig Pantpastynog

  Llanelian Aided Primary

  CLWYD SCHOOLS WITH TEACHING THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH AS A FIRST OR SECOND LANGUAGE
  School name

  Buckley C.P. School

  Ysgol Llanfynydd

  Rhoshelyg C.P. School

  Brynford C.P. School

  Ysgol Bodfari

  West Lea County Infants

  Bodnant Junior School

  Wepre Lane C.P. School

  Ysgol Esgob Morgan

  Llanfair Talhaiarn Shool

  Llwydgoed School

  Old Colwyn Junior School

  Llanfihangel Glyn Myfyr

  Cefn Meiriadoc C.P. School

  Ysgol Frongoch

  Ysgol Bryn Clwyd

  Ysgol Y Pare Infants School

  Ysgol Cynddelw

  Pontfadog C.P. School

  Llanrhaeadr Y.M. C.P. School

  Ysgol Bro Cynllaith

  Ysgol Gynradd Cyffylliog

  Ysgol Y Rhewl

  Betws Gwerfil Goch School

  Yr Ysgol Gynradd Carrog

  Yr Ysgol Gynradd Sirol

  Gwyddelwern C.P. School

  Llandrillo C.P. School

  Ysgol Gynradd Maes Hyfryd

  Rhes-Y-Cae Primary School

  Llantysilio Primary School

  Betws Yn Rhos Primary School

  Ysgol Reoledig Llanfair

  Borthyn VC Primary School

  Ysgol A Brynglwys

  Ysgol Eglwys Derwen

  CLWYD SCHOOLS WITH NO TEACHING THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF WELSH
  School name

  Ysgol Glan Aber county primary

  Merllyn county primary school

  Coed Talon county primary school

  Custom House Lane county primary school

  Dee Road infants school

  296

  Golftyn county primary infants school

  Ysgol Hiraddug Dyserth school

  Ewloe Green county primary school

  Bryn Garth county primary school

  Gwynedd county primary school

  Ysgol Maes Edwin school

  Greenfield county primary school

  Ysgol y Fron

  Perth-y-Terfyn infants school

  Ysgol Estyn Hope county primary school

  Ysgol Gynradd Licswm

  Mynydd Isa junior county primary school

  Northop Hall county primary school

  Bodnant infants school

  Rhuallt county primary school

  Ysgol y Castell county primary

  Christ Church county primary school

  Ysgol Llywelyn

  Wood Memorial county primary school

  Sealand county primary school

  Shotton county infants school

  Sychdyn county primary school

  Ysgol Trelogan

  Bryn Pennant county primary school

  Carmel county primary school

  Bryn Deva county primary school

  Sandycroft county primary school

  Gwernymynydd county primary school

  Ysgol y Faenol

  Ysgol Penmorfa

  Emmanuel county primary school

  Queensferry county primary school

  Bryn Coch county primary school

  Mountain Lane county primary school

  Ysgol y Foel

  Ysgol Melyd

  Bryn Gwalia county primary school

  Ysgol y Ddol

  Ysgol Bryn Hedydd

  Hawarden county infants school

  Ysgol Derwen

  Penyffordd county primary school

  The Rofft county primary school

  Golftyn junior school

  Saltney Ferry county primary school

  Wat's Dyke infant school

  Ysgol y Waun

  Taliesin junior school

  Abermorddu C.P. school

  Southdown C.P. school

  Drury C.P. school

  Broughton infants school

  Cornist Park infants school

  Ysgol Derwenfa

  Penarlag C.P. school

  Ysgol Owen Jones primary

  Broughton junior school

  Conwy Road infants C.P.

  Douglas Road infants school

  Llandrillo-Yn-Rhos junior

  Ysgol Babanod Mochdre

  Ysgol T. Gwynn Jones

  Penmaenrhos infants school

  Towyn junior C.P. school

  Abergele infant C.P. school

  Ysgol Cystennin

  Llandrillo-Yn-Rhos infants school

  Ysgol Y Foryd

  Gwaenynog infants C.P. school

  Froncysyllte C.P. school

  Garth C.P. school

  Chirk infants school

  Ceiriog junior C.P. school

  Madoc C.P. school

  Ysgol Gynradd Cefn Mawr

  Cefn Mawr infants C.P. school

  Johnstown junior C.P. school

  Penycae junior C.P. school

  Penycae infants school

  Ysgol Y Ponciau Primary

  297

  Ysgol Maes Y Llan primary

  Gellifor C.P. school

  Graianrhyd C.P. school

  Llanarmon Yn Ial C.P. school

  Acton Park junior C.P. school

  Alexandra C.P. junior school

  Alexandra infants C.P. school

  Brynteg County school

  Bwlchgwyn C.P. school

  Tanyfron C.P. school

  Gwersyllt junior C.P. school

  Gwynfryn C.P. school

  Park junior school

  Park C.P. infants school

  New Broughton junior school

  New Broughton infants school

  Pentre Broughton junior school

  Pentre Broughton infants C.P. school

  Penygelli junior school

  Penygelli infants school

  Rhosddu primary school

  Rhostyllen County Primary Infant School

  Victoria County Primary Junior School

  Victoria Infants County Primary School

  Hafod Y Wern Infants County Primary School

  Hafod Y Wern Junior School

  Gwenfro Infants County Primary School

  Gwenfro Junior County Primary School

  Rhostyllen Junior County Primary School

  Rhosymedre Junior County Primary School

  Acton Park County Primary Infant School

  Borras Park County Primary Infant School

  Deiniol County Primary School

  Borras Park Junior County Primary School

  Rhosymedre Infants County Primary

  Bryn Golau Infants School

  Barker's Lane County Primary School

  Wat's Dyke County Primary School

  Ysgol Y Drindod School

  St. Elfod Junior School

  Johnstown Infants School

  Ysgol John Davies

  Abbots Lane County Primary School

  Ysgol Sant Dunawd

  Ysgol Bryn Collen Llangollen

  Holt County Primary School

  Heulfre County Primary School

  Ysgol Gronant

  Ysgol Y Gaer

  Pendorlan Junior County Primary School

  Ysgol Tan Y Marian

  Rhos St. Ruthin English Med County Primary School

  Rhos County Primary School

  Ysgol Pen Y Bryn

  Nannerch Primary School

  Talwrn Green School

  Nercwys Primary School

  St. Asaph Infants School

  Higher Wych Primary School

  St. Peter's Primary School

  Ysgol-y-Wern

  Pentre Primary School

  St. George Primary School

  Llysfaen Primary School

  Eyton Primary School

  Isycoed Primary School

  Llanbedr Primary School

  Llangedwyn Primary School

  Trefnant Primary School

  St. Giles Junior School

  St. Giles Infants Schools

  Ysgol Llanddulas

  Bronington Primary School

  Ysgol Yr Esgob

  Madras Primary School

  St. Mary's R.C. Primary School

  St. Winefredes R.C. School

  St. David's R.C. Shop

  St. Anthonys R.C. Primary School

  Ven Edward Morgan R.C. Primary

  298

  St. Winefride's R.C. School

  Ysgol Mair, J.M. INF. R.C.

  Trelawnyd Primary School

  Rector Drew Primary School

  Whitford Primary School

  Hanmer Primary School

  St. Ethelwold's Primary School

  Pentrobin Primary School

  St. Joseph's R.C. Primary School

  St. Mary's R.C. Primary School

  Minera Primary School

  Gresford (All Saints) P. School

  St. Mary's Primary (Ruabon) School

  St. Mary's Primary (Brymbo) School

  St. Anne's R.C. Primary School

  St. Mary's C. in W. Aided School

EMPLOYMENT

  Nitrosamines (Safety Guidelines)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals and guidelines his Department is giving to industry to implement new machine design, material substitution, improved ventilation and hygiene to eradicate the possible cancer causing hazards of synthetic metal cutting and grinding fluids contaminated with nitrosamines.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has recently published guidance note EH49 entitled "Nitrosamines in synthetic metal cutting and grinding fluids". A copy will be placed in the Library. This guidance note is available to the general public through HMSO and gives information and guidance on the occurrence and hazards of nitrosamines in synthetic metal cutting fluids and the precautions needed to elimate or control those hazards.

  National Dock Labour Scheme
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the future of the national dock labour scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations calling for the scheme to be abolished. The Government have made clear that they understand the views expressed, but have explained that there are no present plans for change.

  Foreign Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the total costs incurred by his Department on foreign travel during the financial year 1987–88, identified by(a) ministerial travel and (b) travel abroad by civil servants.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 22 April 1988]: During the financial year 1987–88 approximately £50,000 was spent on travel abroad by Ministers and immediate staff and approximately £600,000 was spent on travel abroad by DE group officials.

SCOTLAND

  Rating Revaluation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the details of the system to be used to limit commercial rate increases after the 1990 revaluation.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last week announced plans to cushion Scottish businesses from the full effects of increases in their rates bills brought about by the 1990 revaluation. Our intention is to place a ceiling on the amount of the increase which any non-domestic ratepayer will face in any one year following the revaluation. We also recognise that, in the case of small businesses, rates tend to form a higher share of costs. We intend, therefore, to take power to provide more generous arrangements for small businesses. The levels of the ceilings and the definition of small businesses will be decided once the effects of the revaluation can be more clearly judged.

  Deprived Areas
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the criteria used in allocating grants to areas of deprivation; and if he will list those areas to which grants have been allocated.

  Mr. Lang
  Urban areas with levels of deprivation in the worst 10 per cent. in Scotland qualify for assistance under the urban programme. In the current year new grants have been allocated to a range of projects in all mainland regions except Borders and Highland regions. The eligible areas are listed on page 18 of "New Life for Urban Scotland" published on 29 March 1988.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning his recent consultative document on pesticide residues.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have to date received one substantive written response.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his long-term policy with regard to farm incomes.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government's policy is to promote a viable and competitive agricultural industry. The reforms of the CAP agreed at the recent European Council should lead to a better balance of supply and demand which should lead to farmers having greater stability in the long run and a better atmosphere within which to make sound business decisions about the future.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Education Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the cost per pupil of education 300
  in Northern Ireland at (a) primary and (b) secondary levels; what were the equivalent figures five and 10 years ago in cash and real terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The recurrent cost figures are as follows:

  1976–77 £

  1981–82 £

  1986–87 £

  Cash prices

  Primary

  257·28

  560·60

  794·18

  Secondary

  404·30

  853·05

  1,312·08

  Real terms

  Primary

  630·84

  716·27

  794·18

  Secondary

  991·32

  1,089·93

  1,312·08

  Unit expenditure in 1986–87 (the latest year for which figures are available) has more than trebled in cash terms from 1976–77 levels. In real terms the increases are over 25 per cent. and should be against a backcloth of falling enrolments, down more than 8 percent. (or 31,000 pupils) in these 10 years. This is clear evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to education in the Province.

  Adult Training Programme
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of, and if he will list, the respondents to the Department of Economic Development's advertisement in the Belfast Telegraph of 3 March on the new adult training programme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  A total of 367 persons and organisations responded to the Department's advertisement published in local newspapers throughout Northern Ireland during March 1988. These responses are being treated in confidence by the Department and it would not therefore be appropriate to list the respondents.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the applicability of the new arrangements for the adult training programme for Northern Ireland; and when the new arrangements will be announced.

  Mr. Viggers
  The new arrangements for adult training in Great Britain recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment do not extend to Northern Ireland. Consideration is now being given to the production of corresponding proposals for Northern Ireland which take account of the local circumstances. These proposals will be announced in due course.

  Economic Development
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the funds expended in 1986–87 and 1987–88 on economic development through the Industrial Development Board and the local enterprise development unit.

  Mr. Viggers
  Of the funds allocated to economic development in Northern Ireland in 1986–87 £107 million was expended by the Industrial Development Board and £25·5 million by the Local Enterprise Development Unit.
  301
  During the 1987–88 financial year expenditure by the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit was £99·5 million and £22 million respectively.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on community economic development; and if he will list the initiatives or projects supported or funded by the Department of Economic Development in 1986–87 and 1987–88 to stimulate this form of economic development.

  Mr. Viggers
  The Government are committed to encouraging local communities to play as full a part as possible in economic development and job creation throughout Northern Ireland. To this end the action for community employment scheme provides employment opportunities for persons who have been unemployed for more than one year in a wide range of projects of benefit to the community. In the year 1986–87 6,150 were employed under the ACE scheme at a cost of £28·54 million. In 1987–88 6,200 were employed at a cost of £28·84 million. As part of the ACE programme a pilot enterprise scheme was launched in May 1987 to help ACE workers move into self-employment. During 1987–88 a total of 84 applications were received under the scheme and of these 51 were approved. The local enterprise programme has supported the establishment of 35 locally based business-led enterprise groups capable of accommodating and supporting 1,000 small businesses and 3,000 jobs by the end of this year. Assistance totalling £3·5 million has been offered under the programme during the past two years.

  Substitute Teachers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the fact that one to two-day courses for teachers are ineligible for substitute cover, and the implications for health and safety standards, he will review the operation of substitute teacher regulations in primary schools in Northern Ireland with particular regard to allowing primary school principals to obtain a substitute teacher in the first and second day of absence.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A review of the substitution provision is being carried out by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  The teachers regulations provide that:

  in the case of primary schools with three or fewer teachers full substitute cover is provided;

  in the case of schools with an average daily enrolment of 222 pupils or fewer substitute cover is provided after the first day of a teacher's absence or from the first day if a teacher's absence is a planned absence of mor than one day's duration; and

  in all other schools substitute cover is provided after the second day on which a teacher is absent or from the first day of absence if the teacher's absence is a planned absence of more than two days' duration.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations from trade unions and individual teachers he received concerning the implementation of the substitute teacher regulations in primary schools.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Northern Ireland Teachers Council has raised the matter of substitution cover at the Negotiating committee on Teachers Salaries and 302
  Conditions of Service. Representations have also been made by the National Association of Head Teachers and by individual teachers of two primary schools.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial savings have been made by the Department of Education by the implementation of substitute teacher regulations in primary schools in Northern Ireland since September 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, in the period 1 September 1987 to 31 March 1988 compared with the corresponding period last year the number of days on which substitutions were employed in all schools, decreased by 25,000. This represents an estimated financial saving of £1·5 million, but this may not be wholly attributable to the introduction of the new substitutes provisions.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much per day it costs the Department of Education to employ a substitute teacher in a primary school in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the current average daily salary and associated employer's superannuation and national insurance contributions is £59.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many substitute teachers were employed in primary schools in each of the education and library boards in Northern Ireland in each academic year from 1980–81 to 1987–88;

  (2) what percentage of the primary education budget was allocated to the employment of substitute teachers in the primary sector in Northern Ireland in each academic year from 1980–81 to 1987–88.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the salary cost in the financial year 1987–88 (the only year for which figures are available) as a percentage of the total provisional expenditure on primary schools is 4·3 per cent.

  Belfast Action Teams
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the remit of the Belfast action teams; if he will list the budgets for each of the existing and proposed teams; and what funding has been made available to community groups under this initiative.

  Mr. Needham
  The remit of the Belfast action teams is to secure an improvement in the quality of life and opportunities for people living in areas of multiple social and economic deprivation through an area-based strategy involving the local community. The principal elements of this strategy are the creation of employment, the enhancement of employment opportunities, the better coordination where appropriate of public services and an improvement in the physical environment of the area. The existing four teams each have a budget of £500,000 per annum as will any further teams. During the financial year 1987–88 community groups received £626,000 under this initiative.

  Rates
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive tenants in receipt of supplementary benefit, having their rent deducted at source, will now be paying their 20 per cent. portion of rates through the post office.

  Mr. Needham
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I am informed by the chairman that the executive estimate that some 77,000 of its tenants previously in receipt of supplementary benefit will have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the rates on their homes.

  Of these 77,000, some 64,000 had previously their rent and rates charges met in full. The remainder had to meet charges because of non-dependants in the household.

  Housing Executive (Arbitration)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will for each of the contracts concerned indicate the date of the final certificates.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I have been advised by the chief executive that the dates of the final certificates for each of the contracts concerned were:

  (a) 30 May 1986

  (b) 19 March 1987

  (c) 20 January 1987

  (d) 12 May 1987

  Housing Executive Contracts
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to institute the practice of a technical audit for Housing Executive contracts, as recommended by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has already developed a system for the audit of its building contracts in line with the recommendations of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will for each of the contracts concerned give the actual sums paid at arbitration for (a) the clerks of works, (b) legal fees, (c) technical costs and (d) staff costs.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that no specific sums were paid at arbitration for the clerks of works; technical costs or staff costs. The following costs were paid by the Housing Executive in respect of contractors legal fees for each of the contracts concerned:

  (a)£2,990.

  (b)Nil.

  (c)Nil.

  (d)£2,500.

  304
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer of 23 March to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will indicate for each of the contracts concerned the date of (a) acceptance of tender, (b) the contract sum, (c) the contract period and (d) the date of possession of site.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the information is as follows:

  Acceptance of tender

  Contract sum £

  Contract period

  Date of possession of site

  (a) 18 May 1979

  147,636·96

  18 months

  31 May 1979

  (b) 23 March 1984

  120,108·00

  20 weeks

  31 March 1984

  (c) 27 July 1981

  202,056·00

  4 weeks

  17 August 1981

  (d) 20 October 1981

  125,531·85

  11 months

  9 November 1981

  Housing Executive (Arbitrations)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will indicate (a) the contractual date for completion and (b) the contractual date for final measurements for each of the contracts concerned.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the contractual dates for completion and final measurement respectively for each of the four contracts were:—

  (a) 18 November 1980 and 18 May 1981;

  (b) 13 August 1984: no specific date for final measurement was required in this form of demolition contract;

  (c) 17 December 1981 and 17 June 1982;

  (d) 9 October 1982 and 9 April 1983.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will indicate for each of the contracts concerned the amount of the bills of adjustments.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the amounts of the bills of adjustment for each of the contracts concerned were:—

  (a) £261,359·00

  (b) £163,780·84

  (c) £209,585·35

  (d) £164,384·00

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contractors began arbitration between themselves and the Housing Executive in the financial year 1986–87; what were the total sums claimed; how many of these arbitration proceedings were settled and at what cost to the executive during that year; and how many have been settled to date.
  305
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that eight contractors began arbitration in the year 1986–87; the total sum claimed was approximately £1·52 million; three of these arbitration proceedings were settled in 1986–87 at a total cost to the Housing Executive of approximately £34,420; and a total of five have been settled to date.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will for each of the contracts concerned indicate the amount certified at the dates of completion certificates.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the following amounts were certified at practical completion for each of the contracts concerned:

  (a) £188,473·43

  (b) £146,780·84: no provision was made in this type of demolition contract for a certificate of practical completion. This amount was determined when the contractor deemed the contract to have been completed.

  (c) £162,000.

  (d) £146,300.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will for each of the contracts concerned indicate the amount granted at arbitration and whether these amounts are included in the sums paid in respect of the bills of adjustments.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the following amounts were agreed in settlement between the parties for each of the contracts concerned and were included in the sums paid in respect of the bills of adjustment:

  (a) £9,500.

  (b) £17,000.

  (c) £12,420.

  (d) £5,000.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will indicate for each of the contracts concerned the date of the certificate of practical completion.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the dates of the certificate of practical completion for each of the contracts concerned were:

  (a) 22 January 1982;

  (b) No specific date;

  (c) 26 April 1982;

  (d) 20 September 1983.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, on 23 March,Official
  306
  Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will for each of the contracts concerned define the major points of claim.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the major points of claim for each of the contracts concerned were as follows:

  (a) Alleged failure to give possession of site; delay and disruption; failure to measure and value; breach of contract.

  (b) Alleged failure to give full vacant possession.

  (c) Alleged delay in nomination; water damage, delay and disruption; repayment of liquidated damages.

  (d) Alleged failure to give possession; delay and disruption; late nomination; failure to provide information; delays in payments; negligence; breach of contract.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, on 23 March,Official Report, column 169, about the Housing Executive, regarding the four arbitrations referred to, he will for each of the contracts concerned indicate the actual date of final measurement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I have been advised by the chief executive that the actual dates of final measurement for each of the four contracts concerned were:

  (a) June 1983;

  (b) March 1987;

  (c) August 1983;

  (d) October 1984.

  Rowland Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list in the Official Report those recommendations of the Rowland inquiry which have not been put into effect.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: None.

  Midwives
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each year since 1981 the number of whole-time equivalent qualified midwives working in Northern Ireland(a) in hospital maternity units, (b) in special care baby units, (c) in education and (d) as community midwives.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: The information requested is as follows:

  Whole-time equivalent (WTE) of qualified midwives

  Year

  Hospital1

  Education

  Community2

  1981

  841·17

  20·75

  116·20

  1982

  850·71

  22·42

  127·95

  1983

  858·52

  23·00

  132·21

  1984

  915·23

  23·50

  141·51

  1985

  907·80

  23·75

  143·24

  1986

  861·07

  24·50

  152·82

  1987

  877·20

  25·33

  169·10

  1 It is not possible to distinguish between midwives working in hospital maternity units and those working in special care baby

  307
  units.

  2 The WTE figure for community midwives includes 20 per cent. of the total WTE service provided by district/nurse midwives.

  Baby Care Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each year since 1981 the number of whole-time equivalent nurses working in Northern Ireland in(a) hospital maternity units and (b) special care baby units.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 26 April 1988]: It has not been possible to distinguish between nurses working in hospital maternity units and special care baby units. The combined totals are as follows:

  Nurses

  1981

  ..

  1982

  113,80

  1983

  108,47

  1984

  95,58

  1985

  115,15

  1986

  89,30

  1987

  100,52

  .. = Not available.

DEFENCE

  Exports (Value)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of British defence exports in 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The total figures for the value of defence exports for 1987 are not yet available. We hope to publish them in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988.

  21st Special Operations Squadron
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has to the date on which 21st Special Operations Squadron of the United States Air Force was activated; on what date it will become operational; what its role will be as declared to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; what British military facilities, other than RAF Woodbridge, are to be used by, or in support of, this unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The personnel and equipment of the unit which will be known as the United States Air Force 21st Special Operations Squadron are currently operational at RAF Woodbridge but the official designation of the new unit has yet to be formalised; the process is expected to be completed in June. The unit's role is to train and support United States Special Operations forces when deployed to the United Kingdom for operations in support of NATO by providing resupply and airlift. The helicopters of the squadron will also assume responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance as required. The squadron will be able to make use of the range of training and support facilities made available to United States forces stationed in the United Kingdom.

  RAF Fighter Controllers (Training)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many simulators have been installed at United Kingdom air defence ground environment radar stations 308
  to provide interception control training for RAF fighter controllers; when each one was installed; and what plans exist to install further such simulators.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Four simulators have been installed at United Kingdom air defence ground environment operational units to provide interception control training for RAF fighter controllers. They were installed between 1974 and 1980.

  The improved UKADGE is being equipped with a modern centralised interception control simulation facility, to which all RAF interceptor controllers will have access, in order to maintain operational standards.

  Air Defence
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to hold the first exercise to practise the movement of United Kingdom air defence ground environment mobile radar convoys.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The first such exercise took place in 1985.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sites have been identified for the deployment of decoy radars as part of the United Kingdom air defence ground environment.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  It is not our practice to give such details of operational plans.

  Trial Radar Installation (Bradwell)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the trial radar installation near Bradwell-on-Sea, Essex.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The facility near Bradwell-on-Sea was installed to investigate high-frequency, surface-wave radar technology.

  Bistatic Radar
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for the deployment of bistatic radar in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no firm plans for the deployment of bistatic radar in the United Kingdom.

  Air Defence Ground Environmental System
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what slippage has occurred in the date of full operational capability for the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environmental system since 1977;

  (2) what elements of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environmental system are already in operation.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment system is being introduced into service progressively over a number of years, in accordance with a plan which takes account of the need to maintain a continuous operational capability as the transition from the old to the new is accomplished. Not surprisingly for a system involving as many complex elements as this, there has been some slippage; costs have, however, remained within the terms of the fixed or firm
  309
  price contracts under which the system has been developed. The bulk of the equipment has already been built and installed with some elements of the system already in service use. The remaining elements will be introduced into service during the next few years.

  ALARM System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the expected final cost of the anti-radiation missile system — ALARM; and when is the expected date of entry into service;

  (2) what was the initial estimated cost of the anti-radiation missile system—ALARM; and what was the expected date of entry into service.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  At 1987–88 prices including VAT, the total cost of the ALARM missile system as estimated in 1983, at the time of the decision to procure it, was some £350 million; the current estimate is some £610 million, the great majority of which is represented by the fixed price contract recently announced. In 1983, the missile was expected to enter service in the late 1980s; on current plans it will do so in the early 1990s.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what lessons he has drawn for the process of decision-taking on procurement of missile systems from the process of choosing the anti-radiation missile system—ALARM;

  (2) what anti-radiation missile system was originally sought by the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A study has recently been completed on the arrangements for managing major projects, such as ALARM, in the Procurement Executive. A copy of the report "Learning From Experience" was placed in the Library on 30 March. In addition, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 March, at column 466, to my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis).

  As the House was told at the time, the decision taken in 1983 to buy ALARM in preference to HARM was not an easy one. Both options had advantages and disadvantages, and a wide range of complex factors had to be weighed. Both systems were operationally acceptable to the Royal Air Force. The process of evaluation and decision-taking was carried out with scrupulous care befitting the importance of the decision. The operational arguments were reviewed afresh last autumn and the clear conclusion was that ALARM was more suitable for the Royal Air Force's needs.

  Chemical Defence Establishment (Soviet Scientists)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed visit of Soviet scientists to the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I will make an announcement in due course.

  Submarines (Faulty Welding)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking with VSEL in respect of the incorrectly welded unit in a Trafalgar class submarine in August 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  SSN hull units contain a slightly thicker section at the keel to provide an internal corrosion 310
  element. The incorrectly welded unit has been measured and found to contain a sufficient element for corrosion and it is therefore intended to leave the unit where it is presently positioned. The performance and life of the submarine will not be affected.

  For the future, we shall be requiring VSEL to ensure that its quality control arrangements prevent such incidents happening again.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking on the VSEL report on Trident parts, lost off the Mull of Galloway and Walney Island on 5 to 6 February.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following the receipt of the report by VSEL in which the company identifies plans to put in hand a number of improvements to procedures, the Department is making arrangements to audit the implementation of these improvements.

  Courtney Hill, Newry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the six soldiers found hiding in an old school in the Courtney Hill area of Newry on 12 April were doing; why they were in plain clothes; why they were armed with pump action shotguns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I can confirm that four soldiers were in the building on 12 April. However, they were carrying out properly authorised duties, they were all in uniform and they were equipped with service issue weapons. It is not the practice to comment on the detail of operations.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what powers RAF Greenham Common was acquired and has been developed by his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  RAF Greenham Common was first developed as a wartime airbase in 1941 on parts of Greenham and Crookham commons under the provisions of the Defence Regulations conferred by the Emergency Powers Act 1939. The then Secretary of State for Air acquired the freehold of Crookham common in 1955 and Greenham common in 1960.

  The wartime Defence Regulations remained in force until 31 December 1958. Subsequent building work at RAF Greenham Common was then subject to the provisions of the Law of Property Act 1925, which lay down that consents are required from the Secretary of State for the Environment, over and above normal planning consultation, before building on land subject to rights of common. The rights of common at Greenham and Crookham commons are specific to a limited number of property owners and include rights to graze livestock and take gravel.

  Although the normal planning procedures applying to Crown Land have been scrupulously observed, no consents under the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Secretary of State for the Environment have been sought by the Ministry of Defence since the lapse of the wartime Defence Regulations. Consequently, doubts about the legal position have been raised.

  Additional facilities at RAF Greenham Common will be needed in connection with the inspection arrangements under the agreed verification regime once the INF treaty

  311
  is ratified. Steps therefore need to be taken to remove a legal obstacle to further construction which could impede this and other work.

  It has therefore been decided that the appropriate course would be to negotiate fair compensation for the legal extinction of the commoners' rights which we propose to pursue under the provisions of the Defence Act 1854.

  This matter is legally quite distinct from the question of the legality of the byelaws at RAF Greenham Common which has arisen as a result of the recent decision by the Reading Crown court, and has been raised in the House on 26 April 1988 at columns 190–91.

  Ships (Lost Components)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answers of 15 February,Official Report, colunns 448–50, what surveillance his Department exercises over Trident contractors, with particular reference to methods of transport used for delivering components and integral parts and the use of foreign-registered ships; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 29 February 1988: Trident contractors are subject to the same supervision as any other MOD suppliers, and the level of supervision is dependent on the security level of the equipment involved. The MOD instructions on security in industry included in these contracts permitted the use of foreign vessels for the transportation of this type of fabrication.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gulf War
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate fresh moves through the United Nations designed to bring the Iran-Iraq war to an end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have played a leading role as a permanent member of the Security Council to bring about a negotiated settlement to the Iran-Iraq conflict. We shall continue to do our utmost to support the United Nations Secretary General in his work to reach a settlement via United Nations Security Council resolution 598 and in such follow-up measures as may be necessary to achieve compliance with this mandatory resolution.

  Polygraph Testing
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the wider introduction of polygraph testing as recommended by the Security Commission in 1984.

  Mr. Mellor
  Following completion of the first phase of the polygraph pilot scheme, an independent scientific study of the evidence about the validity of polygraphic techniques was commissioned. When the results of this study have been assessed, a decision will be taken on whether to proceed with the second phase of the pilot scheme. There are no plans for wider introduction of the polygraph.

  Israel (Sanctions)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give consideration to the application of selective economic sanctions against Israel.

  Mr. Mellor
  Economic sanctions would not help bring about a solution of the problems of the region.

  Falklands Fishing Zone
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the economic progress in the Falklands fishing zone.

  Mr. Eggar
  The estimated revenue to the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) from fishing licences and trans-shipping fees for the 1987–88 financial year is £18·65 million. In addition, Stanley Fisheries Limited has received joint venture premiums of £6·2 million. This income has provided a substantial boost to FIG revenues.

  Intergovernmental Organisations
  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list in the Official Report the intergovernmental organisations, excluding the European Communities, of which the United Kingdom is a member, the amount of the United Kingdom's annual contribution to each organisation, the percentage of each organisation's budget which this represents and which Government Department accounts for each contribution.

  Mr. Eggar
  The policy of this Government is identical to that of its predecessors: to meet our obligations to international organisations in full and on time. Assessed United Kingdom contributions are usually determined by reference to a pre-set scale of assessment which varies from one organisation to another. Voluntary contributions are determined by the Minister concerned.

  For the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank group, the regional development banks and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, we seek equitable burden-sharing in the capital stock of each institution and in the soft fund replenishments.

  Budgetary matters are discussed with other countries as appropriate.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on a report issued by the United States Department of Defence in autumn 1987 on the problems of safeguarding and physical security of plutonium in international commerce; and if this report has any implication for safeguarding and security arrangements for planned air freighting of plutonium from BNFL, Sellafield, to Japan.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are obtaining a copy of the report, and I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the delays in the application for
  313
  entry clearance of Mrs. T. A. (Islamabad immigration office ref. 1mm 90912) about whom the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member for Stretford on 7 March; if he will expedite consideration of this application; and if he will give details of the expected time at which it will be resolved.

  Mr. Eggar
  The background to this application was explained in my letter of 7 March 1988. Further information since received by the embassy in Islamabad necessitated the case being referred to the Home Office on 12 April 1988 for decision. My hon. Friend will write further on this.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The usual forecast was deposited in the House earlier today. At present nine meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for May.

  At the EC/ASEAN meeting on 2–3 May, Ministers will discuss relations between the Community and ASEAN, and other international issues.

  The Internal Market Council meets on 3 May to discuss measures relevant to the completion of the single market.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 16–17 May to continue its discussions on the 1988 price-fixing proposals and to consider various proposals forming part of the programme for the completion of the single market.

  The Education Council meets on 24 May to discuss the European dimension in education, a proposal to increase awareness of Community in schools; the transition of young people from education to adult and working life; education and the environment; teaching of foreign languages; medium-term priorities for education cooperation; and prospects for COMETT (a scheme to promote high technology cooperation between industry and universities) and ERASMUS (a scheme to encourage students to spend time at European universities).

  The Foreign Affairs Council meets on 24–25 May. Discussions are expected to include the extension of the food aid framework regulation; preparation for the EC-Israel Co-operation Council; relations between the Community and the United States; progress made in negotiations with Hungary on a trade and co-operation agreement; implemention of the European Council conclusions on financing the Community; and dates for the 1989 European Parliamentary elections.

  The Industry Council on 27 May is likely to hold preliminary discussions on the future of ECSC steel production quotas.

  The Culture Council meets on 27 May to discuss priorities for further cultural co-operation at Community level and its implemention.

  The Health Council will meet on 31 May to discuss progress on two draft directives under the cancer programme concerning labelling of tobacco products and tar yield; proposals for the collection of epidemiological data and the exchange of information on other measures concerning AIDS; a Commission report on toxicology; health aspects of medical technology and data processing; biotechnology; and the authorisation of proprietary medicinal products.
  314
  The Development Council will meet on 31 May. Ministers are expected to discuss a draft resolution on the economic situation and adjustment process in sub-Saharan Africa; the European volunteer service; a report on financial and technical cooperation with developing Asian and Latin American countries from 1976 to 1986 and UNGA's mid-term review of the critical situation in sub-Saharan Africa. The Council will also review the first year of the operation of COMPEX, the system for compensating less developed countries not signatory to the ACP-EEC convention for loss of export earnings; and progress on food strategies.

  Foreign Diplomats
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by each diplomatic mission in London during 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which have incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payment.

  The total for 1987 (14,437) indicates a 35 per cent. reduction over the total 1986 figure (22,331) and is only 13 per cent. of the 1984 figure (108,845)—the last to be published before the introduction of our policy on parking by members of diplomatic missions in May 1985.

  We welcome the further reduction in unpaid parking fines that has been achieved during 1987 and appreciate the co-operation of diplomatic missions since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall, however, continue to monitor carefully the level of unpaid fines, and bring pressure to bear on diplomatic missions to reduce this further.

  1987 Total

  First six months

  Second six months

  Egypt

  799

  426

  373

  Soviet Union

  622

  271

  351

  China

  551

  245

  306

  France

  513

  481

  32

  Spain

  435

  271

  164

  Iraq

  424

  229

  195

  Qatar

  413

  178

  235

  Pakistan

  394

  251

  143

  Saudi Arabia

  382

  198

  184

  United Arab Emirates

  358

  233

  125

  Malaysia

  329

  201

  128

  Poland

  329

  150

  179

  Italy

  302

  187

  115

  Oman

  295

  253

  42

  Morocco

  263

  164

  99

  Greece

  258

  120

  138

  Turkey

  254

  103

  151

  Nigeria

  251

  88

  163

  Thailand

  246

  157

  89

  Sudan

  236

  116

  120

  Zimbabwe

  223

  150

  73

  Israel

  216

  116

  100

  India

  207

  104

  103

  Ghana

  205

  106

  99

  Sierra Leone

  189

  99

  90

  Kuwait

  186

  55

  131

  German Dem Rep

  185

  90

  95

  Iran

  183

  165

  18

  Algeria

  172

  91

  81

  Barbados

  172

  121

  51

  Portugal

  170

  111

  59

  315

  1987 Total

  First six months

  Second six months

  Tunisia

  166

  114

  52

  Jordan

  165

  106

  59

  Cameroon

  159

  56

  103

  Peru

  155

  83

  72

  Japan

  153

  74

  79

  Zaire

  150

  79

  71

  Brazil

  149

  84

  65

  Korea

  149

  98

  51

  Cote d'Ivoire

  138

  44

  94

  Kenya

  138

  41

  97

  Canada

  130

  94

  36

  German Fed Rep

  130

  74

  56

  Brunei

  127

  79

  48

  Venezuela

  116

  52

  64

  Yugoslavia

  104

  51

  53

  Cyprus

  96

  55

  41

  Burma

  88

  59

  29

  Ethiopia

  82

  48

  34

  Finland

  82

  52

  30

  Bulgaria

  80

  40

  40

  Gabon

  78

  47

  31

  United States

  77

  60

  17

  Chile

  76

  49

  27

  Ireland

  74

  44

  30

  Bangladesh

  71

  34

  37

  Liberia

  70

  42

  28

  Jamaica

  68

  32

  36

  Indonesia

  65

  43

  22

  Norway

  60

  27

  33

  Zambia

  60

  29

  31

  Romania

  59

  35

  24

  Sweden

  58

  30

  28

  Belgium

  57

  36

  21

  Uruguay

  55

  37

  18

  Hungary

  53

  38

  15

  PDR Yemen

  53

  31

  22

  Iceland

  51

  28

  23

  Tanzania

  48

  26

  22

  Philippines

  45

  29

  16

  Yemen Arab Republic

  44

  20

  24

  Senegal

  43

  13

  30

  Guyana

  42

  17

  25

  Lebanon

  41

  30

  11

  Somalia

  41

  21

  20

  Uganda

  41

  19

  22

  Fiji

  40

  23

  17

  Czechoslovakia

  38

  22

  16

  Mexico

  35

  30

  5

  Paraguay

  33

  13

  20

  Trinidad

  31

  13

  18

  Botswana

  29

  13

  16

  Gambia

  27

  0

  27

  Cuba

  26

  8

  18

  Mauritius

  25

  11

  14

  Ecuador

  24

  8

  16

  Colombia

  23

  12

  11

  Panama

  22

  10

  12

  Costa Rica

  20

  13

  7

  Lesotho

  19

  4

  15

  South Africa

  19

  16

  3

  Togo

  18

  10

  8

  Honduras

  16

  5

  11

  Antigua and Barbuda

  13

  5

  8

  Austria

  12

  12

  0

  Nepal

  10

  6

  4

  Nicaragua

  10

  5

  5

  Seychelles

  10

  2

  8

  Afghanistan

  8

  6

  2

  Eastern Caribbean

  8

  5

  3

  Sri Lanka

  8

  6

  2

  Bahamas

  7

  6

  1

  Bahrain

  6

  3

  3

  Malawi

  6

  3

  3

  Netherlands

  6

  3

  3

  Bolivia

  5

  3

  2

  Denmark

  5

  0

  5

  316

  1987 Total

  First six months

  Second six months

  Swaziland

  5

  3

  2

  Vietnam

  4

  2

  2

  Papua New Guinea

  3

  0

  3

  Dominica

  2

  1

  1

  Luxembourg

  2

  2

  0

  Singapore

  2

  2

  0

  Mongolia

  1

  0

  1

  Angola

  0

  0

  0

  Australia

  0

  0

  0

  El Salvador

  0

  0

  0

  Grenada

  0

  0

  0

  Guatemala

  0

  0

  0

  Holy See

  0

  0

  0

  Malta

  0

  0

  0

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  0

  Switzerland

  0

  0

  0

  Tonga

  0

  0

  0

  Intenational Organisations

  Commonwealth Secretary

  75

  40

  35

  WEU

  15

  6

  9

  IMO

  13

  5

  8

  Cocoa

  7

  1

  6

  United Nations

  0

  0

  0

  EEC

  0

  0

  0

  Coffee

  0

  0

  0

  Inmarsat

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  14,437

  8,068

  6,369

  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were allegedly committed in 1987 by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity; and how many foreign diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in that year as a result of alleged offences.

  Mr. Eggar
  Forty-three alleged serious offences by persons entitled to immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1987. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee "The Abuse of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges" (1985) as offences falling into a category which could in certain circumstances attract a penalty of six months or more; I am advised that very few of the alleged offences would have been likely to attract a custodial sentence. The majority involve drinking and driving and shoplifting. Eighteen diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in 1987 following alleged offences.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of married couples who will stand to gain in 1990–91 from transferring the married couple's allowance to the wife.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  About 600,000 married couples are expected to benefit from transferring the married couple's allowance to the wife in 1990–91.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much the value of income tax personal allowances has increased in real terms since 1979; how this amount has been distributed to each band of income taxpayers, both in total and in amount per taxpayer.
  317
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: With the increases announced in the 1988 Budget, the single and married man's personal allowances will have increased by 26·5 per cent. and 27·6 per cent; respectively, in real terms since 1978–79. The table shows the cost of

  Cost of real increases in personal allowances 1978–79 to 1988–89 at 1988–89 income levels and tax rates

  Total income

  Total cost

  Gain per taxpayer

  Single

  Married couple

  All

  Single

  Married couple

  All

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £

  £

  £

  Under 5,000

  390

  50

  440

  120

  130

  120

  5,000 to 10,000

  650

  580

  1,240

  140

  220

  170

  10,000 to 15,000

  260

  910

  1,170

  150

  270

  230

  15,000 to 20,000

  70

  720

  780

  140

  300

  270

  20,000 to 30,000

  50

  660

  710

  190

  330

  310

  30.000 to 50,000

  20

  270

  290

  250

  380

  370

  Over 50,000

  10

  80

  80

  260

  390

  370

  All

  1,450

  3,260

  4,710

  140

  280

  220

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reductions in income tax liabilities, at 1988–89 income levels, of the proposed 1988–89 allowances, thresholds and rates, and comparable figures for the 1978–79 regime indexed to 1988–89 showing(a) the number of tax units, (b) the total amount of reductions and (c) the average reduction per tax unit for the top 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of taxpayers and the bottom 1 per cent., 5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 50 per cent. of taxpayers.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: The information is given in the table. I regret that information for the bottom 1 per cent. and the bottom 5 per cent. of taxpayers is not available. Child tax allowances, which were being phased out in 1978–79, have been excluded from the comparison. The estimates are based on a projection of the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and are therefore provisional.

  Reductions in Income Tax Liabilities in 1988–89 compared with the 1978–79 Indexed Tax Reigime

  Point of income distribution 1 in 1988–89 Percentage

  Number of units2 paying tax in 1988–89 '000s

  Total reduction in tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £ million

  Average3 reduction in tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £ per year

  Top 1

  210

  4,740

  22,680

  Top 5

  1,050

  7,520

  7,200

  Income Tax and Income Tax + NIC as Percentages of Gross Earnings

  Multiples of average earnings

  2/3

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  1956–57 Tax

  10·4

  16·6

  24·8

  40·5

  55·2

  Tax + NIC

  14·0

  18·9

  26·0

  41·0

  55·4

  1978–79 Tax

  21·0

  25·0

  29·5

  50·5

  66·6

  Tax + NIC

  27·5

  31·5

  33·7

  52·2

  67·5

  1988–891 Tax

  17·3

  19·9

  24·5

  33·8

  36·9

  Tax + NIC

  26·3

  28·9

  30·1

  36·1

  38·0

  Married

  318
  these increases, including those for age allowances and the average reductions in income tax liability for single people and married couples at different levels of income. A11 estimates are provisional.

  Point of income distribution 1 in 1988–89 Percentage

  Number of units2 paying tax in 1988–89 '000s

  Total reduction in tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £ million

  Average3 reduction in tax compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime £ per year

  Top 10

  2,090

  9,410

  4,500

  Top20

  4,180

  11,950

  2,860

  Bottom 10

  2,090

  380

  120

  Bottom 20

  4,180

  810

  150

  Bottom 50

  10,450

  3,310

  290

  All taxpayers

  20,900

  20,000

  910

  1 Based on numbers of tax units expected to pay tax in 1988–89.

  2 Married couples count as one unit.

  2 Based on numbers of tax units liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime.

  Net Earnings
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1988–89 the information on real net earnings provided in his reply of 10 April 1986 to the hon Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field),Official Report. columns 193–4.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information on real net earnings and average rates of tax and national insurance contributions is in the tables.
  319

  Multiples of average earnings

  2/3

  1

  2

  5

  10

  1956–57 Tax

  5·1

  11·2

  22·0

  38·9

  54·2

  Tax + NIC

  8·6

  13·5

  23·1

  39·4

  54·4

  1978–79 Tax

  15·4

  21·3

  27·2

  48·8

  65·7

  Tax + NIC

  21·9

  27·8

  31·4

  50·5

  66·5

  1988–891 Tax

  12·9

  17·0

  22·2

  32·9

  36·4

  Tax + NIC

  21·9

  26·0

  27·8

  35·1

  37·6

  Changes in Real Net Earnings after Income Tax and NIC (1956–57= 100)

  Multiples of average earnings

  2/3

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Single

  1978–79

  124·9

  125·3

  132·8

  120·1

  108·3

  1988–891

  160·2

  164·1

  176·6

  202·7

  260·2

  Married

  1978–79

  126·8

  123·9

  132·4

  121·1

  109·0

  1988–891

  159·9

  160·3

  175·8

  200·2

  256·4

  1 Provisional.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the gain to the Exchequer of taxing child benefit for taxpayers at the 40 per cent. tax rate in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue yield in 1988–89 from taxing child benefit at 40 per cent. for those married couples and single parents facing a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent. for that year is estimated to be about £140 million.

  Walthamstow
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many top rate income tax payers there are in the Walthamstow constituency.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information is not available.

  Business Expansion Scheme
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many BES schemes during each year of the scheme have sought to raise under £500,000, between £500,000 and £1 million, and between £1 million and £2 million.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information is as follows:

  Number of companies

  Amount of investment per company

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–861

  1986–871

  Less than £500,000

  671

  745

  604

  620

  £500,000 to £1 million

  32

  33

  30

  27

  £1 million to £2 million

  8

  17

  18

  9

  Over £2 million

  4

  12

  18

  14

  Total

  715

  807

  670

  670

  1 Provisional. Final figures are expected to be slightly higher.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on setting a maximum acceptable annual loss to the Exchequer from mortgage tax relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Government remain committed to mortgage interest relief in helping people acquire their own homes. But relief remains confined to loans up to the loan relief limit, which is fixed each year and is currently £30,000.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people applying for(a) one set of mortgage tax relief on a property, (b) two sets of mortgage tax relief on one property and (c) three or more sets of mortgage tax relief on a property in 1987–88 and the cost to the Exchequer of the tax relief on the mortgages in excess of one per property.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: In 1987–88 there are estimated to be a total of about 8·4 million tax units benefiting from mortgage interest relief. Although firm information is not available, it is tentatively estimated that about half a million of these tax units (excluding married couples) are involved in multiple borrower mortgages. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of this estimate between the number of tax units involved in mortgages with two unmarried sharers and those with more than two unmarried sharers.

  The direct revenue cost in 1987–88 of the additional mortgage interest relief which is available to sharers is estimated to be of the order of £25 million.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the cost or saving to the Exchequer of(a) the changes to the mortgage tax relief given in the Budget and (b) limiting mortgage tax relief to £15,000 per person whether married or single.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The estimated yields arising in 1988–89 and 1989–90 from the changes to mortgage interest tax relief which were proposed in the Budget are:
  321

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Mortgage interest relief ceiling applied to residence

  negligible

  + 25

  Abolition of tax relief on new home improvement loans

  + 80

  + 200

  Abolition of tax relief on new loans for homes for dependent relatives and divorced or separated spouses

  negligible

  negligible

  It is estimated that the direct revenue yield in 1988–89 of the restriction of mortgage interest relief to a loan of up to £15,000 per individual would be about £320 million. This estimate is based on the mortgage interest rate of 10·25 per cent. prevailing at the beginning of 1988–89 and on the assumption that the new ceiling would apply to both existing and new loans. No account has been taken of any consequential changes to the distribution of mortgages.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most up-to-date estimate available on the inflationary effects of mortgage tax relief on house prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  House prices are affected by a large number of factors including disposable income, the cost and availability of mortgage finance and changes in the number of households. I am not aware of any recent study which concentrates on the effect of mortgage interest relief.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most up-to-date estimate of the annual loss of revenue to the Exchequer as a result of mortgage tax relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct revenue cost of mortgage tax relief in 1988–89 is estimated to be £4·25 billion. This estimate takes account of the recently announced reductions in the mortgage interest rate.

  MIRAS
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the inclusion of housing co-operatives funded jointly by the housing corporation and a building society in the mortgage interest relief at source scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Loans to approved housing associations, including co-operatives, are already within the scope of the mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS) scheme.

  Disabled People's Homes (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the withdrawal of tax relief on interest on loans to adapt houses occupied by disabled people.
  322
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A number of representations have been received on the subject of abolition of tax relief on interest on home improvement loans including several about its possible effect on homes occupied by disabled people.

  VAT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any further information to add to that contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South,Official Report, 24 March, columns 195–6, relating to the proposals of the Commission of the European Economic Community for extension of value added tax to specific goods or services hitherto exempt, together with the expected consequential yields to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. Lilley
  The hon. Member's previous question related specifically to zero rated, not exempt, items. The Commission has successfully challenged before the European Court the legal basis of the exemption of certain medical care goods. Of these, the only item with appreciable revenue implications is the supply of spectacles, where taxation at the standard rate of 15 per cent. would yield around £25 million per year.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing tax and national insurance contributions less child benefit, where appropriate, for 1988–89, and comparable figures for 1987–88 and 1978–79, with the multiples of average earnings as half, two thirds, one, five and 10 times for (a) a married couple, with part-time working spouse, (b) a married couple plus two children, with part-time working spouse and (c) a single person.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 March 1988]: Information on tax and national insurance contributions both at current prices and as a proportion of the appropriate multiple of average earnings is in the table.

  The multiples of average earnings for single people and husbands are based on average earnings for men in all occupations paid at adult rates who work a full week and whose pay is unaffected by absence. For part-time working spouses, the level of earnings is the appropriate multiple of the average part-time wage for women recorded in the new earnings survey. The levels of earnings for 1988–89 are projections in accordance with the assumptions given to the Government Actuary for reviewing national insurance contributions in paragraph 3·02 of the Autumn Statement 1987; the estimates for 1988–89 are therefore provisional.
  323

  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions1

  Multiple of average earnings3

  ½

  ⅔

  1

  5

  10

  £ per week

  As a per cent.4 of earnings

  £ per week

  As a per cent.4 of earnings

  £ per week

  As a per cent.4 of earnings

  £ per week

  As a percent.4 of earnings

  £ per week

  As a per cent4 of earnings

  Single person

  1978–79

  10·90

  23·6

  17·10

  27·5

  29·30

  31·5

  242·50

  52·2

  626·80

  67·5

  1987–88

  28·30

  24·8

  42·00

  27·7

  69·20

  30·5

  520·00

  45·8

  1,201·90

  52·9

  1988–89

  29·10

  23·8

  42·90

  26·3

  70·70

  28·9

  441·10

  36·1

  930·50

  38·0

  Married couple with part-time working spouse and no children

  1978–79

  7·40

  12·5

  14·70

  18·5

  29·40

  24·6

  286·30

  48·0

  728·20

  61·1

  1987–88

  21·20

  14·8

  36·80

  19·3

  68·60

  23·9

  614·60

  42·8

  1,413·90

  49·3

  1988–89

  21·90

  14·2

  37·90

  18·4

  70·00

  22·7

  535·30

  34·7

  1,135·90

  36·9

  Married couple plus two children with part-time working spouse2

  1978–79

  110

  1·9

  8·30

  10·4

  22·90

  19·2

  278·30

  46·7

  719·90

  60·4

  1987–88

  6·70

  4·7

  22·30

  11·7

  54·10

  18·8

  599·10

  41·8

  1,399·40

  48·8

  1988–89

  7·40

  4·8

  23·40

  11·4

  55·50

  18·0

  520·80

  33·8

  1,121·40

  36·4

  1 Assuming contracted in to the state earnings scheme.

  2 Less child benefit.

  3 Average earnings (£ per week) taken to be 1978–79 1987–88 1988–89

  Husbands and single people 92·9 227·3 244·7

  Part-time working spouses 26·3 59·5 63·4

  4 Tax and national insurance as a proportion of earnings.

  Budget
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the distribution of gains in the Budget from each item where tax changes were made at other than normal indexation, according to income bands as follows: less than £5,000 per year; £5,000 to £7,500; £7,500 to £10,000; £10,000 to £12,500; £12,500 to £15,000; £15,000 to £20,000; £20,000 to £30,000; £30,000 to

  Reduction in income tax liability in 1988–89 compared with indexation of the 1987–88 income tax regime

  Range of total income

  Tax units1 as a percentage of total liable to tax

  Increase in personal allowances

  Increase in basic rate limit

  Reduction in basic rate

  Abolition of higher rates above 40 per cent.

  Budget proposals for allowances, rates and thresholds

  per cent.

  Amount £ million

  Amount £ million

  Amount £ million

  Amount £ million

  Amount £ million

  As a percentage of total per cent.

  Less than £5,000

  12·2

  70

  —

  50

  —

  120

  2·0

  £5,000 to £7,500

  17·7

  110

  —

  210

  —

  320

  5·3

  £7,500 to £10,000

  15·9

  110

  —

  300

  —

  410

  6·8

  £10,000 to £12,500

  13·8

  120

  —

  350

  —

  470

  7·8

  £12,500 to £15,000

  10·9

  100

  —

  350

  —

  450

  7·4

  £15,000 to £20,000

  13·8

  140

  —

  590

  —

  730

  12·0

  £20,000 to £30,000

  10·9

  130

  40

  710

  10

  890

  14·7

  £30,000 to £50,000

  3·7

  60

  60

  330

  310

  760

  12·7

  Above £50,000

  1·1

  20

  20

  110

  1,750

  1,900

  31·3

  TOTAL

  100·0

  860

  120

  3,000

  2,070

  6,050

  100·0

  1 Counting married couples as one and combining their incomes. Under the Budget proposal it is estimated that 20·9 million tax units will pay tax in 1988–89.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1988 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his reply of 21 October 1986, to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher),Official Report, columns 807–8.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West,Official Report, 25 January, columns 79–82, regarding income gains and losses from successive Budgets, in the light of his latest budget.
  324
  £50,000; and above £50,000; and if he will indicate the percentage of total tax changes accruing to each group and the percentage of the total numbers of taxpayers that each group comprises.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The table shows the estimated change in income tax liability for individuals at 1988–89 levels of income resulting from the main Budget proposals compared with indexation of the 1987–88 income tax regime.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The information is in the tables. For each financial year shown, the tables compare the yield from the tax regime in that year with the 1978–79 tax regime. All the estimates are based on a provisional 1988–89 income base projected from the 1985–86 survey of personal incomes and all tax regimes have been indexed to 1988–89 levels according to the statutory formula. The comparisons therefore allow

  325
  for budgetary changes in income tax since 1978–79 but not for changes in definition or any other factors which might affect the income base.

  Reductions( + )/increase( — ) in income tax compared with 1978–79 indexed regime

  £ million

  Range of total income in 1988–89 £

  Number units paying tax in 1988–89 (miilion)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Under 5,000

  2·6

  180

  70

  -280

  -240

  -30

  90

  190

  220

  280

  400

  5,000 to 10,000

  7·0

  1,050

  600

  -310

  -210

  310

  650

  960

  1,230

  1,760

  2,490

  10,000 to 15,000

  5·2

  1,380

  1,000

  200

  290

  740

  1,120

  1,420

  1,780

  2,510

  3,430

  15,000 to 20,000

  2·9

  1,130

  850

  320

  380

  690

  970

  1,170

  1,470

  2,080

  2,810

  20,000 to 30,000

  2·3

  1,510

  1,230

  500

  590

  1,020

  1,360

  1,550

  1,910

  2,620

  3,510

  30,000 to 50,000

  0·8

  1,350

  1,170

  620

  680

  990

  1,280

  1,380

  1,530

  1,820

  2,580

  50,000 to 70,000

  0·1

  680

  620

  440

  460

  560

  700

  720

  740

  780

  1,250

  Over 70,000

  0·1

  1,750

  1,700

  1,540

  1,560

  1,640

  2,060

  2,070

  2,080

  2,100

  3,530

  Total

  20·9

  9,010

  7,220

  3,020

  3,510

  5,910

  8,220

  9,470

  10,960

  13,940

  20,000

  Average gain/loss( — ) per tax unit (£ per annum)

  Range of total income in 1988–89

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  £

  under 5,0001

  50

  20

  -80

  -70

  -10

  30

  60

  60

  80

  120

  5,000 to 10,0001

  150

  80

  -40

  -30

  40

  90

  130

  170

  240

  350

  10,000 to 15,000

  270

  190

  40

  60

  140

  220

  270

  340

  480

  660

  15,000 to 20,000

  390

  300

  110

  130

  240

  340

  410

  510

  720

  980

  20,000 to 30,000

  660

  540

  220

  260

  450

  600

  680

  840

  1,150

  1,540

  30,000 to 50,000

  1,740

  1,500

  800

  870

  1,270

  1,650

  1,770

  1,970

  2,340

  3,310

  50,000 to 70,000

  4,990

  4,560

  3,240

  3,380

  4,120

  5,150

  5,290

  5,440

  5,740

  9,160

  over 70,000

  18,620

  18,090

  16,380

  16,600

  17,450

  21,910

  22,020

  22,130

  22,340

  37,550

  Total

  410

  330

  140

  160

  270

  370

  430

  500

  630

  910

  Note:

  All information is in terms of tax units—that is married couples are counted as one and their incomes combined.

  1 Average gains are calculated by reference to the estimated number would be liable to pay tax under the indexed 1978–79 regime; this number is some 1,100.000 greater than the numbers paying tax in 1987–88, some 900,000 in the income range below £5,000 and 200,000 in the range £5,000 to £10,000.

  Income Tax and Personal Allowances
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gain to taxpayers at less than half, half to three-quarters, three-quarters to one, one to one and a half, one and a half to two, two to three, three to five and five to 10 and more than 10 times average earnings from the 2p cut in income tax and the rise in personal allowances; if he will specify these bands in pound sterling per year at current earnings; how many taxpayers are in each of these bands; and what percentage of the total number of taxpayers each group comprises.

  Reductions in income tax liability resulting from changes in allowances, the basic rate limit, and the basic rate in the 1988 Budget compared with indexation

  Gross income in 1988–89

  Number of single people and married couples gaining

  As a multiple of average earnings

  £ per year

  '000s

  Per cent. of total

  £ million2

  Less than 0·5

  less than 6,362

  14,700

  22

  270

  0·5–1

  6,362–12,724

  8,240

  39

  1,090

  1–1·5

  12,724–19,087

  4,530

  21

  1,020

  1·5–2

  19,087–25,449

  2,060

  10

  690

  2–3

  25,449·38,173

  1,150

  5

  590

  3–5

  38,173–63,622

  360

  2·5

  220

  326
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The table shows the total reductions in income tax liability for single people and married couples from the changes in personal allowances, the basic rate limit and the basic rate of income tax proposed in the 1988 Budget. The change in liability is in comparison with the 1987–88 tax regime indexed to 1988–89 levels. Incomes above the level corresponsing to five times average earnings have been combined into a single range to provide a more reliable estimate. Average earnings are those for full-time men in all occupations whose pay is unaffected by absence.
  327

  Gross income in 1988–89

  Number of single people and married couples gaining

  As a multiple of average earnings

  £ per year

  '000s

  Per cent. of total

  £ million2

  over 5

  over 63,622

  120

  0·5

  80

  Total

  21,150

  100

  3,980

  1 Includes 240,000 taken out of tax by increases in allowances.

  2 Total cost of reductions in full year.

  Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the savings in a full year at 1988–89 rates of restricting all allowances and reliefs to the standard rate of tax; and if he will provide a breakdown by category of allowance and relief.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 12 April 1988]: The direct revenue cost at 1988–89 levels of income of allowing personal tax allowances at rates in excess of the basic rate of income tax is estimated to be about £700 million. Information on the similar cost of other income tax reliefs is available only in respect of mortgage interest, retirement annuity premiums, employee's superannuation contributions, the business expansion scheme, and donations to charities; in total it is about £630 million. Within this total is a cost of about £280 million for mortgage interest relief and about £100 million for retirement annuity premiums. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the other individual reliefs. Nor is it possible to estimate precisely the combined yield from restricting these reliefs and personal allowances to the basic rate, but it is thought to be about £1,500 million. These estimates make no allowance for any possible behavioural effects if allowances and reliefs were to be restricted to the basic rate.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give the cost to the Exchequer in 1990–91 of allowing married couples the right to choose whether the husband or wife should have the married couple's allowance in their name; and if he will give the anticipated cost of the scheme as it is presently proposed;

  (2) if he will estimate the number of married couples who would pay less tax under a system which permitted them to elect which partner receives the new married couple's allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 12 April 1988]: In 1990–91 it is estimated that some 20,000 married couples where the wife is liable at the higher rate and the husband at the basic rate would benefit if they were allowed to elect which partner should receive the new married couple's allowance. Such a provision would cost approximately £5 million more than the independent taxation proposals in the Budget. For income tax, the revenue cost of these proposals in 1990–91 (based on the existing distribution of income and capital between husbands and wives) is estimated to be about £500 million.

  Taxpayers (Statistics)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the number of higher rate taxpayers in 1986–87 and 1987–88 living in each Scotland, England and Wales.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: For countries the latest estimates of the number of higher rate taxpayers (married couples and single people) are for 1985–86 and are as follows:

  Thousands

  Scotland

  76

  England

  849

  wales

  28

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the number of higher rate taxpayers in 1986–87 and 1987–88 living in each parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 19 April 1988]: I regret that the information is not available.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the tax liability in(a) 1987–88 and (b) 1988–89 of a married couple where the husband is earning £23,000 a year, has the use of a 2300cc company car in which he does 2,400 miles on business annually, and makes £5,520 by sale of approved share options and where the wife earns £17,000 a year and has the use of a 1600cc company car in which she travels more than 2,500 miles annually, assuming that mortgage interest of £3,000 annually is paid by the husband and that the couple elect to be taxed separately on earned income.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: The income tax and capital gains liabilities of the married couple in 1987–88 and 1988–89 would be:

  1987–88 £

  £988·89 £

  Income tax

  9,587·25

  9,331·75

  Capital gains tax

  0

  208·00

  Total

  9,487·25

  9,539·75

  The income tax liabilities shown are based on the assumptions that the married couple have no other forms of income or reliefs, that both company cars are under four years old and have an original market value of under £19,250 and that the wife drives between 2,500 and 18,000 miles on business travel in the year. The capital gains tax liabilities assume the husband makes a gain of £5,520 on the disposal of shares acquired under an approved share option scheme, that the couple make no other gains or losses in the year and that there is no indexation relief.
  329
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give figures following the tax changes announced in the Budget for the income tax and social security contributions as a percentage of gross income for a married couple with no dependent children on(a) £11,000, (b) £50,000 and (c) £75,000 a year making the same assumptions as used in the Inland Revenue publication "International Comparisons of Direct Tax on Employment Income" published in December 1987;

  (2) if he will give figures following the tax changes announced in the Budget for the income tax, tax and social security contributions less child benefit, as a percentage of gross income for a married couple with two dependent children on (a) £11,000, (b) £50,000, and (c) £75,000 a year making the same assumptions as used in the Inland Revenue publication "International Comparisons of Direct Tax on Employment Income" published in December 1987;

  (3) if he will give figures following the tax changes announced in the Budget for the income tax and social security contributions as a percentage of gross income for a single person on (a) £11,000, (b) £50,000, and (c) £75,000 a year making the same assumptions as used in the Inland Revenue publication "International Comparisons of Direct Tax on Employment Income" published in December 1987.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 21 April 1988]: The information is in the table.

  Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions as a percentage of gross income, 1988–89

  Annual earnings £

  Single person per cent.

  Married couple with no children per cent.

  Married couple with two children1 per cent.

  11,000

  28·1

  24·7

  17·8

  50,000

  35·0

  33·8

  32·3

  75,000

  36·6

  35·9

  34·8

  1 deducting child benefit.

  The calculations assume that all income is earned income, that the wife has no earnings, and that there are no reliefs or allowances other than the appropriate personal allowance. National insurance contributions are at the standard class 1 rate for employees contracted-in to the state additional (earnings-related) pension scheme. Child benefit is deducted from income tax and national insurance contributions in the calculations for married couples with children takes into account cash benefits for children.

  Political Parties
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the political parties are currently treated by the Inland Revenue as qualifying political parties for the purposes of section 24 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 21 April 1988]: The political parties which currently qualify are:

  Conservative

  Labour

  Labour and Co-operative

  Social and Liberal Democratic

  Social Democratic

  Scottish Nationalist

  Plaid Cymru

  Ulster Unionist

  330

  Democratic Unionist

  Social Democratic and Labour

  Budget (Gainers)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward proposals to establish a procedure for gainers from the recent Budget to refund part of their extra income to a public service of their own choosing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: No. Individuals are free to donate their own money to voluntary groups in areas where they would like to see extra spending; and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made tax relief available for payroll giving to charities in his 1986 Budget.

  Pensions
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the light of the lack of prior notice to the pensions industry about the measures contained in clause 53 of the Finance Bill, he will issue a press notice stating whether he is considering any further change to pensions legislation before the 1 July implementation date for personal pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 25 April 1988]: All but one of the measures contained in clause 53 were announced on Budget day. But the proposal—which has been widely welcomed—to allow members of occupational schemes to contract-out of the state earnings-related pension scheme through a personal pension could not then be announced as it was still under discussion between my Department and the Department of Health and Social Security. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be making consequential changes to social security regulations.

TRANSPORT

  M1 Leagrave, Luton
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider the provision of a higher fence on the section of the M1 that passes through Leagrave, Luton, to counteract noise and pollution.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I will consider the matter and then write to my hon. Friend.

  InterCity
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the cost per mile of travel to InterCity rail users in 1987; and what was the cost in 1979.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The figures for average fare per mile paid by InterCity passengers in the two years are as follows:

  Cash

  1987 prices

  1979

  4·4p

  7·9p

  1987

  7·9p

  17·9p

  1 provisional.

  In real terms, fares were no higher in 1987 than 1979.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide comprehensive and updated information on the proposed test flights by jet propelled aircraft from London City airport; what is the significance for future use by aircraft not yet able to use the airport by virtue of planning restrictions of definition of, or adjustments to, the public safety zones referred to in Departmental letter XQ/26/08 of 19 April; what is the approximate extent of the public safety zones described by grid co-ordinates attached to the letter; and what assessment(a) the Civil Aviation Authority and (b) his Department have made of the routes now used to and from the airport to Paris since resumption of flying in 1988.

  Mr. Channon
  Questions about test flights from London City airport (LCY) should be addressed to its owners John Mowlem plc.

  The public safety zones (PSZs) at LCY extend outwards in a funnel shape for 600 m. from the end of the runways. At the eastern end, the PSZ co-ordinates take account of both the present runway and its possible extension. If planning permission were granted for an extension, the runway could physically accommodate a wider variety of aircraft than now.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for aviation safety regulation including (with the Ministry of Defence) air traffic management. The authority remains of the view that each of the routes identified by its panel of inquiry for use between London City airport and Paris is suitable for that purpose.

  Radioactive Materials (Security)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will initiate an investigation into the present arrangements covering the transport on commercial aeroplanes of radioactive materials, in terms of special security measures against terrorist attack or hijack of the aircraft;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the International Civil Aviation Organisation over the air transport of radioactive materials under the United Nations recommendations for the transport of dangerous goods, section 7, in terms of special protective measures against terrorist attack or hijack;

  (3) if he has had any recent discussions with the International Civil Aviation Organisation over the adequacy of physical protection measures against aircraft hijack in the transport of dangerous goods under United Nations recommendations class 1, explosives, 2, gases, 3, flammable liquids, 4, flammable solids, 5, oxidising substances, 6, poisonous substances, 8, corrosives, and 9, miscellaneous dangerous goods.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation already lays down international standards and recommended practices for the safeguarding of international civil aviation against acts of unlawful interference: these embrace measures to counter hijacks and terrorist attacks on Civil aviation. The United Kingdom's civil aviation security programme reflects these international standards, tailored as necessary to meet specific threats applying to the United Kingdom. We shall 332
  continue to keep these and other security matters under review within the relevant international bodies, as appropriate.

  Radioactive Materials (Transport)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the Intertran and Radtran II computer codes developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency to model the radiological impact of the transport of nuclear materials.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  Intertran was developed from the American computer code Radtran-II by consultants working for the International Atomic Energy Agency. The safety and reliability directorate of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) has undertaken work on the code on behalf of UKAEA and the Department of Transport.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many events were recorded in the periods(a) 1964 to 1983 and (b) 1984 to 1987, in the transport of radioactive materials that either exceeded or had the potential to exceed the radiological impact associated with normal transport conditions.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  (a) Forty-two events recorded during this period involved radiation levels greater than those associated with normal transport conditions. But only 10 of them caused significant doses to the workers concerned, mostly from badly packaged industrial radiography equipment.

  (b) The information for this period is not yet available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the International Air Transport Authority over the current security measures to protect aircraft carrying radioactive materials from hijack.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  There have been no discussions with the International Air Transport Association (IATA). International development of civil aviation security standards is carried out by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The European civil aviation conference considers questions of aviation security in Europe and makes recommendations to its members. It is open to IATA to make representations to those international bodies.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the International Atomic Energy Agency over security measures for the air, sea or land transport of radioactive materials and physical protection measures against terrorist attack or hijack.

  Mr. David Mitchell
  The International Atomic Energy Agency already lays down recommendations on the standards for the physical protection of radioactive materials during transportation, and these standards are observed by the industry.

ENERGY

  British Gas
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many shareholders in British Gas did not pay
  333
  the final instalment for their shares by the deadline on 26 April; and how much money was outstanding for these shares.

  Mr. Parkinson
  At close of business on 26 April payments from more than 97 per cent. of investors had already been processed, leaving some 80,000 to go. This represented 99 per cent. of the £1,590 million instalment value. Since 26 April payments have been arriving at the rate of roughly 10,000 a day. Payments are still being accepted but any investor who has not paid at this stage is running an increasing risk of losing his shares.

  Nuclear Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if Nirex has agreed to take responsibility for the disposal of radioactive wastes arising from the reprocessing of Swedish spent nuclear fuel currently stored at Sellafield.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Nirex is currently developing proposals for a deep repository for low and intermediate-level wastes. Acceptance of particular wastes will depend on contracts to be negotiated when a disposal facility is available. It is expected that Nirex will accept wastes arising from all United Kingdom sources, including Sellafield.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total volume of(a) low-level nuclear wastes, (b) intermediate-level nuclear wastes, (c) high-level nuclear wastes, (d) depleted uranium and (e) plutonium expected to arise from all contracts signed (i) before 1976 and (ii) since 1976 with Swedish companies for the storage and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield.

  Mr. Parkinson
  All BNFL's reprocessing contracts with Swedish companies for reprocessing at Sellafield were signed before 1976. The products that will be obtained from this reprocessing are estimated at:

  (a) Low-level waste, 900 cubic metres.

  (b) Intermediate-level waste, 140 cubic metres.

  (c) High-level waste, 8 cubic metres.

  (d) Uranium, 136 tonnes.

  (e) Plutonium, 1 tonne.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the contracts signed before 1976 with Swedish companies for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel cover the management and disposal costs arising for low and intermediate-level nuclear wastes.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Contracts signed before 1976 with Swedish companies, in common with all contracts signed before 1976, for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel do not include options for the return of waste. All these contracts therefore cover the management and disposal costs in respect of the wastes arising from them.

  Nuclear Research
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all current international civil nuclear research projects in which the United Kingdom has involvement either in direct co-operation with other states or through involvement via multinational bodies; what financial commitment has been made in each year since the United Kingdom co-operation began; and if he will make a statement on present prospects for each collaborative project.
  334
  Mr. Parkinson
  United Kingdom bodies participate in the collaborative programmes of the International Atomic Energy Authority, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, and Euratom. They also take part in a number of multinational and bilateral research projects. Details of this participation cannot be assembled without disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what volumes of(a) low and (b) intermediate-level radioactive wastes are expected to arise from contracts currently signed for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) at Sellafield; and what plans exist for the nuclear waste arising from these contracts.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The likely arisings from BNFL's existing THORP reprocessing contracts are:

  (a) Low-level waste, 40,000 cubic metres.

  (b) Intermediate-level waste, 6,000 cubic metres.

  For wastes arising from pre-1976 contracts the low-level waste will be disposed of to Drigg and the intermediate-level waste will be sent to a United Kingdom repository. All post-1976 contracts include an option for the return of wastes, and we intend that this option should be exercised.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of the contracts signed with(a) the Italian nuclear authorities and (b) the Japanese nuclear authorities for the management of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield from the Latina and Tokai Mura magnox reactors, respectively, is designated to cover (i) the disposal of low and intermediate level wastes and (ii) high-level waste arising.

  Mr. Parkinson
  60 per cent. of contracts for the management of spent nuclear fuel from Latina and 55 per cent. of the contracts for the management of spent nuclear fuel from Tokai Mura cover disposal in respect of the wastes arising. The remaining contracts were all signed after 1976 and include options for the return of wastes arising. The Government intend that these options should be exercised.

  Coal Mining Subsidence Compensation
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the consultation document on the proposed legislation on coal mining subsidence compensation to be issued.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department of Energy has today issued a consultation document to interested parties. This sets out proposals for coalmining subsidence legislation following the publication on 29 October 1987 of the White Paper in reply to the Waddilove report on "The Repair and Compensation System for Coal Mining Subsidence" (Cm. 235).

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

SOCIAL SERVICES

  RAWP Levels
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services by what percentage the RAWP levels of the Thames regional health authorities require to be uplifted to compensate for the treatment of acute patients in private hospitals.
  335
  Mr. Newton
  I am not entirely clear what my hon. Friend has in mind; but the possibility of taking private provision into account in the RAWP formula was rejected on practical grounds in the interim report on the review of the RAWP formula published in December 1986.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the percentage of the National Health Service budget raised by(a) general taxation, (b) national insurance contributions and (c) charges in each of the last 30 years.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is as follows:

  NHS Sources of Finance—Percentage of Total by Year

  Financial year

  Consolidated Fund

  NHS contributions

  Charges

  Miscellaneous

  1957–58

  85·0

  9·5

  5·3

  0·3

  1958–59

  80·3

  14·4

  5·0

  03

  1959–60

  80·4

  14·5

  4·9

  0·3

  1960–61

  81·9

  13·3

  4·5

  0·2

  1961–62

  77·7

  16·5

  5·6

  0·2

  1962–63

  77·1

  17·2

  5·5

  0·2

  1963–64

  77·9

  16·4

  5·4

  0·3

  1964–65

  79·6

  15·0

  5·1

  0·4

  1965–66

  83·8

  13·3

  2·6

  0·2

  1966–67

  84·8

  12·4

  2·4

  0·3

  1967–68

  86·5

  10·9

  2·3

  0·3

  1968–69

  84·8

  11·8

  3·1

  0·3

  1969–70

  85·9

  10·3

  3·5

  0·3

  1970–71

  85·8

  10·8

  3·2

  0·3

  1971–72

  85·7

  10·3

  3·6

  0·5

  1972–73

  87·0

  9·0

  3·6

  0·4

  1973–74

  88·1

  7·9

  3·5

  0·5

  1974–75

  91·3

  5·7

  2·6

  0·4

  1975–76

  89·2

  8·5

  2·0

  0·3

  1976–77

  88·0

  9·7

  2·1

  0·2

  1977–78

  88·0

  9·6

  2·1

  0·3

  1978–79

  88·0

  9·6

  2·1

  0·3

  1979–80

  88·0

  9·5

  2·2

  0·3

  1980–81

  89·1

  8·2

  2·4

  0·3

  1981–82

  87·8

  9·4

  2·5

  0·3

  1982–83

  85·7

  11·3

  2·7

  0·3

  1983–84

  85·8

  11·0

  2·8

  0·4

  1984–85

  85·6

  11·1

  2·8

  0·5

  1985–86

  85·6

  11·0

  2·7

  0·7

  1986–871

  84·6

  11·6

  2·9

  0·9

  1987–881

  83·1

  13·2

  2·8

  0·9

  1 Estimated.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Chris Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has on studies carried out on the usage of operating theatres in National Health Service hospitals by Peat Marwick McLintock; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  I understand that Peat Marwick McLintock has undertaken such studies on behalf of some health authorities. The studies were funded from the health authorities' resources since they dealt with problems identified locally. Any reports produced are confidential to the commissioning authority and are not released to the Department without their agreement. This is part of the professional relationship which exists between client and consultant.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services why the Treasury guidelines for contracts with energy management companies offering energy-saving 336
  investment to health service establishments on a shared energy-saving basis and financed by the private sector, have still not been issued to regional and district health authorities.

  Mrs. Currie
  The joint Treasury-Department of Energy guidelines on the use of contract energy management were issued to regional health authority treasurers on an informal basis in November 1987. The Department hopes to issue formal guidance on this subject as soon as possible.

  Consultants
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list the total number of consultants in paediatric dentistry, by regional health authority for 1983 and 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  The latest available information is set out in the table. Staffing of hospital departments is a matter for health authorities in the light of their plans for the development of services.

  Table: Consultants in paediatric dentistry in England: numbers as at 30 September

  Region

  1983

  1986

  Northern

  —

  —

  Yorkshire

  1

  1

  Trent

  —

  —

  East Anglian

  —

  —

  North West Thames

  1

  1

  North East Thames

  —

  1

  South East Thames

  —

  3

  South West Thames

  1

  1

  Wessex

  —

  —

  Oxford

  —

  —

  South Western

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  —

  Mersey

  —

  3

  North Western

  —

  2

  SHAs for the London PG teaching hospitals

  4

  5

  England total

  7

  17

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list for each year from 1979 to 1987(a) the number of places in (i) private, (ii) voluntary and (iii) local authority residential homes for elderly people; (b) the number of places for elderly people in independent, voluntary and private, homes supported by supplementary benefit payments, (c) the total supplementary benefit expenditure in £million on supporting people in independent residential care for the elderly and (d) the average expenditure per person supported in independent residential care for the elderly.

  Mrs. Currie
  The available information on the number of places in residential care homes for elderly people is as follows:

  England as al 31 March

  Local Authority Homes

  Voluntary Homes

  Private Homes

  1985

  102,534

  26,402

  73,606

  1986

  101,466

  25,566

  86,925

  Separate data on residential homes for elderly people only are not available prior to 1985. Further information

  337
  on residential accommodation for elderly and younger disabled people for the years 1979–1986 is contained in the Department's publications "Residential Accommodation for the Elderly and for Younger Physically Handicapped People Local Authority Supported Residents — RA/ 86/1" and "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People — RA/86/2", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Separate information on supplementary benefit for people in independent residential care homes for elderly people has been available only since 1985. There were 35,200 claimants in such homes at May 1985, 48,900 at May 1986 and 61,600 at May 1987.

  Separate information on total expenditure and average payments to people in these homes is not available. Figures relating to all supplementary benefit claimants in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes were published in "Public Support for Residential Care" (the report of a joint central and local government working party), a copy of which is in the Library. Comparable figures for May 1987 are 117,000 claimants, receiving average payments of £ 104·6 (at February 1986 prices) with a total expenditure of £671 million.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if full-time participants on the new adult training scheme who have one or more children will be eligible for family credit.

  Mr. Scott
  Participation in the new adult training programme will not satisfy the family credit qualifying condition of remunerative work. Family credit could be payable, however, if the trainee's partner worked for 24 hours a week or more.

  Abortions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will list(a) the interval between each previous abortion performed for resident women in 1986 who have had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four or (v) five previous abortions, (h) the interval between each previous abortion performed for non-resident women in 1986 who have had (1) one, (2) two, (3) three, (4) four or (5) five previous abortions and (c) the ages of the women on the occasion of each abortion performed.

  Mr. Newton
  The abortion notification form asks for the number of previous abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 and the date of the last abortion, where applicable. There is no feasible method of linking notification forms in respect of women who have had more than one previous abortion. Thus, the only interval available is that between the current and previous abortion, and I regret that this can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Joan Chapman (Mobility Allowance)
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will indicate the date by which a decision will be reached by the Department's mobility allowance unit at Norcross, Blackpool, in the case of Mrs. Joan Chapman of 16 Windsor Court, Lichfield, Staffordshire.

  Mr. Scott
  A decision was made, and Mrs. Chapman was notified of it, on 20 April.

  Opren
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what information he has given to the medical profession regarding the reasons for the withdrawal of Opren's product licence; and if advice was given on the side effects that were thought to be associated with the drug and the periods of time for which they might last.

  Mr. Newton
  All doctors and pharmacists were sent a letter from the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines following the suspension of the product licence for Opren on 4 August 1982, giving the reasons for this action and advice. The letter drew attention to the numbers and types of reaction associated with Opren which had been reported, but not their duration. A copy of the letter is in the Library.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek advice from his medical advisers as to whether there are any circumstances in which they would recommend that Opren be prescribed for individual patients now that its product licence has been withdrawn.

  Mr. Newton
  Individual doctors in consultation with their patients are best placed to decide what should be prescribed in individual cases.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services on what basis the sum of £5 million has been set aside for funding the Independent Living Fund in 1988–89; and what proportion of this sum he expects to be expended on(a) administration and (b) publicity.

  Mr. Scott
  The sum actually allocated to the Independent Living Fund will depend on the number of applicants meeting the eligibility criteria. The £5 million which has been set aside for the fund initially represents our estimate of the maximum likely expenditure by the fund. Administration costs will depend on the volume of applications received. The level of expenditure on publicity once the fund is operational will be a matter for the trustees.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether payments from the Independent Living Fund to individuals will be made on(a) a weekly or (b) a monthly basis.

  Mr. Scott
  The method and frequency of payments from the Independent Living Fund will be a matter for the trustees to determine.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what account he expects the trustees of the Independent Living Fund to take of regional variations in costs and prices when assessing the levels of payments from the fund.

  Mr. Scott
  In determining the level of payments from the Independent Living Fund I would expect the trustees to have regard to the actual cost to individual applicants of employing personal care or domestic assistance.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is yet in a position to give details of the campaign to publicise the Independent Living Fund; and what is his assessment of the current level of awareness of its existence amongst potential claimants.
  339
  Mr. Scott
  We are proposing to mount a publicity campaign to coincide with the formal launch of the fund, and advertising consultants have been briefed to develop this. A press release was issued on 31 March giving an address for potential applicants and others interested in the fund to write to. To date some 100 inquiries from individuals, voluntary organisations and those professionally involved with disabled people have been received at this address.

  In addition the role of the fund has been brought to the attention of the Department's regional organisation. I also understand that information about the fund is being circulated to all citizens' advice bureaux. The level of inquiries received at this early stage indicates that many potential applicants are already aware of the fund's existence and purpose.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what categories of people will be appointed as trustees of the Independent Living Fund; who will administer the fund on a day-to-day basis; and what qualifications they will have to assess individual claims for disablement benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  Those appointed as trustees of the Independent Living Fund will be chosen to represent a whole range of appropriate qualities and interests. In particular, they will include individuals with special knowledge and experience of disability, and people from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is envisaged that the day-to-day administration of the fund will be delegated to the trust's administrative staff, acting according to the trustees' instructions. Borderline cases are likely to be referred to the trustees for guidance where necessary. I would expect the trustees and their staff to take appropriate professional advice on all cases. In addition, the Disablement Income Group and the Department will be available to advise the fund if required.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of 12 April,Official Report, columns 5–6, what right of appeal or review there will be in respect of decisions on applications for payments from the Independent Living Fund in the period before the trust is formally established; when he expects the trustees to be in a position to determine how to deal with cases which have been turned down; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No payments can formally be made from the Independent Living Fund before its legal establishment. All applications addressed to the fund now will be examined by officials, with professional advice, and the case for interim payments considered. All applications will, however, be fully re-examined by the trustees when appointed, whether or not interim payments have been made.

  Drug Licences
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what restrictions there are on the prescribing on a named person basis of a drug which has had its product licence withdrawn; if his Department or the Committee on Safety of Medicines is advised each time it occurs; and what warnings the prescribing doctor is obliged to give to the patient.
  340
  Mr. Newton
  The Department places no restrictions on the prescribing of drugs by doctors on a named patient basis. Medical practitioners are responsible for treating and advising their patients. Neither the Department nor the Committee on Safety of Medicines is normally advised when a drug is prescribed on a named patient basis.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will ensure that whenever a drug licence is withdrawn, members of the medical profession are given the facts which led to its withdrawal so that they will be aware of the risks involved if they decide to prescribe it on a named person basis and the long-term side effects which may affect their patients.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to him on 2 November 1987 at column 560.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to publish the Government's response to "Project 2000: A New Preparation for Practice" published by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The proposals have been the subject of extensive consultation, and we have been considering them in the light of it. We hope to respond to the UKCC shortly.

  Nurses (Immunisation)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy in regard to charging nurses for immunisation against hepatitis B and other diseases to which they may become exposed in the course of their work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  Immunisation against hepatitis B and other infectious diseases, which is offered for occupational health reasons to those in high risk groups, is provided free of charge.

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what training facilities are available in the London area for mental handicap nurses (RNMH).

  Mr. Newton
  The schools of nursing which have approval to run ENB course 1200 RNMH, Registered Nurse for the Mentally Handicapped, in the London area are:

  Waltham Forest.

  Newham.

  Enfield and Harringay.

  There is a wide range of post-basic courses available to mental handicap nurses, as well as other in-service training. The hon. Member may wish to contact the regional chairmen concerned for further information.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidelines his Department has given to district general managers and health regions to enable them to fulfil Government assurances about the long-term future for mental handicap nurses in the community care setting.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 16 March, at column 615.

  "From Black to White"
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if all the treatment shown in the recent postgraduate dental video entitled "From Black to White" will be available through the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Currie
  All treatment necessary for dental fitness is available under the NHS general dental services. The scale of fees for general dental practitioners, which is reviewed annually in consultation with representatives of the dental profession, already includes payment for the treatment of the early signs of tooth decay using the techniques shown in the video. We will shortly be discussing with the profession whether any clarification of the description of this treatment in the scale is needed in the light of developments in clinical practice.

  Dental Estimate Forms
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) what arrangements he made to distribute the new dental estimate forms; and if he is satisfied that sufficient supplies of the new forms were available on the appropriate date;

  (2) what arrangements he made to inform general dental practitioners of the changes consequent on the introduction of new dental estimate forms; if any special arrangements were made to inform dental receptionists about the use of these forms; if he issued any separate instructions on advising people on low incomes in their use, in particular in relation to form AG; and whether he has made any plans to issue advice to patients on the completing of these forms.

  Mrs. Currie
  Guidance concerning the revised procedures for remission of dental charges on grounds of low income which came into effect on 11 April, and supplies of the new estimate forms were sent well in advance of that date to each family practitioner committee for distribution to general dental practitioners. I have no reason to believe that practitioners did not receive them by 11 April. Practitioners are responsible for training their staff in new procedures. Advice on completion of form AG1 is contained in the form itself. The form also indicates where further information can be obtained.

  Ross Lab (Product Licence)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services when the application about which the hon. Member for Macclesfield has written to him made by Ross Lab of Macclesfield for the issuing of a product licence in connection with blood transfusion equipment was first received by his Department; what stage that application has reached; when he expects the licence to be issued; what have been the reasons for the delay in processing the application; and if he will make a statement outlining what steps he is taking to establish the sources of information given to competitors of Ross Lab about the progress of the application.
  342
  Mr. Newton
  I regret that information concerning the state of progress of applications for product licences made under the Medicines Act is regarded as confidential. Details will be given in the reply to the letter from my hon. Friend.

  Lithotripters
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will list by health district those health authorities which have a lithotripter, giving the cost of purchase and estimated annual running costs, together with how many people are treated on average each year, the date the machine was installed and the population of health districts where this equipment is sited.

  Mrs. Currie
  There are two types of lithotripter in, current use in National Health Service hospitals. The first type, percutaneous lithotripters, are designed for invasive internal application in a normal operating theatre. These are relatively inexpensive devices which are in widespread use.

  The second type, known as the extra corporeal shock wave lithotripter, is a complex and expensive machine which avoids the need for interventional surgery. Ministers have said that this type of lithotripsy should be a regional service. I am aware of five of these lithotripters in use so far within the National Health Service in England. These are located as follows:

  The Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  St. Peter's Hospital, London

  St. Thomas's Hospital, London

  Southmead Hospital, Bristol

  Withington Hospital, Manchester

  There are also facilities in Scotland, which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in the private sector.

  The detailed information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the health authorities concerned to obtain it.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the total sum spent nationally on research into Alzheimer's disease during 1986–87 and 1987–88 and projected for 1988–89.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have been asked to reply.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives a grant-in-aid from this Department.

  I understand that in 1986–87, the last financial year for which figures are available, the Medical Research Council spent in the region of £3 million in its own establishments and through grants to universities on research related to Alzheimer's disease. Expenditure in 1987–88 and 1988–89 is likely to be at about the same level. Some expenditure is also incurred by universities from general funds.

  Expenditure on research into Alzheimer's disease, funded directly and indirectly by the Health Departments for 1986–87, is about £70,000.