Sitting of 6 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CLERGY WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Renaval Programme
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation of the EEC's Renaval programme in the United Kingdom.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Government have submitted Renaval applications for Plymouth and Gibraltar. My right hon. Friends and I hope to be able to decide soon whether to make further applications. Our decisions have been delayed by changes in the position in Brussels.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Minister may not know that I was a member of the European Parliament's regional policy and planning committee which considered this programme. We were concerned that extra help, besides normal regional fund assistance, should go to areas where traditional industries were in decline. Can the Minister confirm that the shipbuilding areas in Britain that have had the biggest job losses will receive the greatest assistance from the fund, and can he tell the House the position on Tyne and Wear?
    Mr. Hogg: The position is this. I understand the concern of hon. Members about the Renaval programme. Hitherto, we have taken the view that it would be premature to make a final decision on the matter, although we have not decided against making a decision. We may make an application, but we have come to no final view. The problem is that a decision on Renaval has to be taken in the context of other objective 2 funding programmes because they impact one on the other. As soon as we can have a clear view of the whole, we shall be in a good position to make a final decision.

    Consumer Credit
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to ensure that prospective borrowers are aware of their rights and duties under consumer credit legislation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): Regulations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 require that consumer credit agreements include statements about the rights of consumers under the Act. It is one of the duties of the Director General of Fair Trading to provide information and advice to the public about consumer credit legislation.
    Mr. French: Will my hon. Friend curb the activities of credit reference agencies that give out references on people's creditworthiness by reference not to the individual, but to the address at which the individual lives? Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a dangerous and misleading practice, and will he provide a means of redress for people whose reputations are harmed in that way?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has touched on an undoubtedly difficult area. We believe that the laws and regulations in this area are generally adequate and have been so until now, but my hon. Friend is right to point out what can be a difficult area. I undertake to look at the matter again urgently and to see whether there are any methods that we could use to improve the position and to address the problems that my hon. Friend has identified.
    Mr. Janner: When the Minister is looking at consumer credit legislation as it affects borrowers, will he arrange for more information to be given to people who borrow from banks so that they know, for example, that when they obtain money on an overdraft it is normally repayable on demand—most people do not know that—and that if they exceed the limit they could be charged a prodigious, unwarranted and disgraceful rate of interest of which they have had no advance notice?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that new regulations on credit advertisement will come into effect next February. They will cover some of the points that he has raised, such as the use of more understandable English, and they will close certain loopholes. It is always difficult to legislate or to regulate this area in such a way as to take care of all developments. One often feels that almost as soon as one: has identified one difficulty, others arise. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are constantly vigilant in this area and that we shall look carefully at the point that he has raised.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise that constituents of mine with children and young people in their families are very worried by the fact that they are perpetually bombarded with invitations to borrow more and more money? My wife has a great sackful of these unsolicited appeals. What regulations does my hon. Friend propose to introduce to ensure that people fully understand what they are signing up for?
    Mr. Forth: I know that that causes a lot of concern. Let me say immediately that section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prohibits the sending to minors of circulars inviting them to borrow money or to apply for

    299
    information about obtaining credit, so that aspect is already dealt with. Generally speaking, it is up to lenders to assess the way in which they offer credit, and they rarely offer it to minors, although that is something we shall have to watch. In general, existing legislation covers the point adequately.
    Mr. McAllion: What has the legislation done to protect and extend the rights of savers? A constituent of mine who has spent more than two years in an old people's home, during which time her deposit account at the bank remained untouched. Without her knowledge, the bank redesignated the account as dormant and reduced the rate of interest paid on it to I per cent. Are the banks acting within their legal powers in doing that and does the Minister think it right for banks to profiteer at the expense of old people in the despicable way that I have described?
    Mr. Forth: It is quite right that the hon. Gentleman should raise an important constituency matter at Question Time, but I ask him to write to me with the details so that we can consider the case properly. I should not like to try to give an instant answer, but if he will write to me I will see what, if anything, can be done to help to remedy his constituent's grievance.

    Departmental Expansion
    Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to expand the role of his Department.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): None, Sir.
    Mr. Norris: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving exactly the sort of reply that I wanted; it was excellent. Does he agree that although from time to time his Department has an excellent role to play as an enabler, it has been an unmitigated disaster whenever it has tried to act as an intervener?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the latter point. I note that the Labour party policy review says:
    "The DTI's role will be to develop strategies, to identify priorities and provide the assistance, resources and organising capacity which industry will need."
    Is not that the very policy that east European countries have been following until now?
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister consider establishing a specialist unit in his Department to monitor and support the work of the British textile and footwear industries? Is he aware that in the past 10 years 380,000 jobs have been lost in those two industries? The Minister for Industry came to Leicester last Friday and was made aware of the deep concern felt by textile and footwear manufacturers about the future of their industry. May we have a unit to support that vital sector of the British economy?
    Mr. Ridley: We do indeed monitor the operations of all industries, including the textile industry. It is for the industries themselves to become competitive if they are to preserve their positions, and there are encouraging signs in the textile industry. The industries have benefited from the multi-fibre arrangement over the years. People in the industry have had time to adjust and in many cases have done so successfully.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend any plans to reduce his Department's role?
    Mr. Ridley: We have certain problems in our industrial performance at the moment in parts of our industrial effort where the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, the policies of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and intervention generally left some deep holes.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: With regard to one expanded role for the Secretary of State's Department—that of providing hidden subsidies—and given that the Secretary of State said last week that there was no need to inform the European Commission, will he tell us now whether there were any discussions between British Aerospace and the Government about failing to inform Parliament and the Commission and the risks associated with that? Are there any other matters in addition to hidden subsidies that he now feels that he should disclose to the House?
    Mr. Ridley: For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I would make a distinction between hidden ongoing subsidies or even overt ongoing subsidies and the necessary deal which has to be struck to end the tyranny of state ownership of a loss-making public corporation. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the acquisition of MBB by Daimler-Benz, which involved the privatisation of a loss-making German nationalised industry. The hon. Gentleman will discover that there, too, a deal had to be struck which was well worth it in the interests of the taxpayer to get rid of that loss-maker.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Are not the Opposition guilty of trying to have it both ways on this? If the Government had tried to sell the Rover Group to the highest bidder, we would have been accused of putting the group up for a free for all instead of looking after the interests of that company. That is precisely the accusation which the Labour party levelled against us in 1976 when we tried to sell the Rover Group.
    Mr. Ridley: I well remember the extraordinary commotion on the Opposition Benches when it seemed possible that the Ford Motor Company might try to buy Rover. That was not a very propitious curtain-raiser for a possible public auction of that company.

    Trade Performance
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he intends to introduce to improve Britain's trade performance.
    Mr. Ridley: The keys to trade performance are macro-economic policy, non-interference in the working of the market, the maintenance of open, competitive markets at home and abroad and not setting up an industrial reorganisation corporation.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I have a reflective reply to the following question? Would a falling exchange rate in any way help Britain's trade performance?
    Mr. Ridley: It is not for me to answer for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters of macro-economic policy. However, the export figures in recent weeks have shown a decided tendency to improve now that the pound is at a slightly lower level than before.
    Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend also see a need to help to protect the competitive position of our

    301
    manufacturing industry against the more extreme green demands, which would lead to an increase in energy prices and drive company cars off the roads of this country?
    Mr. Ridley: All those factors are extremely important in maintaining the competitiveness of British industry. If we are to improve our trade deficit, it is vital that we do nothing to put British industry at a competitive disadvantage in a level playing field game with the rest of the Community and the world.
    Mr. Henderson: Given the alarming £4 billion trade deficit in electronic products, and now that British Aerospace has withdrawn its interest in purchasing Ferranti, will the Secretary of State intervene to ensure that the future of Ferranti is secured through a joint venture partnership? Does he recognise that if he fails to act, Ferranti could be gobbled up by yet another hostile foreign predator with further untold damage to our balance of trade and to jobs?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at the trade in electronics. He will find that although our imports in that area are very large, so are our exports. That shows that in a modern sophisticated industry a heavy import and a heavy export are signs of success, not failure. With regard to Ferranti, it is for the Ferranti board to decide what action it wants to take with the various people with whom it is discussing its future. At the present time, I have no role to play in those matters.
    Mr. Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the programme that his Department has pioneered in Japan has produced a remarkable increase in British exports to Japan? Will he now consider a second phase to boost that successful programme so that we can increase our trade with Japan and thus substantially decrease our trade deficit?
    Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend, but there has also been a large opening up of the Japanese market in many different ways as the result of the pressures that my right hon. Friends have placed on the Japanese and other nations. The Japanese are trying hard to open their market to exporters in other countries. It is a combination of two factors. We will certainly redouble our efforts to make every facility available to British exporters to increase their share of Japanese trade.

    Toys
    Mr. Buchan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to monitor the safety of children's toys.
    Mr. Forth: Local authority trading standards departments have a statutory duty to enforce the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the toy safety regulations made thereunder. The Act provides the necessary powers for the discharge of this responsibility.
    The new Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989, which implement the EC directive on the safety of toys with effect from 1 January next year, will provide more comprehensive safety measures to ensure that only safe toys are placed on the market. They will also require enforcement authorities to notify my Department of enforcement action taken under those regulations.
    Mr. Buchan: It is fine that the provisions exist, but we are about 20 per cent. short of trading standards officers. That is the real problem. We are entering a period in which there is a constant television propaganda campaign for parents to buy toys. There was a disastrous case involving Kinder eggs, which are chocolate eggs with tiny inedible and poisonous toys inside them. Will the Minister ensure that there is urgent action by the Department in the form of a television campaign to warn parents?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points. The number of trading standards officers is a matter for local authorities. I am sure that they will discharge their responsibility fully in that regard. My Department is organising a campaign to reach out to parents to remind them at this time of the year of what is principally their responsibility—to ensure that they purchase only safe toys for their children or relatives.
    The Kinder chocolate eggs case was a tragedy. A young girl died as a result of the contents of a Kinder egg. We considered the matter carefully and agonised about what we should do. In the end, my view was that as millions were sold every year it would be wrong to seek to ban the product but that we should instead seek to reinforce precisely the hon. Gentleman's point—that parents must always satisfy themselves that anything that their young children have, use or play with is used safely and responsibly.
    Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Minister's grossly unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to say that, but it ends supplementaries on that question.

    Internal Market
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional help is being given to businesses to help them to take advantage of the internal market in 1992.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional help is being given to businesses to help them to take advantage of the internal market in 1992.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We provide a comprehensive single market information service through our Europe Open for Business campaign, which is regularly updated and expanded. The practical assistance available through our enterprise initiative is also particularly relevant to firms preparing for the single market. In the private sector an increasing level of information and advice is being provided to help business to adapt to the liberalised European trading conditions.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that although other European countries have been forging ahead for some time with their preparations for 1992, his Department has been so dilatory that the television advertising campaign aimed at assisting British industry was arranged so late that the British taxpayer has been landed with a bill £300,000 higher than it need have been, for which the hon. Gentleman has been severely criticised by the National Audit Office? Is the hon. Gentleman

    303
    further aware that if a local councillor took a similar decision he would be liable to surcharge and disqualification from office for gross negligence?
    Mr. Hogg: British industry is singularly well equipped to go into the 1992 market. The developments in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency demonstrate that.
    Mr. Clelland: What about the £300,000?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hogg: Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen in the past 12 months from 12·1 to 9·8 per cent. and there are two extremely exciting developments there—the Newcastle business park, which will create 2,000 jobs by 1991 and the Gateshead Metro centre, which will create 6,500 jobs by 1991. That shows how well the economy is equipped for 1992.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will be aware of the comments of Sir John Harvey-Jones, a former chairman of ICI, who said that only half Europe's businesses will survive and that over the next five to seven years the rest will disappear, by acquisition, by mergers or by going bust. Since the implications for big businesses and for small firms are profound, will the Minister turn his attention to the hidden agenda—or is he prepared simply to accept that in areas such as my own in Scotland small businesses on the periphery will disappear because they will be sacrificed on the altar of the Government's twisted approach to 1992?
    Mr. Hogg: Yet another hon. Gentleman is allowing his imagination to run riot. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned his own area, let us look at that aspect. I am glad to say that in the past 12 months unemployment in his constituency has fallen from 15·9 to 12·6 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased, I hope, to know that in the next five years the Scottish Development Agency is planning to spend £10 million in the Leven valley, which is close to the hon. Gentleman's area. That is precisely the kind of commitment that the hon. Gentleman has urged upon us.
    Mr. David Evans: I congratulate the Government on the help that they are giving to companies in the run-up to 1992, but does my hon. Friend agree that companies should also be gearing up to meet the opportunities presenting themselves in the eastern bloc and the Soviet Union? Is his Department underwriting the future on the Export Credits Guarantee Department so as to help companies in that new area?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that the opportunities offered by the changing situation in the eastern part of Europe are exciting and that British industry should be considering how best it can respond to the investment and trading opportunities in that part of Europe.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Will my hon. Friend encourage the European Commission to give higher priority to the creation of a genuinely single market in insurance services by 1 January 1993?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right to address his remarks to that question. It is a material part of the programme and, generally speaking, we encourage the Commission to produce flat playing fields wherever possible.
    Ms. Mowlam: Shall we have to wait until the arrival of the internal market in 1992 before the Minister releases for publication the ombudsman's report into the negligence of his Department in the Barlow Clowes affair?
    Mr. Hogg: That goes rather wide of the question—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hogg: Indeed, when one thinks about it, Mr. Speaker, it goes very wide of the question. That being so, I am not going to answer it.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is of the utmost importance to construct high-speed links to the Channel tunnel as soon as possible? Can he tell the House why the two Labour members of the King's Cross inquiry Committee did not turn up the other day, at enormous cost—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceedings in private Bill Committees are not discussed in the Chamber.
    Mr. Favell: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the King's Cross inquiry will be conducted with maximum efficiency and speed?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly hope so, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said, I fancy that that is not entirely in my hands.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had regarding the future operations and funding of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. Ridley: The interdepartmental working group of officials on the Kemp review of status options for ECGD consulted interested parties both within and outside Government. It has now submitted its report to me, and I am considering it.
    Mr. Morgan: In view of that characteristic piece of masterly inactivity on the part of the Secretary of State and with Britain's trade deficit about to enter the "Guinness Book of Records", is it not true that only a lunatic or the Secretary of State, or perhaps both at the same time, would think of monkeying around with those essential support services for exporters? In particular, will he give attention to the fact that any monkeying about of the kind that he may have in mind would affect 770 jobs in Cardiff where essential services are provided for small and medium-sized export businesses—support which is vital as we approach 1992?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not see why the hon. Gentleman feels that the question calls for insults. They are completely misplaced.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ridley: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the Government's decision about the Kemp report instead of trying to come to conclusions before the Government have given it the attention that it deserves. The purpose of the operation is to improve the services provided to our exporters and there is no threat to ECGD in such a course.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that as 70 per cent. of British firms do not export we need to give them maximum help and encouragement to be bold and go into the world markets to export? Is he aware that while other countries offer export credit guarantees, British firms, especially small firms, need the services of ECGD? Will he bear that in mind when he makes his decision?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall most certainly bear that important point in mind. There is no question of withdrawing services for exports of goods, from large, small or medium-sized enterprises. It is a question of the status of the ECGD and its duty to perform that function.
    Ms. Quin: While I understand that the Secretary of State has still to make a final decision on the matter, will he give a clear statement to the House that he does not accept the ludicrous suggestion put forward by his hon. Friends in the Treasury that the projects division of ECGD be closed down? Will he further undertake to listen carefully to industry and those who work in ECGD before making a final decision? Does he agree that, with a £20 billion trade deficit, our export efforts need to be increased, not reduced?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot respond to both parts of the hon. Lady's supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] She asked me not to foreclose my eventual decision on the matter and at the same time to foreclose on the question of the projects group by deciding against the zero option. I promise the House that I shall make a decision abundantly clear as soon as possible, and I hope that that will be before long.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that considerable disquiet has been caused by the Government's delay in coming to a decision? In coming to a decision, will he consult the recent important study by Northern Engineering Industries which shows the effect down the line of project finance, which we now hear that the Treasury is against?
    Mr. Ridley: We have not had the working group's report for long. My hon. Friend will find that the delay in giving the House a decision on the matter is not at all long. I fully understand and hear what he says about the projects group and the importance of capital goods industries to the north-east. It is certainly one of the factors that we shall take into account.

    Golden Shares
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the golden shares for which he has responsibility and state his policy towards the use of these shares.
    Mr. Ridley: I hold special shares in British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, British Steel, and Jaguar. Decisions on using the rights attached to each of these shares depend on the particular circumstances of each company.
    Mr. Rooker: Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he will dispose of any of those golden shares in the same way as he is to dispose of the golden share in Jaguar, thereby giving the company away to Ford? [Interruption.] Of course it was given away. Was that done in order to stop Ford complaining about being shut out of the secret
    306
    negotiations with British Aerospace over the Rover group? He cannot object to Ford having Rover because he has given it Jaguar.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should realise that there are two sorts of special share. There are those which are timeless, run for an indefinite period and seek to protect national security interests of one sort or another. The other is time limited. Of the companies that I mentioned, the two which have time-limited special shares are British Steel and Jaguar. The point of those special shares is to protect an industry which is trying to convalesce from the mauling it has had as a publicly owned industry for a few years until it can stand up on its feet and compete in the market. That condition of recovery for Jaguar was abundantly met when I decided to waive the gold share.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that we threw the company to the wolves, but the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who was there at the time, did not much like that expression. I must quarrel with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). The price of £1·6 billion, which Ford paid for Jaguar, cannot be described as giving it away.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that notwithstanding the rather Neanderthal approach of some Opposition Members, others, namely the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), have welcomed the opportunity that the Ford-Jaguar arrangements provide? My right hon. Friend's speedy decision on the question of the golden share has enabled that company to join forces with Ford to provide us with a strong element in the British motor car industry.
    Mr. Ridley: I am fully prepared to accept what my hon. Friend says, although I do not think that it is for me to comment on the merits or otherwise of any particular bid or takeover. I am sure that both alternatives before Jaguar should have strengthened it and that is a great tribute to the performance of the Jaguar management until now. I do not particularly like special shares because they put one in a position where one might have to make a choice which could be said to be partial. I am more prejudiced against them having discovered that the Labour party is thinking of using them for its nefarious purposes if it ever gained power.
    Mr. Hoyle: So that we might have some guidance on future policy, will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions, consultations or assurances he received from Ford prior to waiving the golden share about manufacturing in this country, research and development, and the preservation of the Jaguar mark? What consultations has he had with Ford since waiving the share?
    Mr. Ridley: I wish I could have an opportunity to give the hon. Gentleman guidance on a whole range of matters. He certainly needs it. The answer to his question is none.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time in this trading country that we stopped being so hostile to inward investment? Is he aware that my constituents in south Derbyshire work happily for the Swiss company of NestlÉ and for the Swedish company of Asea Brown Boveri and that we are about to welcome a Japanese company? I honestly do not believe that my

    307
    constituents in Rolls-Royce are all that bothered either way about the golden share held by my right hon. Friend. Is not a real golden share, and the only one worth having, the share in prosperity that is brought by these companies and this investment to my region and this country?
    Mr. Ridley: I should like to agree with my hon. Friend that the role played by inward investment into this country from overseas has begun to fill some of the industrial gaps left by the ravages of the Socialist Government when they tried to have an industrial strategy.

    Northern Development Company
    Mr. Trotter: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be able to announce the level of his financial support for the Northern Development Company for 1990.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I expect to announce the levels of grant in aid which will be awarded to each of the regional development organisations, including the Northern Development Company, for the financial year 1990–91, in March 1990.
    Mr. Trotter: When my hon. Friend comes to consider the funding of the NDC, will he give due regard to the great value to the region of the excellent work performed by it in promoting the region both at home and overseas? Will he further give regard to the commendable level of support which it receives locally from industry and authorities in the region?
    Mr. Hogg: Most certainly. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the help that he has given to the NDC and for the part that he played in setting up that organisation. He will be pleased to know that, over the years, funding has steadily increased. For example, in 1981–82 funding was £230,000, but in 1989–90 it is £1,182,000, inclusive of core funding.
    Mr. Caborn: The Minister gave his usual non-answer. What does the Secretary of State have in mind for English Estates? Incidentally, in 1936, the right hon. Gentleman's father was one of the first directors of English Estates and it is evident that he had more vision than his son, especially as press reports suggest that it is about to be privatised. That privatisation would be a further blow to the northern region because English Estates has played a significant role in the development of science parks and technology transfer centres. Those developments are sorely needed if we are to get manufacturing back on to a competitive edge so that we can start to reduce the £20 billion trade deficit.
    Mr. Hogg: I have a very high regard for the work of English Estates, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that if he wants to ask a question about English Estates it would be a good idea to do a bit of homework and table a question. We are now talking about the Northern Development Company, which is a different thing altogether. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of that difference and I find it remarkable that such a person should be sitting on the Front Bench of the Labour party.
    Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the NDC does not give the appearance of having much more than a polite interest in the affairs that it is supposed to overlook in Cumbria? Before he starts giving it a whole lot of money
    308
    will he try to extract an undertaking from it that it will demonstrate a more positive approach to the problems of Cumbria?
    Mr. Hogg: Having had the privilege of serving under my right hon. Friend when he was Chief Whip I can think of nobody more competent than he to remind NDC of that. I look forward to the discussion that I am sure will take place between NDC and my right hon. Friend.

    Consumer Protection
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.
    Mr. Forth: We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways, including the introduction of an order under the Prices Act 1974, as amended, on price indications, and unit pricing about which we are currently engaging in public consultation, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.
    Ms. Armstrong: What steps is the Minister taking to try to implement the recommendations of the National Consumer Council on product guarantees? Is he considering following the practice in the United States where consumers are given a guarantee that if a major purchase breaks down and is not satisfactorily repaired a full replacement is supplied?
    Mr. Forth: I am, of course, giving close and careful consideration, as I always do, to the recommendations by the National Consumer Council. Although I yield to none in my admiration for the United States I do not believe that we should always seek to copy what our friends in the United States do. Although I shall consider carefully the recommendations of the National Consumer Council, I have yet to make up my mind about whether they would be beneficial to our consumers.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide consumer protection is to have a proper degree of competition between the companies that provide the goods and services consumed by the public? Surely it is competition and free enterprise that provide good consumer protection.
    Mr. Forth: I have enormous sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that if we look carefully at these matters we shall see that consumers in the West under capitalism have enjoyed a much greater degree of consumer protection and benefit than their opposite numbers behind what we used to call the iron curtain. Therefore, the best possible approach is the one that we are now taking. which is to temper the advantages and benefits of the market and competition with a light regulatory touch.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: In view of the Minister's direct responsibility for consumer protection, will he be contacting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to urge him to make available to the consumer information regarding the safety of the use of microwave cookers?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has wasted his opportunity because, as he well knows, my right hon.

    309
    Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly be at this Dispatch Box giving a full and comprehensive statement on the matter.
    Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the joys of the market place is the ever-changing perspective of the need for consumer protection, as with the levelling off of the housing market? Does he agree that now that the frothiness has been taken away, the need to legislate against estate agents has been reduced?
    Mr. Forth: As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked the Director-General of Fair Trading to look carefully at estate agency and its business practices, and to come up with recommendations. When he reports to me early in the new year, as I have asked him, I will look, as always, most carefully at his recommendations to see whether we can agree on the best way forward.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister accept that public confidence in any new legislation to protect the consumer is severely dented by his failure to implement current legislation? A young girl died on 5 November after swallowing part of a toy in an egg like the one I have in my hand. That was the second such death and the manufacturers are withdrawing the egg. Consumer protection officers have asked for it to be banned, and yet despite that it is on sale in large quantities in hundreds of thousands of shops throughout the country. Why does not the Minister use his powers under section 13 to ban the toy altogether?
    Mr. Forth: I slightly regret the tone and terms with which the hon. Gentleman has presented the matter to the House, but I shall give him a full answer. As he well knows—or perhaps he does not—the enforcement of existing laws is a matter for the trading standards officers who do an excellent and superb job in enforcing consumer protection laws at local level. In this case, which one of his hon. Friends raised earlier, we looked carefully at the matter and were affected by the death of the young child. However, on balance, given that the product has been on sale for many years in this country and throughout Europe—millions of them are sold every year and its packaging contains a warning—I took the difficult decision that the death did not justify banning the product. I did so mainly because the child's tragic death was caused by the ingestion of a small part of the egg's contents. Many other products and toys with small parts are available in the market place. If we were to start banning every product that could be swallowed by a child, there would be very few toys left in the market. This is primarily a matter for parents and I am sure that all parents are aware of the potential danger to children of small items. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we look at all such cases most carefully and, in this case, made a difficult—I believe the right—decision.

    Takeovers and Mergers
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made within the European Commission in agreeing Communitywide powers to regulate cross-border takeovers and mergers.
    Mr. Ridley: At the 23 November Internal Market Council, major progress was made in negotiations on the proposed EC merger control regulation setting out
    310
    Community powers to regulate certain EC mergers. Agreement was reached in principle on a number of important issues. Discussion will be resumed at the Council on 21 December.
    Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations for the work that his Department has done to speed progress in European co-operation towards achieving the 1992 programme in competition policy and other matters such as insurance services? Will he confirm that the French have dropped their requirement for an industrial element in this policy as opposed to our desire for competition principles to be predominant? Has the Commission decided satisfactorily on the degree of flexibility in referrals for smaller countries?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I can confirm that good progress was made at the last Council. I am hopeful—but not certain—that an agreement will be reached during this Presidency. We can be satisfied with the criteria for the Communitywide mergers to be considered by the Commission, which are almost entirely on competition grounds.
    On the possibility of smaller nations with no mergers control machinery inviting the Commission to consider mergers betwen the thresholds of 2 billion and 5 billion ecu, we have a satisfactory formula which will allow the Commission to take remedial action only in the smaller member state that makes the application in the first place.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Whether the House is for or against the EEC—I am certainly against it—can the Secretary of State tell me exactly what the Government are doing to protect Ferranti, bearing in mind the predators within and outside this country who intend to take it over and asset strip it? That means that jobs will go and a major asset will be reduced to ruins both north and south of the border. Are the Government doing anything about that? Will the Government act as a guarantor for British industry or will they just sit back and listen?
    Mr. Ridley: I think that everything in that supplementary question was out of order and unacceptable—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Batiste rose—
    Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in thinking that you are the only person who can rule whether something is in or out of order in the House and not a Minister from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Speaker: If I had thought it out of order, I would have said so.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an important strategic need to develop large transcontinental companies across Europe in many of the important industries of tomorrow? In order for those companies to emerge, is there not a need for a coherent and consistent takeovers and mergers policy across Europe? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is wholly committed to the creation of such a regime?
    Mr. Ridley: I do believe that the regime—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Ridley: I believe that the regime in Europe should put as its first priority the preservation of competition, both in distinct markets and in the Community market as

    311
    a whole. It is more important that there should be competition than that we should seek to construct large European champions in any industry. I believe that there is room for both, but competition must come first.
    Mr. Riddick: Once the European countries have hammered out an agreement on this, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in this country will not carry forward its unfortunate practice of investigating whole industries where companies are competing unless there is clear evidence that prices are being fixed or that the companies are following other incorrect trade practices? Will he stop the MMC from producing grand bureaucratic designs for those industrial sectors as it did with the brewing industry?
    Mr. Ridley: The subject matter of this question has been Communitywide mergers of assets in excess of 5 billion ecu. Of course it is true that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is also asked to carry out investigations into situations of imperfect competition. Those investigations are agreed by myself or, in the case of the beer report, by my predecessors. It would be wrong not to turn the spotlight on uncompetitive aspects of the particular industry under consideration. We should continue to have that power. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have views on the beer report that he might wish to express when the orders come before the House.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raised a point of order about the Secretary of State not being allowed to decide which questions are in order in the House, and you indicated your agreement. Surely the Secretary of State cannot brush aside a question by declaring it out of order? He should apologise to the House for usurping your job; otherwise, any Minister could ignore questions.
    Mr. Speaker: I have said endless times before that I am not responsible for what is said in answer to questions. I said that I did not judge the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) out of order.

    Japanese Market
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding access for British exports to the Japanese market.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 1 November. In the first 10 months of this year our exports to Japan increased in value by 30 per cent.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given level playing fields in the markets of Japan and elsewhere, plenty of British exports such as Scotch whisky and financial services are world beaters? As we allow free access to our market for the benefit of British consumers, will he do everything that he can to ensure full reciprocation in Japan and other countries?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. My hon. Friend the Prime Minister pressed the Prime Minister of Japan vigorously on this point, and Japanese markets are being substantially liberalised. I have
    312
    already mentioned the increase in exports in the first 10 months of this year. Last year, I am glad to say, there was an increase of 17 per cent.
    My hon. Friend referred to the Scotch whisky market. He will be pleased to know that whisky sales between last August and April of this year increased by 102 per cent.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister will know that that 102 per cent. increase is greatly appreciated, not least in my constituency, in which there are 43 distilleries. What specific action is he taking to ensure that the advance achieved over the past year will be enhanced by finally breaking down all barriers against Scotch whisky in the Japanese market?
    Mr. Hogg: I should like to have said that I had the hon. Lady in mind when I gave the figure but that would not be wholly true. She is right to be concerned. The problem relates to deception by look-alikes. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister strongly pressed the Japanese Prime Minister on the need to take action to prevent deception by look-alikes in the Japanese market and she was able to obtain considerable reassurances from him on that point.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of getting more products into the Japanese market is to make British products more competitive? Under a previous Conservative Government there was a 6 per cent. payroll tax, in the form of employers' national insurance; under the next Labour Government it was 13 per cent., and it is still too high in the United Kingdom, at 10·5 per cent. Will my hon. Friend talk to the Chancellor about reducing it is soon as possible?
    Mr. Hogg: As so often, my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party has learnt nothing on this sort of matter. For example, it proposes a payroll tax, echoing the errors that it committed in the past.

    Citizens Advice Bureaux
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the citizens advice bureaux on the funding requirements in 1990-91 of their comprehensive advice service.
    Mr. Forth: The funding of individual citizens advice bureaux is a matter for local decision, and my Department is not involved in those discussions. I have however met representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and of Citizens Advice Scotland in recent months and among the topics discussed was their funding requirements.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister take this opportunity to express his appreciation of the invaluable work carried out by CABs in giving free and confidential advice to members of the public? Will he acknowledge that the CABs are now dealing with a vast increase in the number of inquiries about, for example, unemployment benefit, health and social security payments, cuts in housing benefit and now problems about debt repayment following the increase in interest rates? Given that many of those problems stem directly from the Government's social and economic policies, does he think that he has a moral responsibility to ensure adequate and continuing funding for the CABs?
    Mr. Forth: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in praising citizens advice bureaux all over the country for their marvellous work in advising people who come to them for advice on a range of matters. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Government have funded the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to the tune of £9·9 million this year, an increase from less than £2 million 10 years ago. That demonstrates the Government's recognition in funding as well as praise, which I am happy
    314
    to give to the work of the national association. I emphasise that, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the funding of local bureaux has always been and remains a matter for local authority decision. Local authorities can amply take care of that and I expect them to do so.
    Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order later.

Microwave Ovens
3.30 pm
Dr. David Clark(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he would make a statement on the list of models of microwave ovens which failed to reach the required safety standards in tests undertaken recently by his Department; and what proposals he has to inform the 8 million owners of microwave ovens of the details.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): Last summer I was informed of the results of tests on five microwave ovens carried out by my Department. These indicated that some ovens, when operated in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, did not always perform sufficiently consistently to kill the bacteria in the food. I therefore announced a larger test programme to cover all the most popular brands.
The day before yesterday I received the first facsimile copy of the report on the programme, which covered 102 ovens and 70 different models. Two thirds of these performed satisfactorily, but the remainder gave rise to a range of different concerns. I provided copies of the report to the microwave working party, which includes representatives of consumers and manufacturers, published it in the afternoon of the day I received it and placed, a copy in the Library of the House. At the same time, before there was any request from the Opposition or from any other quarter, I called in the manufacturers' representatives and insisted that they make available a list of the ovens tested, together with the advice and new instructions which would ensure that the ovens would perform properly.
I was pressed publicly to give a list of those ovens but I made it clear that such a list, without the detailed information and advice, would be of no use. I announced that the manufacturers would produce this information as rapidly as possible and, I hoped, before the weekend. The house will be pleased to know that the full list of every oven tested, together with these updated instructions is being published by the manufacturers this afternoon, that is, within two days of my receipt of the report.
Anyone who has a microwave oven will be able to check against the list and see what steps, if any, are needed to ensure that food is fully cooked. The manufacturers have also agreed to rush through updated instruction literature, where that is necessary, so that customers will be able to get the new instructions to keep with their machines.
The Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Electrical Appliances—AMDEA—has further agreed that all its members will ensure that new microwave ovens will meet the higher standards which the tests that my Ministry carried out have shown to be necessary. I promised all that on Monday.
As Minister with responsibility for food, my first responsibility is the protection of the health of the public. That is why I insisted upon this research. That is why I wanted the earliest possible results and the earliest possible publication. Today the House will recognise that we have been able to get the earliest possible advice to the public. By seeking co-operation and not confrontation, this whole programme has been completed faster and the public have
316
been more fully informed. As a result, the information that I promised on Monday, a promise that I repeated on Tuesday, has been delivered on Wednesday.
Dr. Clark: I am glad—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a matter of great interest to our constituents.
Dr. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad that, at last, we have managed to drag the Minister to the Dispatch Box to make a statement—[Interruption.] I remind Conservative Members that the Minister had refused to make a statement to the House. He has now given us the information we requested only as a result of my private notice question.
I am pleased that the Minister has changed his mind since his broadcast this morning, when he gave a completely different answer. Why does he think it right that the manufacturers should publish the results of a Government study? Why do not the Government publish their own independent results? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the simple reason for the delay in persuading manufacturers to make an announcement was his agreement with them that, to save the Government money, the manufacturers would provide the models on the understanding that no results would be published about any models that failed?
Will the Minister make it clear—and it is his job, not that of the manufacturers—which models are safe and operative because it is vital that the firms survive and that the jobs of those working in the industry are maintained? Is it not time that the Minister began to speak up for the consumer, and not the manufacturer?
Mr. Gummer: It is a little difficult to understand how I have changed my mind when all that I have done is what I announced on Monday I would do. I had the manufacturers in my office at exactly the moment that I published the report and at exactly the time that the working party meeting ended. It had been sitting from 10.15 am on the day that I received the report, and the manufacturers, together with representatives of the consumer, were present at that meeting.
There is no question of any delay. Indeed, I congratulate my scientists on the speed with which they have moved. The report was published by the Government on Monday because it was a Government report. A statement on how the models should be used is being published by the manufacturers because it is their models that are involved and they are updating their information.
The hon. Gentleman's third question shows that he has come to understand that, by unnecessarily stirring up people's fears, jobs have again been endangered by the Labour party. It is precisely because I put the consumer first that the document has been published today. That is why I did not merely seek headlines, as the Opposition have done.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Would my right hon. Friend care to say a word about the role of the Consumers Association in this matter? I have looked up some recent reports. Is it not extraordinary that the consumer magazine "Which?" has at no time mentioned minimum temperatures in relation to microwave ovens? From its statement yesterday, it might be thought that the association was more interested in promoting itself than in the interests of consumers.
Mr. Gummer: I think that the my hon. Friend should be rather careful about mentioning the Consumers Association on this occasion. It turns out that the one oven that proved so unsatisfactory that it had to be withdrawn was one of the "best buys" recommended by the association after its tests. I note that the association said:
"When you buy a microwave, choose one which comes out well in our tests for cooking and defrosting: we take evenness into account."
I suspect that the association's concern in this instance has been motivated more by its history than by any desire to protect the consumer.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate the Minister on his rapid climbdown. I heard him give a very different account on the one o'clock news yesterday; as always, he instinctively took the manufacturers' view, taking consumers into consideration only under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
What provision do the Government intend to make for the repair of defective microwave ovens? Two million are now known to be defective in households up and down the country, and one third of cook-chill foods are contaminated with listeria. Microwave ovens are now posing a danger in every one of those homes.
Mr. Gummer: I find it difficult to see how the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) can have forced me into doing something, given that I said what I was going to do before he had even heard about the problem. Let me tell the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) that, admirable though his hon. Friend is in many ways, he has not been at the forefront on this occasion.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, he plainly does not understand what has happened. The machines themselves are, in large measure, not defective at all; the problem is simply that the instructions do not tell housewives or other consumers how to use them properly. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that, rather than 2 million ovens being defective, a number of ovens require updated instructions, and those instructions are being given out today. The hon. Gentleman should thank my staff for the unparalleled speed with which they have moved.
Dame Janet F'ookes: As one who is not always a friend of the Minister of Agriculture, may I congratulate him on the speed with which he has worked? I hope that he will ignore the long-winded waffle that we have heard from Opposition Members. Can he recall a time when the Labour Government worked with such speed, or to such effect?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. In such circumstances it is necessary to make a choice: do we wish to serve the consumer's needs or not? Serving the consumer's needs in this case meant obtaining the co-operation of all involved, and as a result not a single oven that was on the list is not now covered by up-to-date instructions. That was very speedy action. Any hon. Member who wants to look at that list need only visit the Library of the House, where I hope that it has been placed by now.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Nevertheless, surely the Minister accepts that the public will find it extraordinary that his first reaction was to go to the manufacturers for
318
his information rather than to the consumers. Why did he reveal yesterday, in a written answer, that no tests on cooking from raw are being conducted, although it is well known that that process involves many bacterium problems in microwave ovens? Is it not high time that we had a Ministry of Food that put people first, rather than the manufacturers and the industry?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must have thought of that question before he heard the statement. What he has said is nonsense; it bears no relationship to the facts. The report that was made to me on Monday morning was given to representatives of consumers, manufacturers arid scientists at a meeting beginning at 10.15 and it was published in the afternoon. Immediately we received the details I was able to announce that the manufacturers had published them. I do not understand how much faster the hon. Gentleman feels that we could have moved. If he dislikes manufacturers generally and hates their products, he had better tell the people of Cornwall.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his eminently sensible approach to this latest attempt to drum up a hysterical outburst against a perfectly safe piece of equipment. I have owned and used microwave ovens for at least 20 years on a daily basis. I can assure my right hon. Friend that most people use microwave ovens for defrosting or warming food and that they are well aware that they simply need to stir the food while it is being cooked to ensure that it is heated through evenly.
There is a political dimension to this problem which my right hon. Friend has not mentioned. The Labour party has mounted an assault on the cook-chill industry for a long time and the London Food Commission has described cook-chill food as an assault on the food industry. By condemning the use of microwave ovens they are trying to discredit the cook-chill food industry.
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I do not always agree, for her kind support. It is a pity that the Opposition and others did not listen to what I said on Monday. If they had, they would not be surprised by what we have delivered on Wednesday.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Minister confirm that when he lost his temper on the "Today" programme this morning he had no intention whatsoever, as he repeatedly made clear, of publishing the list of defective microwave ovens but that a series of panic phone calls took place between his officials and representatives of the industry? May I, in a bipartisan spirit, ask him to join me in commending the person who made the breakthrough possible, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must look back to the statement that I made on Monday. I made it quite clear that a list, with instructions, would be published. The hon. Gentleman must tell the truth and not mislead the House. I repeated on Tuesday what I had said on Monday—that the list would be published—and I have repeated it again today. The Opposition thought that they were going to win a point today. They were rather disappointed when they found that they were entirely wrong.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether we are discussing a food safety

319
problem or a manufacturing problem? If we are discussing a manufacturing problem, of course it is correct to allow the manufacturers to publish the list of technical faults and what needs to be put right, but if we are discussing a food safety problem my right hon. Friend must understand that there will be some surprise that his Department is not taking the initiative by issuing a list of dangerous microwave ovens.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend must see that there have been two publications. I published on Monday the report that had the results of all the tests that had been carried out. What is being published today by the manufacturers is the agreed changes in their recommendations for the operation of their machines—as my hon. Friend said, of the machines themselves. Those are their recommendations, based on our findings. The machines are, of course, those on which the manufacturers had carried out other tests. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that I had the responsibility of announcing and publishing the report. I also had the responsibility on Monday of insisting that the manufacturers produced the list and gave the details of the changes with which we had agreed that the machines would be made perfectly safe in use.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time, and we must now move on.

Public Expenditure (Scotland)
3.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about public expenditure in Scotland.
Following the announcement of the Government's public expenditure plans by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15 November, I have now completed detailed decisions on the allocation of resources to the expenditure programmes for which I am responsible in Scotland. The total resources that I am able to deploy next year amount to just over £9·5 billion. That is £525 million greater than the latest estimate of outturn in the current year. Plans for future years will take the total to just over £10 billion in 1991–92 and to almost £10·4 billion in 1992–93, the third year of the survey.
In making my decisions on the resources to be allocated to individual programmes over the next three years I have, of course, had close regard to what are known as the "formula consequentials"—that is, the amounts that reflect the increases in the relevant comparable programmes south of the border. However, my final decisions reflect very clearly the priorities that I and my colleagues attach to particular Scottish needs and the requirements of particular programmes. The overall effect of my decisions is summarised in a table which is available from the Vote Office and will appear in Hansard. However, I should single out a number of key priority areas.
We are all concerned to see a significant improvement in our drinking water and in the quality of our environment. To achieve that, the Government will provide substantial additional resources, over and above the operation of the normal formula arrangements, for increased capital expenditure on water and sewerage services. That will enable me to boost capital expenditure above this year's level by more than £100 million over three years. That will take our investment level to no less than £190 million in 1992–93, almost 50 per cent. above this year's level, and provide a programme of £500 million over three years. I am sure that that will be widely welcomed.
I have also substantially increased the transport programme, by nearly £30 million next year compared with this, and made further increases which will bring the programme to over £400 million in 1992–93. That will enable us to make a significant start on the new M74 and further improvements to the M8, to the A96 and to other important trunk and local authority roads.
In housing, the resources available to Scottish Homes will be some £36 million—11 per cent.—greater than for the current year. I have substantially increased the public sector contribution to the funding of the local authorities' capital programme. The provisional net capital allocations for council housing will increase in total by £25 million, or 15 per cent. That will allow authorities to maintain the capital programme of improvement and repair of their own stock at the level per house announced this time last year, notwithstanding a forecast reduction in the level of receipts from sales. If local authorities wish to finance higher programmes of maintenance or new construction, they can increase receipts by speeding up council house sales, as Scottish Homes and the new towns have already done so successfully.

321
My decisions on housing also recognise the importance of the four partnership areas, Castlemilk, Wester Hailes, Whitfield and Ferguslie Park. I am including in the increases an extra £11 million for those areas, split almost equally between Scottish Homes and the local authorities' capital programmes. Those decisions on housing in Scotland clearly respond to the major priorities at the present time.
The priority that we attach to the partnerships in the peripheral estates and to similar deprived areas is underlined by the 50 per cent. increase in the urban programme in 1990–91, which will inject an additional £16 million of Government grant into projects improving the social infrastructure and employment opportunities in those areas.
The Government's strong commitment to education is underlined by my expenditure decisions. Spending on my education programme will rise by 12 per cent. next year to £439 million, and to £500 million in three years' time. Expenditure then will be more than 25 per cent. higher than it was this year. In recognition of the fact that more of our young people and mature students wish to enjoy the benefits of higher education, I am increasing support for students by £134 million over the next three years. This means that we shall be planning for an extra 6,000 students in Scotland next year, and 8,000 in 1991–92.
My spending decisions also reflect the Government's firm commitment to improving the quality of our environment and supporting the maintenance of our heritage. There will be an increase of 10 per cent. in funds for the Countryside Commission for Scotland next year and new provision of at least £3 million over the next three years for projects within the central Scotland woodlands initiative. There will be a 16 per cent. increase in historic buildings grants next year, an extra £2·5 million over three years for repairs to the Royal Scottish Academy building in Edinburgh, and a 25 per cent. increase in the National Library purchase grant to enable it to make heritage purchases and fill gaps in its collection.

£ million

1989–90 Estimated2 Outturn

1990–91 Planned Provision

1991–92 Planned Provision

1992–93 Planned Provision

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Agriculture

200

210

233

233

240

240

250

250

Industry

265

340

251

352

260

350

250

340

Water

130

133

142

143

170

170

190

190

Tourism

12

12

13

13

10

10

10

10

Transport

352

359

382

387

380

390

400

410

Housing3

621

1,109

639

1,024

650

1,140

660

1,030

OES4

141

211

133

194

140

200

120

180

LOPS

274

288

302

317

300

320

320

340

Education (including Sport)

390

396

439

440

490

490

500

500

Arts & Libraries

28

28

35

35

40

40

40

40

Health

2,714

2,821

2,937

3,041

3,090

3,190

3,240

3,330

Social Work

38

38

38

38

40

40

40

40

OPS

128

149

139

169

160

190

160

190

NI external financing

-60

-60

-118

-118

10

10

10

10

Sub-Total

5,233

6,033

5,560

6,268

5,980

6,780

6,190

6,860

Central Government support for local authority current expenditure

3,818

3,818

4,016

4,016

4,110

4,110

4,210

4,210

Total

9,051

9,851

9,576

10,284

10,090

10,890

10,400

11,070

Note: Owing to rounding, individual figures do not necessarily sum to the totals. Figures for 1991–92 and 1992–93 are rounded to nearest £10 million.

The figures for each service consist of central Government's own expenditure, net capital expenditure allocations and grants to local authorities and public corporations' expenditure.

Finally, I would single out health for a particular mention. The health programme is, of course, the biggest single programme within my block and it accounts for almost one third of the total resources that I have at my disposal. Indeed, expenditure per head on health in Scotland is well over 20 per cent. above the comparable level in England. I continue to attach a very high priority to the Health Service. I have therefore allocated to it an additional £220 million over this year's expenditure, which is more than the formula consequentials from comparable expenditure in England. Overall, it takes spending on the health programme in Scotland to a figure in excess of £3 billion for the first time—almost three times the size of the programme that we inherited on taking office 10 years ago. By 1992–93, the total expenditure will be fully £500 million higher than in the current year.
In addition to these key decisions on programmes, I have, as already announced, set aside resources to enable a significant start to be made in bringing business rates in Scotland into line with those south of the border. Business ratepayers will be paying £80 million less next year than would otherwise be the case.
I have also already announced details of the provision I am making for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The gross expenditure of the Scottish Development Agency will reach a new record level of £180 million next year, while the Highlands and Islands Development Board will have an additional £9 million over the next three years, in recognition of the particular problems of Caithness. Both bodies have welcomed the generous provision being made.
The decisions that I am announcing today represent good news for Scotland. They will enable us to address the real priorities and needs of the Scottish people. I commend them to the House.
Following is the table:

2 The introduction of the new planning total means that it is not possible to make precise comparisons between the expenditure plans for 1990–91 and those for 1989–90. It is for this reason that the above table shows comparison between estimated outturn and plans. The estimated outturn figure for 1989–90 is higher than that shown in the Autumn Statement because it takes account of supplementary estimates and supplementary capital allocations since the figures for the Autumn Statement were compiled.

3 Scottish Homes' estimated gross outturn, excluding NLF repayments, in 1989–90 is £313 million: the proposed figure for 1990–91 is £349 million. Local Authorities' latest net capital allocations for investment in their own stock in 1989, including the recently announced supplementary allocations, total £164 million. The provisional net allocations for 1990–91 will be £189 million.

4 Estimated urban programe grants in 1989–90 are £32 million; the proposed figure for 1990–91 is £48 million.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State has made his annual appearance as Santa Claus. He is not very convincing in the role. Certainly no self-respecting department store would employ him to dispense Christmas cheer, and I know of no grotto that would be prepared to house him.
On detailed examination the right hon. and learned Gentleman's message this year once again falls far short of the expectations of the advance publicity. Does he remember last year's confident talk of generosity, and has he seen table 1.12 in this year's Autumn Statement, which shows that general Government expenditure in Scotland is expected to fall by £100 million in real terms between 1988–89 and 1989–90? Does not the Chancellor's own testimony in this year's Autumn Statement make it clear that Opposition Members were right in the comparable argument last year?
Last year central Government support for local government expenditure was included in the individual programmes. This year it has been excluded from the tables and appears as a single unallocated block almost as an afterthought. As that total of about £4 billion in real terms will be at a standstill next year, if the figures had been allocated as they were in the past, they might well have depressed the individual spending increases that the Secretary of State is now parading. It gives some reality to the figures if we remember that central Government support for local government expenditure is expected to fall in real terms both in 1991–92 and 1992–93.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that if we take estimated outturn for 1989–90 against net planned provision in real terms for 1990–91, the increase is less than I per cent.? That is anything but generous and is a programme which in no sense measures up to Scotland's needs.
I am happy to welcome certain decisions on priorities such as the increased expenditure on water and sewerage services and the money allocated to the urban programme. However, there are sad omissions and, given the largely standstill budget in real terms, inevitably casualties. Expenditure on the Health Service is planned to increase, as I calculate it, in real terms by under 2·5 per cent., or less than 1 per cent. if we apply the more realistic National Health Service deflator. Will the Secretary of State accept that, having spent a morning earlier this week with some of my colleagues considering the problems of the Greater Glasgow health board, I can see no reason for taking satisfaction from the figures?
Is it not extraordinary that next year the net industry budget is cut in cash terms by £14 million and in real terms by £25 million, or 25 per cent.? Is that not an incomprehensible decision when the economic outlook is so difficult? Does the Secretary of State remember telling the House on 13 December last year that
324
"Detailed provision for Scottish Enterprise will appear in my future public expenditure plans."—[Official Report, 13 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 770.]
He went on to talk of an increase in next year's provision for both net and gross expenditure in the industry programme. What has happened to the provision for Scottish Enterprise? How can the cuts over the next year or two give any grounds for confidence in the Secretary of State's ability to honour his recent hints on television that he would be able to persuade the Treasury to go beyond the imposition of a standstill budget on Scottish Enterprise?
I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman specifically about the problem of homelessness. The Secretary of State for the Environment recently announced a special package of £250 million for local authorities and housing associations in areas of particular need south of the border. The figures released by Shelter and local government for Scotland are frightening.
Does the Secretary of State accept that homelessness is significantly worse in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom? If that is so, why has there been no equivalent Scottish announcement? Will he accept that it is not good enough to argue that provision has been made within the overall figure, particularly when the net increase in his contribution to the housing budget from £621 million to £639 million next year is, in real terms, an increase of only 1 per cent.? That would be a cruel mockery when gross expenditure actually falls next year by £85 million, or by £126 million in real terms. Every Opposition Member will remember the callous slight to the homeless contained in the Government's original White Paper on housing. The absence of any specific finance to tackle the problem can only confirm the accusation of complacency and indifference.
The Secretary of State's announcement does not add up or measure up to the problems of Scotland. If, as some fear, recession bites, his announcement will be seen as a tragic lost opportunity.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to me as Santa Claus. I am always happy to play Santa Claus against his Scrooge. Yet again he seeks to dismiss a superb settlement as one which should be subject to criticism. He sounded today even less convincing than usual in his argument.
The Government have been so generous to Scottish local authorities that I have been required to divert money from other central Government programmes to sustain local government expenditure. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge and appreciate that fact. I welcome his support for the announcements on water and sewerage and on the urban programme. That will be widely welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to problems that he has identified in the Greater Glasgow health board. He might

325
like to emphasise the fact that the Greater Glasgow health board is, and will remain, probably the best funded health board anywhere in the United Kingdom. If it has problems, I have no doubt that, under its present management, it will seek to rectify them at the earliest opportunity. It is worth remembering that my announcements today represent an 8·2 per cent. increase in expenditure on the Health Service, compared with the outturn in the current year. In the case of family practitioner services, an increase of no less than 13 per cent. has been announced.
The hon. Gentleman bewailed the absence of any reference to Scottish Enterprise. It would have been rather astonishing if there had been a reference to it. The Bill is yet to be introduced into the House. Scottish Enterprise will not come into effect at the beginning of the public expenditure survey. Obviously the appropriate time to determine resources for Scottish Enterprise will be when Parliament approves its establishment. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated that, unlike the rest of Scotland, he is opposed to the creation of Scottish Enterprise, he is hardly the best person to bewail the alleged lack of resources for it.
We fully recognise the seriousness of homelessness. That is why I have provided for an increase of 11 per cent. to Scottish Homes—a substantial increase on top of the significant resources that were provided for its first year of operation. In addition to local authorities, there has been an increase in the Government's contribution—more than double the rate of inflation. I have told local authorities that, if they wish to increase their gross expenditure, they should realise that, in Scotland, they have the full benefit of receipts from council house sales. If they were to apply the same energy to assisting their tenants to acquire their homes as the new towns and Scottish Homes have done, it would be entirely to the benefit of their housing expenditure opportunities.
Sir Hector Monro: I warmly welcome the huge expenditure in Scotland, including a far higher cost per head than is available to England. I welcome also the fact that there is to be a big increase in expenditure on roads, housing, health and education. Bearing in mind the vast increase in local authority expenditure, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the quality of life in Scotland should be far higher than ever before, and achieved without any increase in the community charge?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. A large number of local authorities in Scotland will be able to contemplate reducing the community charge for next year, given the removal of their contribution to the safety net and the fact that the vast majority of local authorities will therefore receive an increase in revenue support grant. That will mean than any decision not to reduce community charge levels, particularly on the part of district councils, will be almost impossible to understand or justify.
Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Secretary of State placed great emphasis on spending on education. May I take it that, as a consequence of his statement, he will look favourably at the proposals by the governors of Newbattle college, in Dalkeith, Midlothian?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the problem relating to Newbattle college arose out of the unwillingness of local authorities and trade unions over
326
the years to continue their contribution to the support of Newbattle, which left the Scottish Education Department as the only body providing any substantial support. Naturally, one will look with interest at any proposals coming from the college, but I cannot anticipate any change in the Government's position, because the reasons for that policy still appear to be substantiated by the present situation.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his statement and on his rejection of the wilder assertions that were made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in his annual appearance as the spectre at the feast. I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend said about increased investment in water. He said that the increases were outside the block and that, in effect, Scotland has benefited enormously from privatisation receipts from England and Wales. I assume that my right hon. and learned Friend used some pretty good Unionist arguments for that, as it seems a considerable political achievement.
I should like also to ask my right hon. and learned Friend about transport. My understanding of his figures is that, in effect, expenditure on new motorway and road construction will have increased by 50 per cent. by 1992–93.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I do not think that I can claim that the resources allocated for water and sewerage arise out of privatisation receipts from the sale of the industry south of the border. Rather they reflect a willingness by my colleagues—and I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to appreciate the need for a substantial increase in expenditure on this important area to improve the quality of our environment in Scotland. There are similar schemes elsewhere in the United Kingdom and I think that we all agree that this is a crucial priority.
Likewise with roads: we have identified an exciting roads programme, especially the upgrading of the M74, which has been widely welcomed.
Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the announcement about increased expenditure on water and sewerage. However, will it be sufficient to help the rural areas in Scotland where most of the sewage is discharged straight into the sea as raw sewage and often returns straight on to the shore?
I am still concerned about what the Secretary of State said about homelessness in Scotland which remains unacceptably high, especially in Argyll and Bute, where it has risen by 55 per cent. in the past five years. I know that the council finds it difficult to cope with that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to increasing support for students, which I find a bit false in view of the top-up loans that are supposed to be imposed on them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about support and about trying to plan for an extra 6,000 students next year. What proportion of that 6,000 are likely to be Scottish students and which countries will the others come from?
I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would give some detail about the subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne. Will it be increased or decreased? If it is to be decreased, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises what he is doing, because he would be forcing CalMac to

327
make more and more money from tourism, which would mean that in the end it will become a tourist service instead of remembering that its first priority is to serve the islanders.
Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome to my announcement on water and sewerage. We certainly hope that Argyll, as well as other parts of Scotland, will substantially benefit from it.
On the question of homelessness, I am very conscious of the fact that the reduction in receipts from council house sales would, by itself, have led to significant problems for local authorities. Therefore, it is appropriate for both Government and local authorities to do what they can to respond to that problem. That is why in our Government contribution we have provided a substantial increase that is well over the rate of inflation to help local authorities. However, I hope that the local authorities will show more enthusiasm than they have up to now in assisting and encouraging their tenants to use the opportunities of the tenants' rights legislation, because that will also work to the benefit of their housing programmes.
With regard to what the hon. Lady said about students, it is obviously for the universities to determine admissions, but the point of the increased resources is to enable a higher proportion of people in Scotland to benefit from higher education. That figure has already reached 22 per cent., compared with the United Kingdom average of 15 per cent., and the figures announced today will allow for further improvements in that area.
We are not making any announcement today with regard to CalMac. The hon. Lady should recall that support for CalMac is based on the deficit subsidy approach, which means that we cover the difference between revenue and expenditure. We obviously take into account the pattern of use of the service and the need for a fair and reasonable tariff structure.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement will be welcomed in Scotland, and especially his choice of priorities. However, that choice of priorities could well be affected by other factors. Is he aware that in Tayside, for example, the region's Labour administration has handled the education policy in such a way that it has not dealt with the problems in Dundee, where there is 40 per cent. over-capacity and consequently Alyth school in my constituency has been forced to consider the possibility of becoming self-governing?
Also, general practitioners in Scotland may find that they will not benefit from the additional funds because their representatives on the Scottish BMA are not prepared to have special discussions on the needs, aspirations and wishes of Scottish GPs because they do not want a separate deal.
Hon. Members: This is a speech.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate but the time for questions. The hon. Member must ask a question.
Mr. Walker: I was following the example of earlier questioners. I was present throughout Question Time, but this is the first question that I have asked today.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, that does not entitle the hon. Member to ask a series of questions.
Mr. Walker: I am simply following an example. I trust that you, Mr. Speaker, will accept that I usually endeavour to follow your instructions to the letter.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that he does not always control where funds finally go and that the activities of others could impede his wishes?
Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case. We provide resources to several organisations, and ultimately it is their responsibility to decide how those resources are used.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: What adjustment will have to be made to Government expenditure plans if large numbers of people continue to refuse to pay the poll tax? Despite the Secretary of State's brave words to Edinburgh business people the other day, is it not a fact that bankers as well as local authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the resultant chaos? That chaos is likely only to worsen until the Government come to their senses and replace that iniquitous tax with a fairer system of local government finance.
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I do not recall him complaining a year ago about administrative problems caused under the old rating system when Strathclyde regional council had to issue more than 78,000 summary warrants to owner-occupiers and private tenants who had not paid their rates on time, apart from what warrants were necessary for council tenants. The hon. Gentleman found it unnecessary to comment on those matters under the rating system. Similar attempts to delay paying the community charge should not surprise the House, even if it surprises him.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend—perhaps I should declare an interest—for the enormous and welcome increase in historic building grant.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to buy a new suit.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I thought that my suit had an historic appearance.
I also congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on increasing the expenditure for Scotland, once again increasing the quality of life in Scotland beyond that of any other part of Europe.
Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The Government attach great importance to Scotland's natural and national heritage and the Historic Buildings Council, so ably chaired by my hon. and learned Friend, makes a splendid contribution, supported by the whole of Scotland, to ensuring a splendid future for Scotland's national heritage.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the real tests of his announcement will be whether homelessness is reduced and the housebuilding programme is stepped up? What specific sums has he allocated to those worrying and growing problems, and by how much does he estimate that homelessness and housing waiting lists will be reduced over the next four years?
Mr. Rifkind: I said that resources to Scottish Homes were being increased by £36 million, an increase of some 11 per cent. In addition, we have provided £11 million particularly for the partnership estates, which are

329
primarily local authority council estates. The £36 million will be divided between the local authority allocation and Scottish Homes. In addition, local authorities will receive an increase in their net allocation for their capital programmes of about 15 per cent. That reflects the difficulties that would otherwise arise from the reduction in receipts from council house sales. I make no apology for repeating that local authorities also have an obligation to do what they can to increase their resources, as the new towns have done so successfully.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall that, in previous years when he has come to the Dispatch Box and made glowing announcements about his generosity, it has almost always been followed after Christmas and the new year by Members for Aberdeen and north-east Scotland telling him that he grossly underestimated and misrepresented the sum which was to be available to my part of the country? Will it be the same this year? Can he give us the figures for the north-east? Can we spare ourselves our annual trip down to see him to get justice for our part of the country?
Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, each local area, not just the north-east, would like to get the lion's share of the resources available. Today's announcement is of the global sums available. Over the next few weeks my hon. Friends and I shall determine the individual allocations to individual local authorities. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to treat fairly the needs of Grampion region and district councils in the north-east. Each local area believes that it should have more than any other area, but that is not always possible, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
Mr. Alex Salmond: When will the Secretary of State take time to educate English Tory Back Benchers and some Scottish ones about the enormous flow of funds for defence procurement, mortgage interest tax relief and transport subsidies which are siphoned off into the already overheated economy of the south-east but mysteriously do not appear in any of the identified public expenditure tables? Is he aware that an analysis from the Library shows that from his period of office to the end of the forecast period in 1992 the Scottish Office budget will increase by 39 per cent., overall United Kingdom public expenditure by 42 per cent. and the Welsh Office budget by 57 per cent.? Why is it that every time the Secretary of State claims a miracle on public spending it turns out to be a mirage?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman is advocating on behalf of his party levels of public expenditure for Scotland which correspond to those of either England or Wales, he must explain to his constituents why he advocates major cuts in the present level of provision for health, housing, education and roads, all of which are substantially higher for Scotland than for England or Wales. He should escape for a moment from the paranoia associated with his party.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the subsequent business, but I shall endeavour to call all hon. Members provided that they ask brief questions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As everything is so rosy in the financial garden, why is it necessary to introduce the
330
principle of toll roads from Edinburgh to the M74? Is it because there is a fall in real terms in the money allocated to transport between 1991 and 1992?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There is no proposal for toll roads from Edinburgh to the M74. There are several projects that may include the use of tolls in various parts of the United Kingdom. Our recent discussion document on routes south of Edinburgh suggests that there may be a case for a fast link between part of the M8 and the M74. The proposal has not been previously suggested by other interests, nor does it appear in the existing roads programme. Rather than defer such a project for the good number of years that would be required, given our other transport priorities and initiatives, we have suggested that it might be worth considering whether the fast link could be provided in the form suggested. I stress that it is only a proposal at this stage.
Mr. John McAllion: The Secretary of State told us this afternoon, as he told us in his statement last year, that the health programme has been identified as an area of priority. Yet we learned only this week that during the past year 200 patients at the Lennox Castle psychiatric hospital suffered undernourishment as a result of staff shortages. He can say what he likes at the Dispatch Box, but how does he expect anybody to believe him when so much evidence in Scotland flies in the face of his claims?
Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about reports of undernourishment at that or any other hospital. Suggestions that it is due to staff reductions cannot possibly be justified. Apart from anything else, staff numbers at that hospital have increased rather than decreased recently.
Mr. Ron Brown: Although the Secretary of State has been addressed as Father Christmas, does he not understand that there is no sanity clause in his statement? He has told us that Scottish Homes and local councils should sell public housing in Scotland, but the Government, through the quango, the Scottish Development Agency, have bribed Barratt's with more than £300,000 to develop the West Pilton Circus site in my constituency. Worse still, they have kept that secret and they will not divulge the facts, but it is all true. Why does not the Secretary of State speak up, or does the kick-back system still operate? Does he support it as part of the capitalist system?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue that point, he should either put down a Question or write a letter to either myself or to my hon. Friend the Minister concerned, as his question today is somewhat confused.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Does the Secretary of State recall that, last year, he painted ari optimistic picture of National Health Service funding? I have in my possession a confidential memorandum that shows that Lothian health board has stopped filling vacancies because it does not have the cash to do so. Surely the promises that were given last year were untrue. What reason do we have to believe the Secretary of State this year? A lot of the money that he has announced today will be used to oil the wheels of privatisation and to introduce the health reforms that the Government are so keen to support.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be as aware as anyone that the introduction of, for example, competitive tendering in Lothian and elsewhere has led to substantial savings which have remained with the health boards and have been used by them to improve services for their patients. It is true that some of the resources announced today will be used for the NHS review. That is right and proper, because that review will be a further means whereby we can improve the quality of service and therefore the well-being of patients in Lothian and elsewhere in Scotland.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Secretary of State admit that, against the background of the Government's high-interest rate economic policy, and taking into account the likely level of inflation next year, the public expenditure he has announced will not be sufficient to stop unemployment rising again next year in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: Before the hon. Gentleman reaches such conclusions, he should look at some recent reports and surveys. This morning The Scotsman quoted the chief economist of the Royal Bank of Scotland as predicting that economic growth in Scotland will outstrip the rest of the United Kingdom next year; presumably because, in part, the effect of high-interest rates, although undesired in any part of the country, has its greatest impact where mortgages are highest—in the south-east of England. That report this morning corresponds with reports and surveys by the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Scottish Confederation of British Industry, all of which point to the fact that growth in Scotland is likely to be higher than the United Kingdom average for the forthcoming year.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Did the Secretary of State consult COSLA on his statement, or does he plan to do so? In view of the absence of any reference in the statement to community care, how does that match with the Government's rhetoric on the subject? There are problems of homelessness, poverty and fuel poverty as well as problems arising from the notorious social fund, and social work departments experience those problems day after day. What recognition has the Secretary of State given in the statement to those social work departments that are trying to operate and to respond to people's needs under the sort of pressure that they know, and the Secretary of State should know, to be totally unacceptable?
Mr. Rifkind: Central Government provision for social work is planned to rise from £16 million in 1991 to £20 million in 1992—93, which is a substantial increase. As for consultation with the local authorities, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing met COSLA on Friday and discussed the housing allocations with it.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has received a major hospital building programme from the Lanarkshire health board? Will he confirm that it includes a proposal for a new district general hospital in the Motherwell district to replace the temporary wartime emergency hospital which is incapable of development because of mining subsidence on the site? Will he confirm that there is room for a start at least on the planning expenditure on this hospital in the next financial year?
Mr. Rifkind: Proposals such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers have not yet been drawn to Ministers' attention. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that when that happens I shall take into account the point that he has made.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How does the Secretary of State justify the cut in public services of £100 million revealed in last month's Autumn Statement—table 1.12, page 30—and what confidence has he that the future spending increases he announced will bring about the desired results over the next year?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already informed the House that expenditure in Scotland, for which the Scottish Office is responsible, will increase by more than £500 million next year compared to outturn for this year. That answers the hon. Gentleman.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In drawing up his budget allocation for the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, did the Secretary of State take special account of the possible need to assist the hard-pressed fishing communities on the coastlines of Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: I share the hon. Lady's concern about the problems faced by the fishing industry, and I have already made clear my total opposition to the latest proposals from the Commissioner in Brussels with regard to haddock quotas for the industry. Clearly we shall have to await further developments to see exactly what the scale of reduction in fishing entitlements might be. The hon. Lady can rest assured that we shall do our best to protect the fishing communities from any unreasonable proposals made by the Commission.
Mr. John Maxton: Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that the people of Scotland will be deluded when he uses terms such as "superb", "generous" and other over-flowing adjectives to describe the settlement when examination of the figures will show that the settlement will mean a policy of cut, cut and cut again? Is it not clear that his evasively complacent answers to my hon. Friends' questions about homelessness in Scotland show that he is cruelly and callously indifferent to the plight of thousands of Scots with no roof over their heads at this time of year?
Is he not aware that to use the increased allocation to Scottish Homes is totally irrelevant because Scottish Homes has no statutory obligation to the homeless? Does not the recent Shelter survey show that there is a major crisis of homelessness in Scotland which he can solve only by dealing with it as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment did—by allocating special funds for the purpose and allowing local authorities to get on with the jobs that they are best able to do?
Mr. Rifkind: Only the hon. Gentleman could describe an increase of £500 million as a cut. He seems unaware of the work that Scottish Homes is doing and proposes to do with its resources. Far from operating in a vacuum separate from local authorities, Scottish Homes already works closely with many local authorities in Scotland, and a substantial proportion of its resources is being used in the local authority estates in co-operation with local

333
authorities. How the hon. Gentleman, representing as he does the Castlemilk estate, can be ignorant of that fact is extraordinary when Castlemilk is—
Mr. Maxton: What about homelessness?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there is homelessness in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He should know that, even if he is not drawing it to our attention.
Castlemilk is one of the partnership areas into which substantial new resources are being put in co-operation with local authorities. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents a grave disservice by appearing to be ignorant of that fact.

Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think we would all agree that one of the great strengths of the House is the way in which it respects and defends the position of every person in it, however lowly or exalted. I fully agree that you, Mr. Speaker, cannot be responsible for the ill manners and discourtesy sometimes shown by Ministers to hon. Members. I sat here yesterday and today and watched the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) being treated in a discourteous manner by a Minister. When a pattern like that is established, it becomes the business of the House. I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Would this be the time to ask the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip to remind Ministers that, when they offend against one person in that way, they offend against the integrity of the entire House?
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is on this point.
Mr. Speaker: Why?
Mr. Winnick: The explanation is that on many occasions you have asked hon. Members to withdraw or apologise. As you know, hon. Members respond to the Chair. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) was out of order. You accepted that it was not out of order, or you would have pointed it out. Although you cannot force Ministers to apologise if what they say is not directly out of order, under those circumstances should not the Secretary of State have apologised? By not apologising, has he not shown contempt to the House and to you?
Mr. Speaker: As the House knows, I am not responsible for what is said, provided that it is in order. Yesterday I did not hear the question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), because, as I explained, the microphones are out of date. I hope that in due course they will be replaced. However, the hon. Gentleman was heard today, perhaps because I suggested to him that he move his place.
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to raise a separate master concerning the Secretary of State for Scotland. He said that I should table a question to him on Barratt's. I have done that, but I am not satisfied with the reply, and neither are my constituents. If it is a cover-up job and he does not want to answer openly, then something is wrong. I believe in perestroika, glasnost, and open government, whereas the Government do not.
Mr. Speaker: Again, I am not responsible for the answers given to questions.
Mr. Jim Sillars: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that, while this afternoon's exercise on the Scottish statement was quite useful, it is no substitute for the inquisitorial attitude towards the Government which is required and would come from a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to take you back a few minutes to the slight altercation between yourself and the

335
hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) who complained that he was not receiving enough time to question the Minister. Is it possible, through you, to invite the hon. Member for Tayside, North to reconsider his position in respect of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Can you explain why, if someone in the House allegedly—I use that word advisedly—disobeys the Standing Orders, he can be evicted from the precincts of the House, yet when a Government refuse to obey Standing Order No. 130 and set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, they can do so with impunity?
Mr. Speaker: This matter was raised with me by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh). I have given him a reply, and I have nothing further to add to what I said the other day.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We do have an important debate before us.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance and, I hope, your protection. May I draw your attention to the fact that the issue of membership of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is regularly alluded to in the Chamber?
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in two Parliaments the Scottish National party refused categorically to serve on that Committee. Those hon. Members are no longer with us, but the present members of the Scottish National party seek to deny me, as an hon. Member, the rights that they enjoyed. Their reasons for refusing to serve were quite different from mine. I have served in two Parliaments and know something about what happened in that Committee.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, has my protection. We have heard what he said, but it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since there is real difficulty in scrutinising Government business adequately, if the Government persist in their refusal to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, might it be a matter for the Procedure Committee to examine? If we cannot have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, perhaps we can have at least double the ration of Question Time.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must put that matter to the Procedure Committee.

BILL PRESENTED
  BROADCASTING BILL
  Mr. Secretary Waddington, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Brooke and Mr. David Mellor, presented a Bill to make new provision with respect to the provision and regulation of independent television and sound programme services and of other services provided on television or radio frequencies; to make provision with respect to the provision and regulation of local delivery services; to amend in other respects the law relating to broadcasting and the provision of television and sound programme services; to make new provision relating to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission; to provide for the establishment and functions of a Broadcasting Standards Council; to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 and the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 9.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Contamination of Feeding Stuff) (Wales) (No. 4) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 2269) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is among the shortest that we shall be introducing this Session; it is none the less significant. It provides measures to allow the sale to the private sector of the Crown Suppliers and PSA Services, which are both parts of the Property Services Agency. The remainder of the PSA will remain within the Government.
  The success of the Government's privatisation programme is acknowledged throughout the world—
  Mr. Clive Soley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman sniggers. I notice that they have just appointed—
  Mr. Bryan Gould: It was a guffaw, actually.
  Mr. Patten: They are not guffawing in Poland, where they have just appointed a privatisation Minister. That is a point to which I shall return with enthusiasm later if invited to do so. Having heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on Sunday explaining, or perhaps not quite explaining, that the Labour party was or was not enthusiastic about privatisation, we once again look forward to hearing clarification of this issue by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—his clarifications on share ownership are like no one else's.
  Over the past decade, almost 45 per cent. of what was the public sector in the United Kingdom has been transferred to private ownership. As a result, major public corporations have been given greater freedom and their performance has improved beyond measure. The two organisations with which this Bill is concerned are small in terms of privatisation, but they are of considerable significance in the Government's drive to improve the efficiency of the public sector.
  In recent years, there have been major changes in the way in which we manage our public services. At the heart of those changes has been the financial management initiative launched by the Prime Minister in 1981. That initiative took as a key principle the fact that the primary responsibility for ensuring managerial efficiency within Government should lie with the spending departments. No longer would concerns about efficiency and value for money rest primarily in the central Departments, in the Treasury, or, for building matters, in the PSA. Responsibility would instead be devolved to the ultimate users; in future the customer, not the provider of services, would decide what should be done—the customer would be king.
  Although privatisation rightly has a high profile among our policies for the long-term strengthening of thc. economy, the importance of improving efficiency within Government is no less significant. For example, the PSA
  338
  has been handling expenditure of more than £3·5 billion and employing resources of its own of more than £300 million. The prospect of improving the efficiency with which such a large block of expenditure is managed clearly represents a major prize.
  To apply the financial management initiative to building and property services, the Government decided that Departments should assume their own responsibility for all works and estate services which had formerly been provided by the PSA. Departments would themselves manage the money voted for this work by Parliament and would be permitted to choose their supplier of works services from the PSA or elsewhere. In the jargon, Departments would be untied from the PSA. They have been similarly untied from the Crown Suppliers since April 1987.
  As a result of these decisions, the service providers in the PSA and the Crown Suppliers have needed to match their professional skills and property experience with a more commercial responsiveness and speed. They know, as the Labour party might put it, that they must meet the challenge and make the change if they are to keep their work load.
  The case for these privatisations has three elements—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister goes any further, will he help us by explaining how valuable public resources such as property and equipment are to be valued, and who will be given the task of valuing them?
  Mr. Patten: I am coming shortly to the mechanics of the privatisations, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that when property is involved, a proper valuation will be done before any sale, and it will be made public—
  Mr. David Winnick: I apologise beforehand for the fact that I am off to the Procedure Committee in a moment.
  In view of the sweeteners that were given in the Rover case and the strong and justified feeling that corruption was involved, how can we be persuaded that the same degree of corruption will not obtain in future measures of privatisation and of selling off state assets?
  Mr. Patten: I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations. Had I known that he was going to make them and that he was going to leave in a moment—even for the Procedure Committee—I would not have allowed him to intervene—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Patten: But I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman who, as always, will be staying with us, I dare say, for the entire debate—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Despite the fact that I am also on the Procedure Committee. However, I regard this debate as important.
  On the issue of the private versus the public sector, has the Secretary of State been made aware by the Minister of State of what happened two years ago when Richmond house, the DHSS headquarters, was valued? Cluttons, a private sector company, was brought in and charged £44,000 to value the building. It turned out subsequently that an internal memorandum in the PSA had suggested that the same valuation could have been done by its staff for £1,500. Why should the public have to pay an extra £42,500 to use an outside private contractor when the job

  339
  could be done by a civil servant? Does not that take us to the heart of the argument today? In the end, the public may well end up paying far more for the same services.
  Mr. Patten: Even though the hon. Gentleman has to leave in a moment, he has such an exemplary record of attending debates that I am always pleased to give way to him. I recall that, in the case to which he has referred, the work done involved a particular expertise because of the buildings concerned. I am convinced that, when a Department is managing its own operations and funds, it will make sure that it secures the best possible value for money. That was certainly my experience when I was responsible for a small Department faced with the obligations under the financial management initiative to look after its property interests.
  The hon. Gentleman might also note the difficulty in public sector accountancy practice of ensuring that one is comparing like with like. The most important way in which we can secure best value for money in the public sector is to ensure that the customer is responsible for the budget and has managerial responsibility for what ensues.
  I return now to the main elements in the argument for privatisations. First, Departments now have delegated authority to make their own choices about the services that they require. That is the way to ensure effective procurement.
  Secondly, the PSA and the Crown Suppliers must compete for their work with others who are equally anxious to provide a good service. Thirdly, the PSA and TCS need the freedom to compete effectively and can get it only outside the confines of the public sector.
  The House should therefore see that the privatisation of these two bodies arises naturally for the good of the organisations themselves and hence for the good of their staff and customers. It arises out of a simple principle: decisions are best delegated as far as possible to the ultimate users.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, provided he is not going to the Procedure Committee.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister used the phrase "for the good of their staff". Why does the National Union of Public Employees object so strongly to the proposals? Where is the evidence for saying that it is for the good of the staff? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that at least in the view of the staff it is not for their good?
  Mr. Patten: I have had the advantage of a meeting with staff unions. I shall come later to the detailed questions about staff because that issue forms an extremely important part of the debate and undoubtedly it will be discussed in Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to share in the discussions in Committee.
  I shall now deal with the two organisations. The Property Services Agency, as it exists at the moment and despite its name, is a large self-contained part of a Government Department—the Department of the Environment. In the past, because it has been both provider and customer for Government works services, it has had many services that are regulatory or essentially
  340
  governmental, such as, for example, the management of the Government's civil accommodation. However, the great bulk of its activities involves the provision of works and estate services to other Government Departments, just as existing commercial agencies—consultants, estate agents or building contractors—provide similar services for non-governmental bodies.
  The PSA has a mixed reputation within Government. It often gets the blame when Government buildings appear badly maintained, although I concede immediately that that can sometimes be the result of its budget having been constrained because of general pressures on public expenditure. In the past, the customer Departments have been free to make the complaints and the PSA was there to receive the brickbats. In future the decisions about what to spend—the point that I made earlier—will lie with the customer departments. If they decide to spend less on maintenance or more on a new building, it will be their own choice. The PSA will be judged on how well it has provided what the customer asked for. That will be good for efficiency in Government and salutory for Departments and the PSA.
  In the past, the system of parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee and the studies by the Select Committee on the Environment have ensured that any aspects of the PSA's performance which deserved criticism have received wide public coverage. That is wholly reasonable while the PSA remains a Government department. However, we should not allow that proper degree of public exposure to obscure the less well publicised, but regular, stream of work that the agency does so well.
  It receives a large number of awards each year for design excellence—there were 22 last year alone—and it is held in high regard by some of its largest and most demanding customers and by many of its potential competitors in the private sector. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently paid tribute to the PSA for its work in the extensive countrywide programme of court building. The United States forces have compared the service that they get from PSA favourably with the service they get at bases anywhere in the world. In 1988–89 the PSA won 11 of the total of 21 awards made by the USAF European Command.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Minister agree that the United States Air Force has said that it is worried about the security implications of privatising the PSA? What will he do about security at military installations and at Cabinet Ministers' houses when the service is privatised?
  Mr. Patten: We are discussing with the Ministry of Defence and United States forces how we can continue to provide as much excellent work for the Ministry of Defence overseas and for United States forces in this country as the PSA provides at present. A great deal of Ministry of Defence work on matters involving considerable security is already carried out by private sector operators. For example, 70 per cent. of the design work for the MOD is carried out under that sort of security umbrella by the private sector. No great principle is being breached here.
  Mr. Dalyell: We have figures here given by the unions and I should like the Minister to tell us whether they are accurate. In 1988, the PSA design costs were shown to be 25 to 30 per cent. cheaper than those of private designers. On the related question of estate surveying, the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the private valuation of the new DHSS headquarters at Richmond terrace, Whitehall cost 266 per cent. more than a PSA valuation would have cost. Is that correct?
  Mr. Patten: Given the way that accountancy operations are conducted at present when a potential private sector firm is in the public sector, it is extremely difficult to work out the sort of figures that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If his figures are correct, this firm will do spectacularly well in the private sector as the result of a trade sale or a management or employee buy-out.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister misunderstands the point that is being made. As we understand it, valuations are often carried out on the basis of a percentage. Let us look at the district works office, Teddington. The Minister may laugh, but this is a serious matter. The outside contractor charged £193,722 for his work. The PSA valuation for exactly the same work was £92,112—a saving of £100,000 to the taxpayer. That was the difference between the private sector and the public sector for exactly the same work. The Secretary of State cannot brush that aside and say that in future prices can be cut. That difference arose because of the basis of valuation and it is for the Secretary of State to assure the House that that will not happen in future.
  Mr. Patten: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), will be succinct and will do just as well later in dealing with Teddington as he did in the recent Adjournment debate.
  As a Minister responsible for a Department, I think that the disciplines of being responsible for one's own budget on matters such as the maintenance of property are extremely good for the taxpayer and ensure that we get the best value for money. That is an important part of the development of the financial management initiative. I look forward to congratulating the management, the employees or those responsible for the trade sale when the PSA operates extremely successfully in the private sector, as it will in due course.
  In 1986, the PSA management launched a fundamental review of its responsibilities and organisation, and its relationship with departmental clients. Shortly afterwards, the Select Committee on the Environment under the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) carried out a study of the PSA, resulting in 1987 in an important and constructive report. Those reviews paved the way for the Government's decision that, from 1 April 1990, all Departments would be fully untied from the PSA and that the PSA's service activities would be managed commercially.
  Steps are now in hand to separate the PSA's commercial activities from its governmental responsibilities, so that, from April 1990, the residual governmental activities, such as the maintenance of the Palace of Westminster and the management of the Government car service, will be transferred as a separate unit to the Department of the Environment with its own accounting
  342
  officer at deputy secretary level. Within these activities, one has already been established as an executive agency under the Government's "next steps" initiative—the highly successful Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. Two others, the main resident function of managing the Government's common user estate, and the small but significant activity of negotiating contracts for fuel supplies to parts of Government and the public sector, were shown in the recent White Paper "Next Steps" as candidates for agency status.
  Since the major portion of the PSA is to be a competitive commercial organisation, many hon. Members will need no further convincing that we should aim for privatisation at the earliest opportunity.
  For any who are less committed to the principle of privatisation, even after the words of the hon. Member for Copeland on television last week, perhaps I should explain why I believe that early privatisation will be in the best interests of the PSA and its staff. It is a very large organisation—the country's largest building consultancy—which has had the benefit of a guaranteed work load. Suddenly, it is about to face competition. Even if it competes effectively, as I have no doubt it will, it must inevitably lose some of its market share to its competitors. Unless it can compete in new markets, it will inevitably be an organisation in decline. That is not a recipe for a successful operation. Faced with that prospect, the better staff would start to leave, and the quality of service would fall away. The decline would become a downward spiral and customers would suffer. That is not in anyone's interest—not the customers', and therefore not the taxpayers'; not in the PSA's or that of its staff.
  It is essential, therefore, that as a quid pro quo for untying the PSA's protected markets, it must be allowed freedom to widen its market base. For the long term, and on a large scale, that is not an attractive prospect for a department within Government. Government is not the place for a fully diversified consultancy. Any organisation that, in the last resort, is underwritten by the taxpayer cannot be allowed the same unrestricted access as a private company to capital; nor can it be allowed to' face the full risks of the marketplace, nor to reap the full rewards.
  However, it is right and proper that, for a limited period, and with appropriate safeguards, the PSA should be allowed to compete in the general marketplace to offset its shrinking Government market. That will give the business the opportunity to demonstrate the quality of the service that it can offer so that it can secure a foothold in serving private sector clients to prepare itself for full privatisation.
  Mr. Michael Stern: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, who has been interrupted many times already. As he will appreciate, many Conservative Members are always a little concerned when the private sector is opened to competition from what is essentially a state-run and state-supported service industry. Does he agree that an appropriate safeguard might be that, during the short time that the PSA is competing with the private sector from within Government, there should be an automatic reference of its tender price to, for example, the National Audit Office? Would that not be a suitable safeguard against the private sector being forced to compete against a subsidised organisation?
  Mr. Patten: I can assure my hon. Friend that, during the short time until 1992, we shall want to be absolutely certain that the arrangements in place are sufficient to give my hon. Friend and others the absolutely necessary confidence in the operation. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point, but I can assure him that we have that sort of problem very much in mind.
  The timing of the sale of the PSA depends on the business being properly structured for sale, and on having the necessary commercial accounting system in place. The appropriate systems are being installed, but that is a major task. Although the earlier the privatisation date the better, the earliest practicable date seems likely to be the second part of 1992. That is a tight timetable given the scale of the changes that are needed, but it is realistic. It also allows sufficient time for the customer departments to prepare themselves for the time when they will obtain all their works services from the commercial market.
  That early target date for privatisation will be good for the PSA and for the Departments in concentrating minds on what has to be done. However, for the PSA's management I am inclined to think that the freedoms that come with being in the private sector cannot come quickly enough. The PSA will be a business whose success depend's on its ability to attract, to motivate and to reward good quality staff. Its freedom to compete for those staff in the marketplace will be very important.
  Although there is now undoubtedly more flexibility than there used to be to adjust Civil Service pay rates to particular market circumstances and to recognise good performance, that does not go far enough if the PSA is to be able to respond as quickly and as effectively to sudden changes of work load as its competitors can. Privatisation should make that possible. In the meantime, the PSA's management will need to make as full use as possible of the flexibility that does exist in the Civil Service environment and to press for further flexibility when it can justify it.
  I hope that the management and staff of the agency will take the time and the opportunity to consider whether they wish to bid for the business themselves. Although the Government will need to be sure, when the sale is made, that a fair competitive price has been obtained, I think that it would be good for the PSA, and good for the commitment and motivation of its staff if there were a strong management-employee buy-out team as well as trade bidders in the competition at the finish. A management-employee buy-out team would have to compete with other bidders, but if it proved successful I should be delighted.
  I come now to the other business covered by the Bill—the Crown Suppliers.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point about staff—
  Mr. Patten: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall deal with the question of staff in a moment.
  The Crown Suppliers is part of the PSA for management purposes, but it operates as an independent business with its own trading fund, supplying furniture and furnishing and related equipment, and operating vehicle hire and document delivery businesses for the public sector.
  The Crown Suppliers has been a highly successful organisation. In the 1988 annual accounts, total sales were reported at more than £230 million. Over the years it has developed new ranges of office furniture, most recently one
  344
  called Laser, which is now bringing in sales of more than £5 million a year. It has supplied equipment to many prestige projects, like the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre.
  Over the past two years, the business has changed substantially. Those parts of the Crown Suppliers which were not suitable to be undertaken on a normal commercial basis, or could not be privatised for security reasons, or where value for money could exceptionally be better achieved by retention in the public sector, have been extracted from the business and they are excluded from the sale. Total sales by the businesses that are to be privatised were an estimated £168 million in 1988. That was all business won on its commercial merits. As I have already said, Government Departments are untied, and may purchase where they can find the best value for money.
  The business has been increasingly organised on commercial lines. A totally new on-line computer system has been installed this year. In the wake of the decision to privatise, the Crown Suppliers has begun to market its services in the private sector. Since the start of the year, about £600,000 of sales have been made to the private sector. The transport business has won a contract for the maintenance of 150 vehicles belonging to a telecommunication company. These are small beginnings, but there is real promise for growth.
  Because the Crown Suppliers already has commercial systems in place, an early sale is possible. Samuel Montagu, the merchant bank advising the Government on the privatisation, has already written to all organisations and management buy-out teams that have expressed any interest in buying the Crown Suppliers and also to all the major firms involved in contract furnishing, vehicle hire and document delivery.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Patten: I do not wish indefinitely to come between the hon. Gentleman and the Procedure Committee.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Crown Suppliers has been in breach of European directive No. 77/62 by failing to tender for certain contracts over a value of £92,000 and by extending those contracts? Is it true that the Government's Law Officers have advised the Government that they are in breach of that directive? As I have now raised this matter in the House, which will alert the European Commission, what action will the Government volunteer to take?
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be delighted to answer that question comprehensively when he replies to the debate, and I am sure that he will do so to the hon. Gentleman's complete satisfaction.
  We are now considering applications for the purchase of the Crown Suppliers and will shortly be issuing invitations to bid. I am pleased that a number of teams of the Crown Suppliers' staff have expressed an interest in acquiring various parts of their business. I strongly welcome that. It demonstrates the confidence of the staff in the future of the business and in its ability to prosper in the private sector. The Government have offered financial assistance with consultants' fees to assist staff in preparing their bids.
  It will naturally be essential to obtain a fair return for the taxpayer from the sale of the Crown Suppliers, but price will not be the sole criterion. We shall be concerned

  345
  to ensure that its staff are fairly treated, and we shall be particularly interested in bidders' proposals for profit sharing and equity participation. Throughout the sale competition, we shall also be favouring bidders who demonstrate a knowledge of the business and a commitment to its future development. That will help to safeguard the future of the staff; it will also help to ensure that the Crown Suppliers can continue to be a source of competitive supplies to Government.
  Before turning to the specific provisons of the Bill, I should say something about the implications of privatisation for the staff of the two organisations. I know from having met the PSA trade unions that there is some uncertainty and concern. I can well understand that, but I assure the staff that their fears are unnecessary: the aim of the privatisations will be to create viable, vigorous competitive organisations in the private sector, with better prospects than they would have if they remained in their present position within the public sector. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will know from his study of these matters, many previous privatisation Bills have said the same. I am sure that he would not wish to be misled by the explanatory and financial memorandum, and will be interested in what I have to say on the subject.
  To put the matter simply, the Government intend that the terms and conditions of service of employees shall not suffer as a result of the transfer of employment. Let me explain precisely what I mean. When the businesses are created, the staff who transfer to them will have their conditions of service protected. Most of their conditions will be preserved identically in the new organisation. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—the so-called TUPE regulations—which will apply, will ensure that. They do not cover pensions, for the very good reason that there are so many different ways of handling potential pension provision; however, we shall invite purchasers to offer arrangements for pensions for future service, which—taking all features together—will be comparable with the Civil Service scheme, and we shall take steps to ensure that purchasers' schemes are properly assessed on whether they achieve that aim. Because the old and new schemes are unlikely to be identical, we shall ensure that staff are compensated for any differences. We shall, of course, consult the trade unions about both privatisations.
  If staff are to feel confident about privatisation, they must be clear that they will enter the private sector with pay, conditions of service, redundancy entitlements and pensions all safeguarded. Once staff are in the private sector, they will of course be free to renegotiate with their employer for improved conditions, and, if their performance justifies it, they can share in the growing strength of the company instead of being tied to the public pay framework. Their longer-term prospects will depend on their success in maintaining and improving the business.
  Finally, let me come to the point made by the hon. Member for Workington, and deal with the specific provisions in the present Bill. It is a short Bill, and I will be mercifully brief. The first and most important point is that the Bill does not seek authority for the sales themselves; it includes technical enabling provisions to facilitate them. The intended method of sale will be to transfer property, rights, and liabilities to companies owned by the Secretary of State, and then to sell the
  346
  Government shareholding in those companies. The sale of shares, as I said earlier, would be by means of a management-employee buy-out or a trade sale; flotation is not envisaged.
  The Bill deals with the problem of technical redundancy. Without this provision, the staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers—whose employment will be transferred automatically to the new employer—would become entitled to redundancy compensation as well as keeping their jobs. That would be patently absurd, and the Bill removes the anomaly in clause 2. There are naturally precedents for this provision in earlier privatisations. In case any hon. Members were misled by the explanatory and financial memorandum, let me reassure them that, of course, the Bill does nothing to remove the entitlements of staff to compensation if they lose their employment through redundancy.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Bill refers to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I feel that the Secretary of State should tell us in his opening remarks what undertakings he is prepared to give in regard to any person or persons subsequently made redundant under the new private body. What we need are concrete undertakings.
  Mr. Patten: Such persons would receive exactly the same redundancy payments as anyone else. They are not losing their redundancy entitlement, as I explained a moment ago.
  The Bill seeks to give me explicit authority to establish companies that are wholly owned by the Crown. It will also provide a framework under which schemes may be drawn up to allow for the vesting of property, rights and liabilities in those companies in preparation for sale. The shares of the companies will then be sold to the purchaser for the businesses under a contract.
  In the case of the Crown Suppliers it is intended that the shares will be sold immediately on vesting, but in the case of the PSA it may be desirable for the company to trade for a short period while staying within Government ownership. The Bill allows for that in setting out the necessary financial arrangements in clause 3. It provides for the sales of the businesses to take place at different times, for reasons that I touched on earlier.
  I have explained the reasons why we are bringing forward the privatisations today, and the way in which they fit into the general policy of improving the efficiency of the public service. I am sure that they will be good for the Government as customer, good for the business prospects of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, and therefore good for their staff. They are based on a sound principle, which has been implemented with considerable success across large swathes of what was once the public sector. Only the most hidebound and narrow-minded ideology could object to the principles asserted once more in this Bill and to the attempt to put them again into successful practice.
  I commend the Bill with enthusiasm to the House, and I am delighted to see on the Benches behind me some of my hon. Friends who have made it possible for us to present its proposals to the House this afternoon.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: The Secretary of State began by saying that privatisation was now internationally acclaimed. What he forgot to tell us was that that was because so many companies, both British and overseas, had had their hands in the pockets of the British taxpayer. It is worth reminding the right hon. Gentleman of his own Prime Minister's warning that there is no such thing as Government money; there is only public money—money belonging to the people. Whether that money is the £38 million handed out for the Rover deal or some other handout, it is our money, and it is the duty of the House to ensure that such offers are not made inappropriately. We shall look very carefully at what the Secretary of State has said, to make certain that that does not happen under this Bill.
  The Secretary of State has made a thoughtful and careful speech, but—interestingly—one containing an element of schizophrenia. There was a little of the last Conservative Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—in the Secretary of State's desperate attempt to sell to the employees of the two organisations the belief that all this is in their best interests and that he has their welfare at heart, as well as being concerned for the taxpayer.
  There is also something rather insecure about the right hon. Gentleman's desperate attempt to prove himself by pretending that the privatisation even begins to be necessary. Perhaps "insecure" is the wrong word to use the day after the Prime Minister's re-election as leader of the Conservative party; "wobbly" might be better. One is reminded of those vases that people stand on the mantlepiece and dust very carefully in case they fall off—as this one surely will in due course.
  The truth is that it is neither necessary nor desirable to transfer these organisations to the private sector. That is the central issue on which the Government have failed to convince us.
  Mr. Chris Patten: Just to be anecdotal for a moment, since the hon. Gentleman is being so courteous in referring to me at such length, I spent Saturday morning talking, among others, to employees of the National Freight Corporation. That experience confirmed to me the advantages of privatisation both for employees and for shareholders. Were I to take the hon. Gentleman through my constituency diary, I could give him many other examples.
  Mr. Soley: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State can give only one example.
  Mr. Patten: No.
  Mr. Soley: I do not believe that Conservative Secretaries of State have ever been in love with co-operatives. Once or twice they have pretended to be in love with them. The National Freight Corporation is a good example of a co-operative, but there is no other privatisation that the Secretary of State might draw to my attention that can compare with the National Freight Corporation. The work force—I emphasise the work force, not just the management—wanted to benefit from a co-operative system. A co-operative system of that kind remains loyal to the root benefits of the Labour party.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Water Research Centre is another example of precisely the same kind of employee buy-out? Will he therefore correct his previous statement?
  Mr. Soley: I have not considered the Water Research Centre in the same detail. However, it is not enough to assume that such a buy-out is the same as the National Freight Corporation co-operative. There is a very big difference between the two. Without examining it in detail, one cannot be sure that a management buy-out follows the co-operative principles that were adopted to a very large extent by the National Freight Corporation.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if he talked to some of the former employees at the royal ordnance depot in Enfield who lost their jobs shortly after they were bought out of the public sector by the private sector he would find that they were not so happy?
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many examples of privatisation, most notably in the National Health Service, where the treatment of the work force has been deplorable, by any standards. People are being asked to work longer hours for less money and the job is being less well done. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) puts privatisation as one of his interests in "Dod's Parliamentary Companion". He ought to be ashamed of what has happened to many cleansing and catering facilities. People have been very badly done by, including the customer.
  The Secretary of State said that he believes in delegating as close as possible to the ultimate user. That will require some fairly large about-turns by a Secretary of State who is responsible for local government and housing. Contrary to their claims, the Government have centralised power. No other comparable country in the western world has centralised power to such an extent. The Government determine the extent to which local authorities can raise money. They also determine rent increases and how people's homes should be transferred from one owner to another without the people living in them having the right to independent advice.
  So much for the belief in transferring the decision-making power to the user. The Government neither believe in it nor practise it. Tenants are not given the right to independent advice in many of the deals that are struck by Conservative-controlled councils. A council that decides to transfer tenants' homes puts its decision to the tenants. They are forced to choose without having access to independent advice. That is a classic example of abuse of power.
  Mr. Stern rose—
  Mr. Soley: Before the hon. Gentleman is foolish enough to intervene—I shall allow him to do so, because I am all in favour of a few suicide cases on the other side—he ought to remember that the National Consumer Council has said that tenants' homes should not be transferred without the tenants having access to independent advice.
  Mr. Stern: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, will he put on record his congratulations to the Conservative-controlled Northavon district council, which is balloting its tenants on whether they want their

  349
  homes to remain in council ownership or to be transferred to a housing association or some other form of ownership? The council has even offered to pay for the independent advice that tenants may wish to take before they reach a decision.
  Mr. Soley: You would rightly say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was out of order if I pursued that matter. [Interuption] Just before the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) loses control, I ought to point out to him that that would be perfectly acceptable if the council provided sufficient money for independent advice. Labour-controlled local authorities were transferring houses long before this Government even thought about it, but that was done only when tenants wanted their homes to be transferred. Rent levels were controlled, there was security and there were other safeguards, too. I very much doubt whether the Northavon district council is doing anything like that.
  As for the ideological attempt by the Government to privatise for the sake of privatisation, there were a couple of inquiries whose aim was to decide whether privatisation of the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers should go ahead. The Turton report and the Prime Minister's central unit on purchasing report said that it was not in the public interest to privatise. The hon. Member for, Itchen invented the idea of untying, although nobody has known him ever to untie anything. It suggests a degree of finesse and control that he does not exercise.
  The Opposition regard him as the mad axeman of Itchen. Just like children who want to get at their Christmas presents and set about it with an axe in the hope of finding what is inside much more quickly, the hon. Gentleman slipped off bits of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers in order to prepare them for privatisation. However, he could not get the independent reports to confirm that they ought to be privatised, so he did what Conservative Ministers are very good at doing—he changed the question. He said to himself, "I've been asking the wrong question all the time. I've been saying, 'Should we privatise it?' Now the light has dawned. I ought to ask, `How shall I privatise it?". Therefore he brought in outside consultants who said to him, "Yes, if you've made the decision to privatise, this is how you do it." That is how he got round the difficulty of two major reports which said that it was not in the public interest to privatise the Property Services Agency or the Crown Suppliers.
  If the Government could not get the answer that they wanted to the first question and had to change it, why has it suddenly become in the public interest to privatise? The Prime Minister's own unit said that it was not in the public interest to privatise. So did the Turton report, to which I shall return. The two important issues are the way in which privatisation is to be carried out and security, to which, worryingly, the Secretary of State hardly referred. However, both issues raise horrendous problems connected with terrorism and the defence of the country.
  The Crown Suppliers has an impressive background. In August 1988, Samuel Montagu and Company, on behalf of the Property Services Agency, set out the main aims of the Crown Suppliers. It said:
  "The main aim of The Crown Suppliers is to provide furniture, furnishings, equipment, materials, heating fuels, transport and selected services related to the domestic and operational needs of Government departments and other public sector bodies more efficiently,"—
  these are the words that I wish to emphasise—
  350
  "economically and speedily than they can provide for themselves or enjoy from any other source. In achieving this aim"—
  we should note these words from Samuel Montagu and Co.—
  "the Crown Suppliers is required to act in a way which will help industry to improve its standards of design, to operate more efficiently and to exploit new materials and technologies."
  If that purpose is being achieved, why are the Government privatising the Crown Suppliers? It is not an old report. It was published in 1988, just over a year ago. The Government's case, therefore, looks exceedingly shaky.
  The Government tried to undermine the Crown Suppliers and the PSA by going in for what the Secretary of State described as "untying". It is interesting that the Secretary of State has now said that they will be able to compete with the private sector in the run-up. What is deeply disturbing to Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, is that they have suddenly realised that some of their private company friends may be in trouble because they cannot compete equally with an organisation that has had a good record in terms of delivery to its customers. The Opposition have no objection to organisations being able to compete for various jobs, but it follows that organisations in the public sector should be able to compete with the private sector on a level playing field. The Government have consistently made it more difficult for companies in the public sector to compete effectively in the private sector, especially in the run-up to privatisation. That has turned them into a burden, rather than the advantage that they are at present.
  One of the most damning indictments of the Government's policy was the reference by Lord Macmillan to selling off the family silver. He was talking not only about selling off the silver, but about debasing it before it was sold. That is why the Government, in doing so much damage to the structure of public sector industries, have damaged the private sector as well. As the Montagu report pointed out, it is not in the interests of the private sector for privatisation to be carried out in the way that the Government are doing it.
  The review by Lord Jenkin, a previous Secretary of State for the Environment in the early 1980s, said that the answer to privatisation should be no, because it was not in the public interest. The Crown Suppliers has been very successful. I quote the words of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who was in the Chamber earlier, but has had to leave now, and who was Minister at the time. He said:
  "The Crown Suppliers have had another successful year's trading. Despite the fact that over 65 per cent. of their business is now untied and optional, they have more than met their financial objective for 1985–86. They have achieved this by raising their level of service, speeding up deliveries, reducing resource costs and offering still better value for money for the products and services they provide to an increasing number of public sector customers. This process will continue. They operate of course under the constraint that, as Departments are increasingly free to purchase goods and services elsewhere, the Crown Suppliers are expected to compete for work within the public sector, yet they cannot, generally speaking, seek business outside it as they would if they were a private concern."—[Official Report, 25 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 572.]
  Two Ministers have praised the work of the Crown Suppliers and the PSA. The question that arises again is why, if they are so good, the Government are flogging them off? If that is not in the interests of the country or of the taxpayer, whose interests are being met?

  351
  It is also worth bearing in mind the independent assessment of the work done, part of which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) quoted in an intervention. It said:

  "1. Design: In 1988 PSA's design costs were shown to be 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. cheaper than private designers.

  2. Maintenance: In 1988 the Government abandoned its attempt to contract out District Works offices after receiving tenders for the pilot at Southwark which proved to be twice as high as PSA's own costs.

  3. Estate Surveying"—

  the section that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington quoted—
  "private valuation of the new DHSS headquarters at Richmond Terrace, Whitehall, cost 266 per cent. more than a PSA valuation would have cost."
  It is no good the Secretary of State trying to wriggle out of answering those comments by saying that he will deal with them later. These are not new facts; they have been known for a long time. Many people have known those facts and the Secretary of State must know them. Why is he unable to tell us why those valuations have been carried out so much more effectively by the PSA than by the private sector? It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say that he will come back to that at some stage.
  In 1987, a report by David Hencke appeared in The Guardian which implied that the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—wanted to halt moves towards privatisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Conservative Members may doubt David Hencke, but the story has never been denied and there are many reasons for believing that it is accurate. The then Chief Secretary was worried that Robert Maxwell or Hillsdown Holdings would bid for the agencies, or large parts of them, and because they themselves provided similar services, they would close down or run down the parts that were not necessary to them. That would have been a classic example of asset-stripping the public sector and that is why the Chief Secretary was worried.
  Mr. Ian Gow: But was not the Chief Secretary, to whom the hon. Gentleman refers, also the Chief Secretary when the decision to introduce the Bill was taken a few months ago?
  Mr. Soley: Yes, but that says far more about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's uncertain position than about his judgment of the issue. I do not know whether this new and rather temporary Chancellor of the Exchequer will resign over the privatisation of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, but I cannot see it happening. Let us be kind and say that he fought privatisation hard in Cabinet, but lost. He may find, like the previous Chancellor, that he loses more than just one battle and it will be interesting to see whether he loses the last battle. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury also seemed to be quite a patriot because he recognised that 90 per cent. of the products were made in Britain and he did not want to see overseas producers supplying British embassies and defence establishments.
  It follows from all that I have said that the Opposition and, I suspect, many outside the House, will be deeply concerned about the way privatisation is carried out. I acknowledge fully that the Secretary of State has given a detailed exposition of the way in which he wants to carry it out. It follows from what he says that some of the
  352
  sweeteners that were offered in the case of Rover could not be used in this privatisation. However, there are questions about whether he will hold the shares, at what value they will be sold, at what point in the market they will be sold and whether any other advantages are built into the company to make it attractive. I warn the Government that we shall be watching all this carefully, as will the Public Accounts Committee and the European Commission. There are many reasons for believing that the way in which the Government go about the privatisation will raise considerable alarm and suspicion.
  If the Secretary of State does not want to get into the mess in which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry finds himself after his predecessor set him up so well with the Rover deal, he should consider independent valuation. Some previous valuations are disturbing and I find it deeply unsatisfactory that public money should be used to prime the pump for the private sector. I know many people who would have liked to buy the Rover works if they had known that £38 million would be thrown in.
  One might argue about the other reasons why that was done, as the Secretary of State has, but the crucial point with Rover, is that it did not need to be done in the first place, and that would be true of the PSA. Rover was set to make a profit and the PSA seems to be successful, so there is no need for softening up or for spending public money on that. When we see £21 million thrown away on advertising the water industry to soften it up, we have a duty to ask what the public is getting out of that. They see their money being used to soften up an organisation so that the private sector can take advantage of it. That must be wrong, and I can think of no other country that does such things.
  We also want to know how the organisation will be split up. I shall have to read the remarks of the Secretary of State carefully, but I think that it follows that there will be a number of organisations that will be sold off and it sounded as if there would be quite a large number—not just two or three, but a half dozen or more. That will make a great deal of difference as to whether there is asset stripping and how viable the organisations will be on their own. It will also control the the question of whether it will be practical for the employees to produce a successful buy-out scheme. It may not be practical unless they are given a wider job, rather than the organisation being split into small bits and pieces. We shall examine that point carefully in Committee.
  I am disturbed—all of us inside and outside the House should be disturbed—that the Government have not touched on security. The Secretary of State hardly mentioned it in his speech, yet security is one of the most profoundly important aspects of the privatisation process. I strongly suspect—although for the moment we cannot know this for sure—that one of the reasons why it was argued in successive reports that it was not in the public interest to privatise was that it was felt that security would be affected. Our Government Departments and our armed forces are advised by the PSA on the physical security of their buildings, and that includes advice on counterterrorist procedures. The Secretary of State will know that, although he did not refer to it.
  The PSA vets employees and contractors on its sites, and the vetting is tough: one in 10 of the applicants do not get through. Suppose that the private building sector takes over and has access to the organisations' plans. We know

  353
  that the private building sector prefers to employ casual labour. Who will do the vetting? What will happen at Faslane and Aldermaston, let alone in Northern Ireland—a special example, to which I shall come in a moment. Will the work be done by people who have not been subjected to such vetting? Or will the Government exclude those establishments or arrange for the same people to operate an external vetting system, in which case, we ask again, "Why privatise?" What is the point if the same people are to be used to do the vetting?
  Mr. Dalyell: The Secretary of State is muttering and shaking his head. If my hon. Friend is wrong, would it not be helpful to our debate if the Secretary of State would say so? It would certainly save time in later speeches.
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that the Secretary of State has not given sufficient thought to the security aspect. I think that that is the key.
  I have an important point to make about the terrorist threat. We have seen examples of what has gone wrong with the privatisation of some of the security services that operate for the armed forces, and we know of the criticisms that followed the Deal bombing. Unless the Government get this privatisation right, they are in serious danger of creating a major threat to the security of our armed forces—to married quarters as well as to main bases.
  The security implications are wider than that. Both the PSA and the Crown Suppliers operate in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is an expert on Northern Ireland matters, will appreciate the seriousness of my questions, and he will confirm that in Northern Ireland, the building industry is widely infiltrated by paramilitaries, both Unionist and Republican, who use it to obtain money for terrorist activity. We have known about that for some time, and it is one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal.
  The Secretary of State may or may not know that some of the civil servants who work for the PSA and Crown Suppliers are considered to be "legitimate targets" in the jargon of the paramilitaries. The Secretary of State and the Government have simply not considered how serious this matter is. Do they propose to transfer all those civil servants to the Northern Ireland Office, and if so, I repeat my question: "Why privatise?" Or will they make separate arrangements?
  Or will they do what I fear most and play into the hands of the paramilitaries, as they often have despite their rhetoric? The Government have a record of profoundly misjudging political and paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State is looking worried and shaking his head. Let him say something then; let us hear something from him about security. Why did he not say in his speech that the security implications of privatisation were deadly serious? I choose my words carefully.
  Mr. Chris Patten: There is a limit to what I shall say on this issue, not because of a lack of knowledge but because there are some things that it would be extremely irresponsible for me to say, just as there are some things that I think it is bordering on the irresponsible for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to say.
  Mr. Soley: No.
  Mr. Patten: Let me follow the point through. There are some of us who, for reasons of our past, take a personal as
  354
  well as a ministerial interest in the arrangements. I am sure that Ministers and others have experienced security arrangements being made perfectly satisfactorily by the private sector, just as the design and construction of many of our military establishments is looked after by the private sector.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith should be a little careful in his approach to these issues. I repeat that, for personal as well as ministerial reasons, I have even more cause to be concerned about these matters than he has.
  Mr. Soley: That makes it all the more important that the Secretary of State should answer the question. He should not have introduced the Bill without mentioning security—and do not let the right hon. Gentleman stand there and preach to me about what is and is not a responsible thing to do. Does he really believe that the paramilitary organisations are not aware that privatisation is to take place? Does he really think that people concerned about the defence of this country are not aware of it? Does he think that he can pilot the Bill through Committee without ever talking about security? Is that the extent to which the Government would take their secrecy? He is right that he has been concerned with security issues, as all of us who have been involved in the affairs of the Northern Ireland Office have been concerned with them—in opposition or in government.
  It is deeply disturbing that Ministers' cars are not to be privatised although the family homes of armed forces personnel are. I want to know why. It is legitimate to ask, on behalf of every armed forces family in this country and overseas, what sort of security they will have once the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are privatised.
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue that argument much further, because large numbers of armed forces families live in private dwellings, miles away from the bases. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that his point has nothing whatever to do with the privatisation of the PSA.
  Mr. Soley: I shall allow the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) to get away with that on the grounds of his naivety and ignorance. If he reads the various reports and assessments of the work done—
  Mr. Mans: Withdraw that.
  Mr. Soley: No. I meant exactly what I said. The Crown Suppliers and the PSA determine and advise on arrangements to deal with counter-terrorist activities on behalf of our armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand what they do.
  We did not hear from the Secretary of State whether that aspect of the bodies' activities will be wholly privatised, partly privatised or not privatised at all. We need to know that and it is no good the Secretary of State ducking the issue and hoping it will go away. It will not go away because we are not prepared to gamble with people's lives, even if the Government are. The issue is far too important to ignore.
  Let us look again at what the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Itchen, had to say:
  "For security reasons, I have decided to exclude from the sale the design and procurement of security furniture and equipment and the car service which transports Ministers and senior officials in London."—[Official Report, 28 July 1988; Vol. 138, c. 441.]

  355
  That is all. We have to forget the families, Faslane and Aldermaston. The Government are concentrating only on the ministerial car service, security furniture and equipment and its design and procurement. That is what we have been told in a public document, but the Secretary of State said that he could not refer to that. However, the Under-Secretary of State has already discussed it and it has been discussed in public. The Secretary of State is trying to hide behind the idea that somehow we cannot discuss security now.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows, understands or is interested in the fact that most of the married quarters are maintained by private sector maintenance firms.
  Mr. Soley: Yes, but who advises them about security against paramilitary activities? Will the Minister accept that the PSA and the Crown Suppliers advise them? The Minister should not intervene unless he knows what the debate is about.
  The PSA advised on the security on the Prime Minister's home in Dulwich. Is that kind of advice going to be privatised? Will it be excluded from the privatisation? We have heard only one little statement from the Under-Secretary of State, which I have quoted, that certain parts of the PSA will not be privatised. That is not enough and the House would find it unacceptable if those matters could not be discussed in detail in Standing Committee. I put the Government on notice, as I put them on notice about the money involved in the Bill, that we will not put the security factor at risk here just because the Government want a little extra money in an ideologial bid to back their private supporters. That is not good enough and it will not do for the British people.
  Relationships with overseas Governments are also involved. Reference has been made to this and I want to refer to a meeting between senior British civil servants and members of the United States air force represented by Lieutenant Colonel Dean Bartel and General Anderson, the officer commanding the 3rd air force. That meeting took place in October in Germany. The United States representatives said that privatisation would cause great difficulties.
  We must consider the way in which the American Government's attitude on this issue differs from that of the British Government. Congressional rules specifically forbid the United States air force from using a private sector firm. Work must be placed in a relevant Government Department in the host country. I presume that that rule exists for security reasons, something which the Secretary of State is not even prepared to discuss on the Floor of the House.
  Congressional rules also forbid the location of private sector companies on USAF bases. In other words, such companies will not be able to enter those airfields to work. There are PSA works offices based on USAF airfields. Under that rule, PSA works offices on USAF sites would have to be closed after privatisation unless the Secretary of State can tell us that these matters have been considered and debated with the United States' Government and a satisfactory arrangement has been reached. However, that
  356
  is unlikely because American procurement is based on official United States documentation which cannot be delegated to a non-governmental body.
  Lieutenant Colonel Bartel is responsible for USAF civil engineering work. He has expressed himself fully satisfied with the PSA's performance and has said that the United States Government would oppose the privatisation of PSA because of the interference with USAF operational arrangements. He said that the Americans regarded the privatisation of the PSA as a breach of treaty obligations. I do not know how far that goes in the detail of the treaty, but we will have to pursue that in Committee. However, we should not have this Second Reading debate without the matter being referred to. General Anderson said that pressures were being applied at the highest levels to retain the status quo. Again, we will want to investigate that in Committee.
  The situation is extremely serious and I will touch on other issues in Committee. However, I want to refer now to environmental issues because it is important that we remember that it was the Secretary of State for the Environment who moved this Second Reading. No doubt the Prime Minister gave him this post because she wanted to saddle him with the poll tax, water privatisation and a sports Bill, none of which he believes in. That was a useful way of curbing his ambitions. It was also useful for the Prime Minister to appoint the right hon. Gentleman because that gave some credence to her green record.
  The Secretary of State is in some trouble with this Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, in one of his enlightened moments, which are very few and far between—although I would not like to deny him this one—said:
  "The sensitive use of the landscape is central to the role of the PSA. With over 300,000 hectares of land under its management, from Cornwall to the Shetland Isles, as well as many places around the world … the Agency sets and meets high standards. PSA landscape architects work, along with practices of international standing, to bring about sensitive and effective results."
  It is interesting that the notice of the privatization contained in this Bill appeared immediately next to the phrase in the Queen's Speech:
  "My Government will continue to attach very great importance to protecting the … environment."
  The environmental side of the PSA will be sold out along with the British taxpayer and the interests of the security of this country.
  Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be a good idea for the PSA's expertise in landscaping to be available to the wider private sector?
  Mr. Soley: It is already available and it would be even more available if, instead of this absurd privatisation exercise, the Minister said that work could be put out to tender for private sector contracts.
  The problem is that the Under-Secretary of State served on Wandsworth council. That council has one of the few hospitals which has not been closed down under the community care programme and the councillors have not yet been put out on the streets. However, they should be. The Minister is trying to live up to an absurd reputation. He seems to believe that privatising and flogging everything off is the only way to influence the private sector. Reports from the Minister's Department show that the PSA raises standards in the private sector. Why does the Minister deny it that role? Why should it be flogged off instead?

  357
  I now want to refer to a very important point, which to give the Secretary of State his due, he touched on. We will want to consider staff conditions very carefully in Committee. Redundancy is also important. I understand why the Bill prevents what might in effect in certain circumstances be double redundancy. However, I do not accept that the Bill or the Secretary of State's speech explain what will happen to staff who are moved from the present system in which they have certain guarantees about redundancy to a company with worse standards.
  With regard to redundancy and pensions, we should state that staff should not be transferred to a system which is worse than the one they have. We must bear in mind what happened to many workers, particularly in the Health Service and those in lower paid jobs. They were very vulnerable when they were transferred to the private sector which, far from negotiating up their conditions, negotiated them down. A low-paid exploited midnight army of people are doing some of the most essential but most unattractive work in the country. The type of work in the Crown Suppliers and the PSA is different, but the pension rights and redundancy arrangements of the staff are crucial.
  In no circumstances should staff be transferred to a private organisation in which their conditions of service, including redundancy money and pensions, are less than they presently receive from the Civil Service. The Civil Service has an honourable record as a good employer. The last thing that we should do is hand over a group of people as if they were goods and chattels instead of people who need to make provision for themselves and their families. Will they be allowed to transfer to another scheme of comparable value without great cost to themselves? Employees should not have to pay more to get the same pension. We shall explore those issues in much greater detail in Committee.
  I repeat what I have already said to the Minister. There are two key matters. The first is the unacceptable way in which the Government are handling the funding of privatisation and the way in which they have used taxpayers' money to feather the pockets of many private companies in this country and overseas. It is a misuse of the public's money. The second matter relates to security. It is deeply disturbing, and the Secretary of State did not even consider it important enough to debate.
  The Opposition will not play with the security of this country. We will not allow it to be diminished in any way. We will pursue this matter in Committee to make sure that the protection of our armed forces is at least as good as that of Ministers in their cars.
  6 pm
  Mr. Ian Gow: It is certainly a source of great satisfaction to me and, I hope, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to find clause 6(2) included in the Bill. Alas, it is rare to find a Bill introduced into this House or into another place which extends to Northern Ireland. I have long criticised the procedures whereby almost all legislation affecting Northern Ireland is done by unamendable Order in Council, so I am pleased that this Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  I felt that some parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley ) were a little unreal, particularly those parts in which he expressed concern lest there might be a loss of jobs on United States bases following the privatisation of the Property Services
  358
  Agency. It was not so long ago that the hon. Gentleman's party was advocating the closure of all American bases, so his concern about the possible loss of jobs seems rather unreal. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear that proper arrangements will be made to protect and safeguard the legitimate and necessary interests of the United States forces who are stationed in this country at our invitation.
  The other part of the hon. Gentleman's speech which I found to be rather unreal was his statement which gave the impression that the security of the United Kingdom depended upon the Property Services Agency. I shall say some generous things—at least they will be intended to be generous—about the Property Services Agency, but to describe it as a major factor in the security of these islands is to overstate the case.
  The overwhelming majority of the work that is presently done on behalf of or under the direction of the Property Services Agency is done by the private sector. It is ludicrous to say that, if the Property Services Agency happens to go from the public sector to the private sector, which of course I want it to do, there will be less involvement by the private sector. Following the privatisation of the Property Services Agency, some of its security responsibilities will continue to be carried out by the agency itself, whether in public or private ownership, and some responsibility may be transferred to client bodies.
  This is a memorable debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the sixth Secretary of State for the Environment in the past 10 years. I had the priviledge to serve under my noble Friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Each of the former Secretaries of State, even including my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whose absence from our proceedings upstairs yesterday I deplore, had distinguished careers at No. 2 Marsham street. I mean no discourtesy to any of them, but I predict that the record of my right hon. Friend will be no less distinguished than those of any of his five predecessors. His record is already significantly better than those of any of his predecessors. My right hon. Friend has succeeded where each of his predecessors has failed—he has brought this Bill before the House.
  I am happy to see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), an Etonian baronet from London, not from Clywd, North-West. When I arrived at Marsham street in June 1983, I had the good fortune to find my hon. Friend, who was then Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the Property Services Agency. I found also that my noble Friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had allocated the Property Services Agency to me. My hon. Friend will confirm that, from the day I arrived at Marsham street until the day I left, I was strongly in favour of bringing the Property Services Agency into the private sector. I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to dissent.
  Sir George Young: I could not miss the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend's second public performance since our proceedings have been televised. My hon. Friend exhibited impatience when he found that standards in the PSA were not up to his high expectations. He quite rightly pursued the policy of privatisation, which comes to fruition this evening.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: This is a tender moment.
  Mr. Gow: The tender can wait.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton for his remarks. I hope that he will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, before 10 o'clock.
  The opening remarks by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by the hon. Member for Hammersmith were characterised by some general references to privatisation. It will come as a surprise to hon. Members to learn that I have always been and remain a strong advocate of putting into the private sector all those aspects of the nation's life that it is not essential to have in the public sector. There may be a legitimate dispute between the hon. Member for Hammersmith and his right hon. and hon. Friends about whether the Property Services Agency must be in the public sector.
  The task of maintaining the Government's stock of buildings and responsibility for some of our new buildings, including military buildings, can properly be entrusted to the private sector. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Member for Hammersmith to say, "No. Responsibility for maintaining Government buildings must be with a public sector body." I do not share that view, but it is certainly legitimate.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate of privatisation, is it not a matter of dismay to him, and doubtless to the electors of Eastbourne, that, two years ago, the Crown Suppliers was making a profit of about £5 million? Am I wrong in saying that, under the guidance of the Under-Secretary of State, it lost 1 million last year? What a mess the Under-Secretary of State has made of things. Would the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Eastbourne not be extremely angry?
  Mr. Gow: I rejoice in the fact that there was profit; I do not rejoice in the fact that there was a loss—
  Mr. Dalyell: He caused it.
  Mr. Gow: That underlines the very point I am making [Interruption.] Well. I have only been a Member of the House for the twinkling of an eye, but in those 15 years nothing has altered the view that I held on arrival—that no special gifts, qualities or abilities were given to Ministers to enable them to run industries and enterprises better than folk outside.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that John Stuart Mill coined the phrase.
  "the deep slumber of a decided opinion"?
  Should not the hon. Gentleman now wake from it?
  Mr. Gow: I shall quote some Mill at the hon. Gentleman—
  "The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it … A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands … will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished."
  So I believe that John Stuart Mill supports my argument rather than that of the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Giles Shaw: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend when he is in such erudite flow, but I was worried because he said that small men can offer no great accomplishments.
  Mr. Gow: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I was not referring to "small men" in any literal sense.
  I was asserting that the private ownership of the Property Services Agency, especially by those who work in it—by worker shareholders—is a concept that has long been dear to my heart. When British Gas was offered for sale to its workers, 99 per cent. of those who work for British Gas took up shares. When British Telecom was offered for sale to its workers, 96 per cent. of those who worked for British Telecom applied for shares. I believe—
  Mr. Flannery rose—
  Mr. Gow: Yes, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose decision not to stand at the next election I deplore.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is wrong—it is nearly 16 years since he became a Member for the House. I remember going to Ireland with him at the time.
  On his point about workers getting shares, surely the con is obvious to everybody? They get the shares as part of a propaganda ploy and in no time at all they are sold to the big boys. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
  Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has chosen a bad day on which to make that intervention, because today is the day of the sale of the water industry. I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that tens of thousands of those who work in the water industry have applied for shares in that industry. There will be a great expansion of worker shareholders in the water industry, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has responsibility.
  I warmly welcome the proposal, because it will give those who work for the Property Services Agency the chance to become owners of the enterprise in which they work, but sadly that will not be until 1992. I hope that my right hon. Friend may be able to bring that forward.
  Many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, so I shall make just one more point. The arrangements in recent years for managing and administering the Government estate have been most unsatisfactory. For many years, the Government estate has been run only by the Property Services Agency, which then had to find somebody else to do the work. It was almost the case that if the washer broke on a tap one had to get hold of the Property Services Agency simply to get a new washer. That procedure was cumbersome. Despite some excellent people working for the Property Services Agency, much of its work—although by no means all—was inefficient, not through the fault of those who worked for the agency, but because the system itself was cumbersome.
  Therefore, I greatly welcome the new arrangements that are about to come into force, whereby each Government Department will be responsible for the maintenance of its own buildings and will be able to go where it pleases to find those who will maintain, repair and improve its buildings. I am afraid that many Government buildings, not only in London but throughout the kingdom, are in a bad state of repair, have been poorly maintained in the past and in too many cases provide a working environment that would be unacceptable in many private buildings and private companies. I hope that the new arrangements that my right hon. Friend described will mean that we can bring to a much higher standard of

  361
  maintenance and repair the buildings in which so many of our civil servants work, because some of the buildings in which some of our civil servants are working are frankly deplorable.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. It has only six clauses and deserves to receive a speedy passage through Committee. I congratulate him warmly on having introduced it.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I listened to the pearls of wisdom from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is graciously smiling the smile of the crocodile, with the tears to match, but where does that take us? Where is the justification for the Bill?
  Let us look at the Bill analytically. The Secretary of State spent a long time on it this afternoon, but he did not justify what is sought to he done. The hon. Member for Eastbourne made a tour de force across his own Benches, but he did not justify what is sought to be done. We must ask ourselves this simple question; will the service provided to the state be more economical in cost to the state before or after this privatisation? That is the only question and the only test.
  Let us look at the history of privatisation, starting way back with INMOS and moving forward through the royal ordnance sale, and Rolls-Royce and Rover as they rolled through. What have those sales really done? The state has received a capital sum. We have also seen the sale of the gas, telecommunications and water industries—assets that belong to each and every one of us.
  The state received a capital sum, but who received the benefit of that capital sum? Was it the millions of people who do not pay any income tax? Was it the millions who live on social security, or was it those who pay a lot of income tax or who used to pay a lot of income tax, but whose tax rates have been scaled down from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent.? Those people were the beneficiaries. What of the properties, the goods, the companies and the firms that were sold off? What about our assets? Who now has the profits from those?
  I will not bore the House by talking about Rover, because that is a scandal itself, but let us look at the royal ordnance factories that were sold off. Enfield is an example of a once thriving works that is now closed. The value of the land was massive and who has been the beneficiary? The state? No. The beneficiary is the company that bought it so cheaply.
  Let us look at Rolls-Royce, British Steel and the gas industry. Who has been the beneficiary of those sales? Certainly not the people of this land. The major taxpayers have received tax cuts and ultimately it is they who own those industries today.
  I turn now to the Property Services Agency and the Crown Suppliers. I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and to discuss security, because that matter can be debated later and elsewhere. I shall simply consider the maintenance of the buildings. Let us take as an example the construction of the courts, where much work still remains to be done. The Truro court, built by the Property Services Agency if my memory serves me correctly, stands internationally recognised. Maidstone is another one. It used the wrong marble, but that does not matter. It may have been the most expensive staircase in history.
  362
  Leaving that mistake aside, if in future such buildings are built by private companies, they will take into account in their quotations not only labour and material costs but that other element which any private company tendering for a contract includes—namely, profit. The Property Services Agency does not need that profit element so it does not include it in contracts. Hence the examples of valuations that we were given earlier. The costs were considerably less than in the private sector. That is bound to be. The private sector always includes profit in its figures. It has to worry about the variables, because profit is important. Companies do not trade for nothing; they trade to make a profit. That is a piece of simple economics which seems to escape the Government every time. Plainly, the costs to Government Departments will increase.
  Who will benefit from the sale of the Property Services Agency? We know that we the taxpayers, and the millions who do not pay tax, will get nothing out of it. Perhaps in 1992—the timing is significant: just before the next election—there will he further tax cuts funded by the sale of state assets.
  How will the Property services Agency be sold off? There is talk of turning it into a company. Fine. What will we do then? Turn it into a co-operative, such as National Freight? Its thousands of employees receive the benefit or profit. Will the Property Services Agency be sold to some boys in the city—for example, construction companies such as Higgs and Hill, Tarmac or Trafalgar? How will it be valued? The Government's track record in valuing assets before sale leaves much to be desired.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: If the hon. Gentleman is so anxious about taxpayers' money. how does he defend a system such as that under which Buckingham gate was constructed where the original estimate was £4£5 million and the completion costs more than £12 million? Similarly, the completion costs of Richmond house were over £1 million more than the estimate. That was a waste of taxpayers' money under the present system.
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, and I am big enough to concede it. If people under-estimate the cost of construction, whether in the public or private sector, a little column called "extras" is added. The building trade is full of such extras. They represent additions and alterations which are usually certificated by the architects. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that from his experience in industry. There were simply wrong estimates of the actual cost. If someone makes a wrong estimate, they are not employed again, or they are sued.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: How often have responsible members of the Property Services Agency or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency been sued or dismissed for making such wrong estimates?
  Mr. Bermingham: There is no reason why they should not be sued or dismissed. If mistakes have been made—the Government have been in charge of the agency for the past 10 years—why have they not been inquired into and sorted out? The Government cannot shy away from the problem and say, "We will sell it off to get away from the problems in the future." That is to dodge the issue.

  363
  As I was saying, if the Property Services Agency is sold to the people who work in it, they will make a profit. However, I suspect that it will slip down a sleazy road and fall into private hands at a valuation far lower than its true value. The City has been laughing for 10 years. It has bought up Government assets at knockdown prices.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: It has been the sale of the century.
  Mr. Bermingham: They got an even better bargain from the Government. The Government cannot value anything.
  The Crown Suppliers services embassies abroad and Government Departments. It has developed its own technique.
  It lost money last year, but with proper management it is capable of making a profit. Who will benefit? Certainly it will not be the people who will work in it eventually, unless there is an in-house buy-out in which everyone participates. However, I suspect that, because the Government are not fond of co-operatives, that will not be the case. There will be no winners from the point of view of the state, but simply increased costs.
  Costs will have to increase, because companies have to make a profit to live. It is simple economics. The cost increases, the state pays more and the taxpayers receive a lump sum but pay for it afterwards. If ever there was a case of live now, pay later, the Government are a prime example. They sell anything to survive today, knowing that someone else will have to pick up the tab tomorrow.
  The Bill is not a good Bill. It is full of doctrine and dogma, and it lacks common sense. It is a bill which the next generation will have to meet to pay for the Government's squandering behaviour.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: We have heard accusations from the Opposition that the Bill is full of dogma, but that is the only true accusation that we could level at them. The charge of Conservative dogma is completely refutable. In their defence all that Opposition Members do is to preach what to us sounds like a greater degree of dogma. Some years ago I noticed that at one of its conferences the Labour party decided to repeal the clause—I think it was clause four—in its constitution which contains provisions for state ownership. That clause may have been dropped from the Labour constitution but nothing that has been said by Labour Members today gives us reason to believe that they have forgotten the dogma upon which so many of their policies depend.
  I am pleased to take part in the debate and that the measure has at last come before the House after a long delay. Some of us have asked why so much time was wasted in bringing the Crown Suppliers and Property Services Agency into the private sector, but the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon satisfies me. We have talked about efficiency and value for money, but another side of privatisation must be taken into account. It may be described as the social implications of privatisation.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on a narrow aspect of the proposals, the knock-on effect of this privatisation on a manufacturer who is largely dependent on the Crown Suppliers as a major customer. I refer to Enham
  364
  Industries, near Andover. I raise the matter so that the Government may be aware of the effect that privatisation could have on charitable organisations, which could in turn throw an extra burden on to taxpayers, in this case to support disabled people who hitherto have done so much through their efforts in manufacturing to support themselves. Enham Industries is one such organisation. The Papworth centre, near Cambridge, to which it is linked, is another. The well known Remploy factories could be similarly affected by this privatisation measure.
  I declare an interest as an unpaid governor of the Enham village centre for the past 25 years. The village is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), who is sorry not to be in the Chamber now. He has another urgent meeting to attend and apologises for his absence. He knows the Enham village centre well and has visited it often. Even without hearing what I have to say he wishes to be associated with my remarks.
  Enham Industries comprises the industrial and commercial element of the Enham village centre, which is a self-contained community supporting an industrial work force of about 350 people, two thirds of whom are disabled. The centre was founded towards the end of the first world war for the permanent resettlement of disabled ex-service men and their families, with the opportunity to work as an essential ingredient of the rehabilitation process, especially when linked to adjacent living accommodation within the supportive community.
  Over the years the village has adapted to changing needs and today it caters for a wide range of physical and other disabilities, including those resulting from illnesses and accidents as well as congenital diseases. To the uninformed observer, Enham looks like a typical English village. That is why it provides such a good environment for the rehabilitation of disabled people. Enham also offers special training and retraining opportunities for handicapped people, particularly the young. Its commercial activities have reduced considerably the dependence of those people on the state. That is something which we all want to see.
  Some of that work could be put at risk by the Government's proposals to privatise the Crown Suppliers. There is considerable uncertainty at Enham about the method and precise timetable of privatisation. We have learnt something about that this evening, and I am relieved that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to proceed with all possible haste. His motto was certainly sooner rather than later. Fears about the timetable have not necessarily been dispelled by the contents of the Bill or the explanatory note which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made available to us. I appreciate the Government's need to keep their plans fairly fluid, but it is important for those who work at Enham to have a firm idea about timings.
  The survival of the furniture factory, which is the largest unit in the village, is critical to the well-being of the entire village. It has a turnover of £3 million out of Enham's total industrial turnover of £4·5 million. Besides employing many disabled people directly, it supports overheads which enable other disabled people to be employed and has the potential to make money to support some of Enham's other activities, such as a sheltered computer unit and a professional management team who give advice to other employers on the employment of disabled people.

  365
  For many years the furniture factory has depended heavily on one customer, the Crown Suppliers. In earlier years, its business was less price-sensitive that it is now and substantial profits were achieved. The money was ploughed back to help the beneficiaries in the village. The risk inherent in over-dependence on one customer was recognised in recent years and every attempt made to rectify it—with, I am afraid, rather limited success, mainly because of the apparent inflexibility of the factory and work force. As a result, they remain about 80 per cent. dependent on the Crown Suppliers to supply their goods to the Ministry of Defence.
  Crown Suppliers' work is obtained by competitive tender. The only advantage to Enham as a charity employing severely disabled people is its priority supplier status with Government Departments. Although it competes on price, delivery and other factors, if it does not win a tender, it can still ask to be allocated part of the business on the same conditions as the best tender.
  Much of my anxiety for Enham's future hinges on the Government's apparent formula for privatisation. It has been reported that the Crown Suppliers may be broken up into two or three parts, with its furniture side being one major part. I understand that, of its total sales of £230 million in 1988–89, wooden furniture accounted for £40 million and metal furniture for £33 million. Furniture is the main part of Enham village's output.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could be more specific about his proposals for the timing and structure of the privatised concern. The sister organisation to Enham, Papworth village near Cambridge, is in a similar position, with its furniture factory turning over about £1 million a year—not as much as at Enham—yet remaining 50 per cent. dependent on the Crown Suppliers as its principal buyer.
  Of particular interest is the position of the Ministry of Defence as the ultimate prime user. Will it use a commercial middle man after privatisation to replace the Crown Suppliers, or will it be able to buy direct? Enham would favour selling directly to the MOD users, but if that part of the Crown Suppliers is to be sold, Enham would favour a management buy-out. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he, too, favoured a management buy-out with an opportunity for the company to continue to deal on a "priority supplier" basis.
  Benbow furniture designs is the trademark for Enham's furniture products. It belongs to the Ministry of Defence and is manufactured by Enham through a licence from the Crown Suppliers. What will happen to those trademarks following privatisation? I have a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who says about them that the Bill
  "also provides for the transfer to the purchaser of Crown copyright attributable to the TCS business. This is likely to include the copyright of Benbow designs."
  I am not certain that that is strictly true. I was under the impression that Benbow designs belonged to the Ministry of Defence and could be passed to someone else only if it was prepared to sell the licence.
  I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be tempted to say that all these questions are for the Ministry of Defence because it is the ultimate prime purchaser of Enham's output, but he must have a view and we should like to hear it. In particular, we should like an undertaking from him that he will talk to the Minister of
  366
  State for Defence Procurement to see whether ways can be found to cushion the effect of privatisation on an organisation which has done and continues to do so much to support itself.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: Clause 1 relates to the sale of
  "property, rights or liabilities which are associated with the Property Services Agency and The Crown Suppliers."
  Clause 2 states that no redundancy compensation will be available to staff who are transferred automatically to a new employer. From clause 3, it appears that the Secretary of State will have shares in the company formed, but the right hon. Gentleman did not make that clear this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will clear up that matter when he replies tonight. Clause 4 relates to the
  "winding up of The Crown Suppliers' trading fund".
  The Bill is about reducing public expenditure, and Conservative Members have stated that clearly tonight. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) made a number of speeches as Chancellor in which he said that it was the stated aim of the Government to reduce public expenditure to below 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. The Bill is a further step towards achieving that objective. Unlike Conservative Members, however, I disagree with it. If the Government choose to follow that path, they must remember the cost involved.
  Provision for the privatisation of most of the PSA's designs, buildings and maintenance work has a knock-on effect. What will happen to standards? The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was right to say that many Government buildings are not in the best state. I have visited many such buildings, and I must agree with him. None the less, what will happen to standards if the Bill is passed? What standard will be laid down for those buildings erected for Government Departments following the passage of the Bill? Will those standards be better than the existing ones? The newer buildings that have been erected to PSA design are excellent. I visited Richmond house yesterday and it is built to a high standard. Perhaps one can criticise the outside of the building, but inside it is excellent.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I might criticise the arrangements for the valuation of Richmond house, I regard it as one of the most beautiful pieces of architecture erected this decade. It is a tribute to the architects who designed it.
  Mr. Livsey: I agree that the frontage on to Whitehall is truly excellent, but most of us in the Norman Shaw building must look at the back of it, which is not so attractive. The entire building should look well rather than just the front.
  We must ensure that standards are maintained and improved. We are talking about a large business and the Secretary of State has already said that it is worth £3·4 billion per annum. It is a big business to privatise, but the most important consideration must be the PSA employees. It employs 23,000 civil servants, and I am sure that we would all want their well-being to be guaranteed and their conditions of service protected and maintained.
  The proposals for the privatisation are some of the most radical to be introduced under the Government's privatisation programme.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Reactionary.
  Mr. Livsey: Perhaps that is a more suitable word.
  The proposals are radical because the Government are going beyond just privatising a nationalised industry—they are striking at the heart of Westminster and Whitehall. They are talking about the privatisation of the services that support the Government, and that is a significant change in comparison with previous privatisations. We must ask whether that quantum leap of privatisation, which strikes at the heart of Whitehall, is desirable. On examination, there remains some doubt as to whether these services are suitable for privatisation.
  If the Bill is to see the light of day, safeguards must be built into it in Committee. It is vital to safeguard the pension rights of the staff. The Secretary of State has mentioned that, but we need further evidence that the terms and conditions of the employees will be maintained. If the PSA and the Crown Suppliers become part of the competitive world, what will happen to the 23,000 civil servants who become employees of the new company? Will there be problems of overstaffing, as at present? Will immense cuts be made in the numbers employed? Will such reductions result in a decline in quality of workmanship and design? Will there be many relocations? So far those human-interest questions have not been answered.
  It is also important to consider the land holdings and buildings associated with the PSA. We have been told that only the services provided by the PSA and the Crown Suppliers will be privatised, but the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) mentioned 300,000 hectares of land. I am sure that all hon. Members would like to know the location of those hectares. My guess is that they will be found in most of our constituencies. In the past 12 months some responsibility for land holdings has been handed from the PSA to the Ministry of Defence. I should like to know the extent of that split of responsibilities.
  We have already flogged the security horse but it is one of the most critical factors of the privatisation. Over and above the questions that I put to the Secretary of State and the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I shall mention a report in The Independent of 19 October that detailed the fears of the United States Air Force about the proposed privatisation. It said:
  "The US Air Force has voiced concern over the security implications of privatising the Property Services Agency, which carries out building work at bases in Britain.
  Representatives are to meet officials from the agency and the Ministry of Defence in the near future. A USAF spokesman said: 'We currently have a very sound working relationship with PSA and any proposed change would require serious negotiations.'"
  What happened as a result of the meeting with the MOD in October? Has any agreement been made with the USAF as a result? What guarantees were the Government able to give the USAF in the event of the privatisation of PSA? I hope that the Minister will be able to give answers to those questions.
  The security angle behind the privatisation relates to Cabinet Ministers' houses and foreign embassies. Given that they are the target of terrorists, their protection is of grave concern. Privatisation of the PSA begs the simple question: can one privatise a service that services Government? That question has not yet been adequately answered in this debate.
  The Department of the Environment, which is responsible for the PSA, will have some difficulties as a
  368
  result of what is going to happen. The services provided by the PSA, including design project management, property maintenance and estate management, are all competitive parts of the private sector. During the Bill's passage, we are duty-bound to ensure that there are safeguards for those operations. The property holdings are to remain in the public sector and the Government will remain the landlord. I hope that I have correctly interpreted the Bill.
  Many weaknesses in the operation of the PSA have been outlined. The escalation of costs for the Department of Energy building—which tripled over 18 months—have been mentioned. That shows the necessity of tightening up the PSA management. Whether there is to be a management buy-out in the long-term future is a matter of public interest. It has been forecast that at least 50 per cent. of present PSA business will be lost as a result of competition. Whether the remaining parts of the PSA operations will prove desirable buy-outs for the management will be called into question.
  Mention has been made in the debate of the furnishing business and core furnishing, which has a turnover of more than £70 million and on which many people's livelihoods depend. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, the people involved in manufacturing that furniture are involved with charities and the disabled. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish those people to lose part of their livelihood.
  The Secretary of State said that some of the Crown Suppliers' vehicles hire services would remain with the Government. Will the courier services and all the transport operations—not just some of them—remain with the Government? What will happen to an extremely desirable residence near Waterloo and one of the future Channel terminals, Wellington house, presently valued at £36 million? Will it be sold off because it is part of the Crown Suppliers? If it is to be sold at a knockdown price, I am sure that there are many sharks willing to take it over and make a great deal of it, because it is in a favourable position.
  Why is the Bill being put through Parliament? What is it all worth? If the Government's privatisation programme is to retain any credibility, the Government should produce a balance sheet which has been audited by the National Audit Office so that everyone can be clear of the valuation of these public assets before the privatisation measure goes through so that the public and the House can judge whether this is the proper way to proceed with legitimate matters of public interest. I trust that this will be done and that we do not see the same sort of shabby business as occurred with Rover and Royal Ordnance.
  Who will get their hands on some of the services involved? Many of the companies may be building companies. They may win in competition with the PSA or they may wish to get involved in other ways by buying their way in. It is salutary that many of these firms, including Cementation, Taylor Woodrow and Trafalgar House, all support the Conservative party, have a vested interest and might benefit from privatisation. We must regard with suspicion the objectives of and motives for this measure.
  The Bill alters the course of Government management which has developed in a direct line since the middle ages when the first public works clerk was appointed to a royal palace. The PSA now looks after 8,000 public buildings. Does the PSA still have any involvement in royal palaces?

  369
  The Select Committee on the Environment said that the PSA was inefficient and its lines of communication were too long. The privatisation may be being used as an excuse to try to put right some of these matters. It is legitimate to ask whether options other than privatisation are available to make the PSA more efficient. Alternatives may well exist.
  The Bill also involves some aspects of the Secretary of State's career. He has to make a partial commitment to Thatcherite privatisation. He is being clever enough to set up the final stages of the privatisation of the PSA until just after the next general election. It is a good case of the Secretary of State having his cake and eating it.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: I am grateful for the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), not because of the usual sour platitudes with which he ended his speech, using the normal Liberal tactic of substituting insults for policy, but because he referred earlier to a subject on which I wish to speak: the position of the PSA staff under the proposed privatisation.
  I declare a constituency interest in this matter. There is a substantial PSA office at Westbury on Trym, in my constituency. Many people not only work in that office but live close by. When the former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Secretary of State for Defence, visited my constituency during the 1983 general election and walked the high street of Westbury on Trym he was immediately besieged and almost mobbed by PSA employees worried about the implications of the Alfred report. That report would have caused huge upheavals in the PSA and created the ultimate indignity for a Bristol office by putting it under Cardiff's control.
  Substantial numbers still work at the Westbury on Trym office in north-west Bristol and I was anxious to receive as wide a briefing as possible on this measure's effects on the staff. Not surprisingly, I received a briefing from the Government and asked the union if it would supply me with a briefing, which it duly did. I received a briefing from the south-west branch of the National Union of Civil and Public Servants earlier this week, immediately grabbed it and scanned it with great interest. I admit that my interest rapidly waned as I read through it. The document did not give a broad view of the Bill's effects on the union members at the PSA, but was an openly party political document which set out to denigrate privatisation and slag off those of its members who happened to disagree politically with the writer of the briefing. It was a thoroughly scurrilous little document.
  When dealing with the interests of the staff—its members—the document says that the business of the PSA will decline automatically as a result of privatisation. Let us forget what we heard this afternoon about the favourable costings that the PSA is able to put forward in privatisation because according to the writer of the document, privatisation has to mean decline because that is what the Labour party says it has to mean. Let us forget that the document is trying to look after the interests of its members who will themselves be responsible for whether the PSA is efficient or inefficient in future. I know, apparently better than the trade union concerned, that many of its members regard the PSA as an extremely efficient organisation and are in no way scared of
  370
  competition. I find it worrying that the people they pay to represent them have totally the wrong idea of the work they are doing.
  It is the union's recommendation that the staff concerned should be quickly offered a choice. One would think that we were talking about the direction in which their careers should go. That is not the case. The choice recommended by the union is between remaining in the Civil Service and joining the new PSA on loan. There is no question in the union's mind that any members of staff, whatever their political outlook, should have enough belief in the organisation for which they have worked for most of their lives to want to join it.
  The nub of the scurrilous little document is that the union predicts that those members of staff with "highly marketable skills" will automatically leave the PSA and go to an employer of their own choosing. Neither we in the House nor my constituents live in a slave society. They have the right to choose their employers. I do not find it in any way deplorable that, as a result of the Bill, my constituents should be given the opportunity of selling their skills in the best marketplace. I find it deplorable that the people who represent them should so resent them possessing ambition.
  The opportunities opened up in the Bill for my constituents are legion. It has already been pointed out that the PSA will benefit from being able to compete with the private sector in the private sector.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the hon. Gentleman consulted those civil servants, did he ask them about morale within the PSA? What did they say about that? He must have consulted them as it is an important issue for the hon. Gentleman. Did they say that morale was good or bad?
  Mr. Stern: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is never a simple answer to that question, and I did not receive a simple answer.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the hon. Gentleman ask?
  Mr. Stern: Of course I asked, as I meet them regularly. They said that morale was variable. Some older members of staff greatly value their titles and positions as civil servants and are reluctant to see those positions changed. One of the reasons that I welcome delayed privatisation in this case is that it will give an opportunity for older members of staff to work out arrangements which will be satisfactory for them for the short remainder of their careers. If I am chosen to serve on the Committee, I will want to look at that point.
  There were and there remain a large number of people to whom I have spoken who are excited at the prospects opened up by the Bill. The Crown Suppliers is excited at the prospects of taking part in the management buy-outs that are likely to come about as a result of the Bill. The answer to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is that, as with so many other issues, there is no simple answer.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman said that a person should he allowed to transfer to where he can obtain the highest reward. He also referred to older people who may have two years to go. What about job satisfaction? Did the hon. Gentleman question those people who are now employed by the Crown Suppliers or the PSA about job satisfaction and the

  371
  fear that they may lose that job satisfaction? Did he question those people with perhaps four or five years to go about their fear that after two years they will not know where they belong? Those issues must be addressed. The prospect of privatisation is causing that concern.
  Mr. Stern: I disagree totally with the final point made by the hon. Gentleman. Of course there are concerns in many different areas. They are not caused by privatisation; they exist anyway. The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks up for the people concerned about the effects on their careers, but he discounts the people—and I have spoken to many—who are excited by the prospects opened up by the change in character of the organisation. They are entitled to just as much consideration.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman said that he believes that morale is mixed. Can he explain why last year a net figure of 500 senior managers left the PSA? Why did they go? Were they happy and contented? Did it have anything to do with the prospect of privatisation?
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to create generalisations where none exists. In any organisation containing 23,000 employees, some will leave in any year and some will be senior managers. They will all leave if they see that prospects are better elsewhere. However, the hon. Member for Workington does not take account of people joining the organisation at the same time.
  Mr. Hunter: My hon. Friend is right. He may wish to know that the Select Committee on the Environment discussed that point with the PSA, which said that it had a recruiting and retaining problem because of competition with the private sector.
  Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining my point.
  Prospects have opened up for my constituents—both present and future employees of the PSA—and are greatly enhanced by the Bill. For the first time, the organisation will be able to go into the marketplace and fully sell the skills that it has built up. That marketplace is not just in Britain but worldwide. The opportunity for the organisation to compete worldwide will be greatly enhanced by the Bill. I suspect that that is what is interesting many of those employees who are keen to share in the overall organisation. It is a unique organisation that has been held back by its position as part of the arm of just one of the world's Governments.
  Many of my constituents are worried about their conditions and prospects under this change, but I welcome the Bill on their behalf. I have no doubt that it will create more opportunities for more people than there would ever have been had the PSA remained in public hands.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If selected, I look forward to serving on the Committee examining this Bill and I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) will serve on it, too. This Bill is a can of worms and there is a great deal to be said about it.
  As the parliamentary debate goes on, it often happens that more issues are raised. I have a great respect for the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West; he and I are both involved in the promotion of chess, but I beg him to realise
  372
  that, although he may be right about some people being excited by the prospect, a great many others are deeply worried about what is happening.
  On 24 April 1989, I raised this subject by asking whether Ministers would honour the commitment given to this House by junior Ministers that
  "the pensions of the staff of the Crown Suppliers upon privatisation will be comparable to those they are entitled to under the principal Civil Service pension scheme."
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) replied:
  "When tender invitations are issued, prospective purchasers will be invited to offer pension terms to transferred staff broadly comparable to those in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Detailed future pension arrangements will be a matter for the purchaser to discuss with the Government in the course of the sale."—[Official Report, 24 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 412.]
  That is open-ended.
  On 25 April, following a clarification question from me and a holding answer, the Minister said:
  "No decisions have yet been taken upon the detailed criteria which will apply."—[Official Report, 25 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 526.]
  We want to see the small print.
  On 2 May, in reply to my question about non-industrial staff, the Minister said:
  "my right hon. Friend yesterday met the unions representing the staff of the Crown Supplier."—[Official Report, 2 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 56.]
  The Minister has not satisfied the unions in these meetings.
  On 16 May the Minister said:
  "The pension terms on offer would be assessed by the Government Actuary."—[Official Report, 16 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 185.]
  That is more than an important point for the Committee.
  The Secretary of State said this afternoon that, after privatisation, the staff of the Crown Suppliers and the PSA who are transferred will have
  "exactly the same redundancy payments as anyone else. They are not losing their redundancy entitlement".
  The Secretary of State referred to the operation of the TUPE regulations. He is aware that regulation 7 excludes pensions, but severance arrangements in the Civil Service are enshrined in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. Does the Minister regard severance arrangements as caught by the regulation 7 exclusion? If so, will he or the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is satisfied that he has discharged his full obligations under the relevant European directive?
  In the Civil Service, severance entitlements are guaranteed by Act of Parliament. The total obligation of the state towards civil servants in the PSA is estimated at £1 billion.
  Does the Secretary of State recognise that the severance obligations are vulnerable in the private sector?
  The construction industry is volatile and not known for its integrity in dealings with staff. Are Ministers aware that the union representing senior managers—the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists—has said that it will take strike action to defend severance terms? The Treasury guaranteed severance terms in the ordnance factories and the dockyards. Why are similar guarantees not being offered to PSA staff?
  Despite considerable underfunding, the PSA has been consistently acclaimed for promoting standards of excellence. Over the years, it has won numerous awards, ranging from the Europa Nostra diploma of merit for the superb restoration of Richmond terrace in Whitehall—I

  373
  pay tribute to the late Duncan Sandys for his remarks about the PSA's work—to the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland special award for the modernisation of Fort George in Inverness. Fort George was a fantastic performance by the PSA, and knowing as I do something about the Scottish highlands, I venture that no other body could have done the work as well. I am sure that the chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, who is present, would not deny that.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: That was indeed a most remarkable restoration, to which the Historic Buildings Council contributed generously, but the idea that only members of the PSA could have achieved it is phenomenal. The PSA is not restoring Westminster abbey, but no one would deny that that is a remarkable restoration.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is open to argument, but my point about the highlands stands.
  Do the Government accept that the PSA's design costs have been shown to be 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. cheaper than those of private designers?
  As for maintenance, in 1988 the Government abandoned their attempt to contract out district works offices after receiving tenders for the pilot in Southwark which proved to be twice as high as the PSA's costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who spoke excellently, asked about that but did not receive an answer. Is it true or false?
  I have had no answer to my question about the private valuation of the new DSS headquarters costing 266 per cent. more than the PSA's valuation would have done. What are the facts? On Second Reading, the House is entitled to know them.
  We are also entitled to know what physical assets will be assigned to a privatised body, and on what basis. Will such property and equipment remain in public ownership? Will it be leased to such a body or given it as a sweetener?
  I listened extremely carefully to the Secretary of State's opening speech and took down his phrase that flotation was not envisaged. If not, who will own these assets?
  I want to say a word about service and value for money. The Minister has conceded that the sensitive use of landscape was central to the role of the PSA. With more than 300,000 hectares of land, from Cornwall to the Shetlands—as well as many other places around the world—under its management, the agency sets and meets high standards. PSA landscape architects work with practices of international standing to bring about sensitive and effective results. However, the privatisation of the PSA will reflect an ill-considered reliance on market forces to conserve and enhance the environment, and will ignore the PSA's critical role. Ironically, the announcement of the PSA's privatisation in the Queen's Speech was followed by the statement:
  "my Government will continue to attach very great importance to protecting the environment."
  Let us start with the north, although there are endless other examples. What will happen to the ownership of all the Orkney and Shetland brochs? They are of European importance and extend right through Britain. It is not clear who will take over the ownership of royal palaces and so on from the PSA and whether there will be leaseback. The economical use of departmental accommodation requires centralised co-ordination. In the PSA's absence, Departments will end up unnecessarily competing against
  374
  each other for scarce and costly accommodation with the constraint of central pressures to order the proper use of space. Moreover, the lack of professional understanding in the market place will cause Departments to pay higher rents than necessary.
  Do the Government deny that? In its second report for the 1986–87 session the Select Committee on the Environment said:
  "PSA should be allowed to manage the civil office and storage estate more positively to ensure that the estate is controlled strategically as a major property resource. It should also have control over major new construction work in this sector."
  The unions say that that will not be achieved under the new regime, and they are right. If we are wrong about that, there ought to be some rebuke from the Government.
  I should like to raise the matter of quality of service. Departments will have to fund their works organisations either from existing resources, thus undermining the services that Departments are supposed to provide and increasing pressure on their staff, or raise entirely new funding, placing an additional burden on the taxpayer. Departments may use a mixture of those two. The financial pressures on Departments will mesh with the competitive pressures on the PSA to push down standards across the range of Government accommodation requirements. The cheapest is not necessarily the best but Departments will be forced to accept the lowest tenders. Is that denied? I listened carefully to the Secretary of State and did not hear anything in his speech which would contradict that statement.
  Will the Minister explain how such valuable public resources as property are to be valued? He did not explain that, nor did he say who will be given that task and how soon such a portfolio will be completed. What assurance can he give the House that such valuations will be able to withstand public scrutiny so ensuring that, bluntly, the public are not ripped off?
  Clause 2(2) refers to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. What undertakings is the Minister prepared to give in relation to any person or persons subsequently made redundant by the new private body? Like many other parts of the legislation, that has not been thought out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith mentioned security; I shall delete from my speech what I proposed to say about that because he covered it so powerfully. However, he was not answered. It is to the credit of the Secretary of State that he normally jumps up to answer a question, but this time he did not. His uncharacteristic behaviour reveals that the matter had not been thought through. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith posed legitimate questions.
  I should like to put a precise question to the Secretary of State. Is it true that he has already decided that work on Ministers' residences and official residences will not be privatised? Has he decided that such work will remain with the Government? If there are no security problems in privatising the PSA, why are Ministers' residences, certain royal palaces and the House of Commons being excluded from his privatisation plans? Does he agree that that is a case of double standards—one for Ministers, their wives and families and another for service men and their dependants? The Minister may be able to answer that, but it jolly well looks as if there are double standards.

  375
  I am embarrassed that the security of 650 hon. Members and that of those who work with us should be judged on one set of standards while we lay down different standards for other people. If it is argued that those different standards are in no way inferior, the obvious questions to be posed by people outside is, why are they not good enough for people in the House of Commons and the royal palaces?
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: They are not.
  Mr. Dalyell: Did the Minister say that?
  Mr. Chope: No, it was a mere mortal.
  Mr. Hargreaves: As a mere mortal, may I inform the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members would be quite happy to see those standards improved, because we do not find acceptable the standards that have to be endured in this place and in another place. Some of us would urge my hon. Friend the Minister to go further in terms of the standards provided by the PSA.
  Mr. Dalyell: If that is so, why is the House of Commons not being privatised like everything else?
  Mr. Hargreaves: We are referring not to the House of Commons but to its management and security.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not know whether that means privatising the Serjeant at Arms. This will be seen as double standards, and that is a source of embarrassment. I see that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench agree with me. The matter needs to be dealt with.
  Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will shorten the remainder of my speech. In terms of clause 2(2), will the Minister tell us what provision has been made with regard to the equalisation of pension rights and conditions as contained in the principal civil service pension scheme compared to those that the private body will be required to undertake? That is a rather careful question, and as far as I can make out it has not previously been answered.
  Mr. Richard Holt: The other questions were careless ones.
  Mr. Dalyell: The others were pertinent; I never ask careless questions.
  In terms of clause 3, is it the intention of the Secretary of State to hold any shares or part shares in the proposed privatised body? I have ears like Jodrell bank and distinctly heard the Minister say to his parliamentary private secretary, "Never answer his questions." What limits are the Government likely to place on their proposals? Clause 4 is about the Crown Suppliers. Can the Secretary of State advise us about the order and extent of the liabilities that he seeks to extinguish?
  In Committee, the debate will become more and more interesting, because some of us will keep an open mind and will continue to ask questions until they are answered. We shall make as much parliamentary difficulty as we can if Ministers are reticent. If they are forthcoming and frank, the Bill will go through Committee like lightning.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the chance to catch your eye Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially as, unfortunately, because of other commitments in the House, I shall probably not have the pleasure of joining the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in serving on the Committee to which he is looking foward so much.
  I wish to make a few comments on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about standards of security. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware of recent incidents at premises under the management of the PSA in which I and my hon. Friends work. The incidents concerned breaches of security such as theft, the rifling of hon. Members' cabinets and so on. They were brought to the attention of my hon. Friend, the Serjeant at Arms and others whose busines it is to know about such matters. There might just as well have been bombs.
  I ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow to pay attention to this point, as he referred to double standards of security. Conservative Members are concerned about the standards of security, and no doubt will be urging my hon. Friend to assure us that, in not transferring these specific services to the private sector, he can undertake that they will be improved by the PSA.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is not giving a fair crack of the whip to those who have a duty to manage our security. We put them—quite rightly—in a difficult position because we tell them that we are prepared to take certain risks to ensure that the democratic process is as open and as public as possible. They must balance the security throughout the Palace; that is not the case for Ministers.
  Mr. Hargreaves: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view, but I do not think that it applies to the office accommodation of hon. Members. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is a valuation expert.
  Mr. Hargreaves: Indeed I am, and I make no bones about it.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the whole process of privatisation. The Opposition have previously referred to privatisation as selling the family silver, but this valuation expert considers that we are selling the silver duster and improving it, the better to preserve the silver.
  The whole question of privatising the PSA is one of efficiency. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor asked why the legislation was being introduced. The simple answer is that we require these services to be provided more efficiently and more cost-efficiently. For the benefit of those Opposition Members who tend to be a little sceptical, I shall cite a personal example that I have brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. In the car park some nine months ago, my car was unfortunately reversed into a pillar by one of the attendants. It took the PSA almost nine months to find out who employed the attendant and who was responsible and, subsequently, to arrange for insurance cover to be paid.
  That is not the standard of efficiency that hon. Members would applaud. It is the very inefficiency that the

  377
  Environment Select Committee referred to when it said that the PSA was inefficient. It is my experience, and that of many of my hon. Friends, that that is true. It is in an effort to improve that efficiency that we are embarking upon this legislation.
  We are discussing, especially in the case of the Crown Suppliers, the provision of such items as light bulbs and fuel. We might as well be talking about the provision of cabbages. Surely the Opposition are not suggesting that only the PSA can provide this House or other Government institutions with cabbages—[Interruption.] As one who has stood on the rostrum selling such objects, I assure hon. Members that they can be provided with equal skill, to better effect and more cost-efficiently by the private sector.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor referred to striking at the very heart of Whitehall. Many of my constituents—and, I am sure, many others—would welcome a fresh approach to the provision of services and the management of facilities around Whitehall. I have been ashamed by the shoddy condition of Government buildings. I have escorted senior foreign bankers—one, alas, was blown up the other day—to the Treasury. It is a disgrace compared with the Treasuries of other countries, which in a former existence I have visited either on official business or unofficially. I do not refer in particular to the outside of the building, which although not magnificent is reasonably well preserved; it is the inside of the building that shames me.
  I urge hon. Members to reflect on what this legislation attempts to achieve—an improvement in the management and the provision of such items as light bulbs and heating oil. To say that only the PSA can supply those items is nonsense. There may be parts of the PSA—and I bow to the superior knowledge of my hon. Friends—which, for security and other reasons, might be better in the public sector, but surely not the provision of light bulbs and heating oil. It is crazy.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why?
  Mr. Hargreaves: Because there is a perfectly good marketplace in which to buy such items direct and more cheaply, which means better value for money. My constituents want cheaper services to Government and therefore lower public expenditure.
  I rest my case in saying that there is good reason for privatising the PSA and the Crown Suppliers, and I urge my hon. Friends to support that view.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) made an interesting speech, which takes me to the heart of my case. I always try to be extremely objective about commercial matters—[Interruption.] Oh yes I do. Those hon. Members in the Chamber this evening, especially my hon. Friends, who have heard my comments on Finance Bills and trade and industry matters generally will know that I have sometimes dissented from a position because I felt that arguments about efficiency, effectiveness and delivery were crucial. However, I have never accepted the premise that efficiency in delivery of service is necessarily the monopoly of the private sector. I cannot intellectually come to terms with that as a proposition.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could also include in his remarks the
  378
  concept that competition tends to lead to great efficiency in companies bidding for the same contract. It sharpens the acuteness with which they attempt to do the job. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I accept that and I shall deal with the question of competition when I speak about the Crown Suppliers. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a report of the Public Accounts Committee and appendices to evidence that we took on these matters some 15 months ago.
  The proposition that the man who buys a cabbage in the private sector can necessarily acquire better terms than the man who buys a cabbage in the public sector is quite ludicrous. Whether I worked in the private or in the public sector would not influence in any way the efficiency and effectiveness of my operations as a buyer for a commercial organisation.
  Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is embarking on an argument for the PSA's efficiency. He must bear in mind that he is flying in the face of the findings of the Select Committee on Environment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not suggest for a moment that the PSA is my ideal example of absolute efficiency. My case is that the efficiency with which problems are handled in any organisation manned by mortal human beings such as myself, who can work equally well in either sector, is entirely dependent on motivation. If those in the public sector are motivated in the right way—
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would willingly give way if I had time, and perhaps I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in private conversation. I have a good deal to say this evening, however, and I do not wish to detain the House unreasonably at such an early hour.
  Let me ask the Minister to take the advice offered by President Bush last year at the Republican convention in the United States, which I was fortunate enough to attend. Turning to his opponent, the President said, "Watch my lips." I hope that the Minister will watch mine very carefully, as I should like him to address many of my remarks specifically in his reply.
  In my interventions this evening, I have persistently argued that in this instance the public sector provides a cheaper service than the private sector. [Hon. Members: "Nonesense."] We are starting the debate in the knowledge that the party with the most votes to deploy at 10 o'clock tonight believes that my view is nonsense. Let me draw hon. Members' attention to the third report of the Public Accounts Committee on the Property Services Agency and management of the civil estate. Questions were asked, and the Committee was subsequently provided with information by the accounting officer, Sir Gordon Manzie.
  I asked about a report into in-house and out-house design work done by the PSA. My question was:
  "Is it true that the latest Semple Sweett comparison into in-house out-house major design work shows that PSA are 25–30 per cent. cheaper than private consultants on major design work?"
  The question concedes a little to the Government, and I shall therefore read the reply in full so that we can consider the implications:
  "The original Sweett/Semple review in 1983 concluded that there was likely to be an additional cost of about 10–20 per cent. in putting work out to private consultants. However,

  379
  the review also concluded that it would always be more economical for a proportion of the design work to be carried out by the private sector, in particular to give the agency flexibility to deal with fluctuations in its workload. The latest management update of the Sweett/Semple review is still under consideration. When finalised it will cover the 44 year period to March 1987 and allow for the introduction and extension of fee competition for work done by private consultants. But the only really accurate and valid basis for comparison of in-house and out-house costs will not be available until the Agency is moved to a system of full commercial accounts, underpinned by much improved management information and accounting systems."
  I understand that those systems of "full commercial accounting", underpinned by
  "much improved management information and accounting systems",
  are currently being put into place, and that computerised programme is being used in the Department. If I am right, will the Minister confirm that that programme has now been subjected to 1,900 modifications, that the whole system is a disaster and that it is making it almost impossible to evaluate the relative costs of in-house and out-house work?
  These are internal departmental matters, separate from the propaganda of the debate. The Minister has come to the House with a proposal to privatise the agency, without having even established whether his proposal will save money: that, at any rate, is what was said in a recommendation that the Government accepted, provided by Sir Gordon Manzie for the use of the Committee.
  On the Crown Suppliers, however, the answers given to us are far clearer. Let me quote from evidence provided by Sir Gordon and contained in the appendix to our report. Sir Gordon is in the Chamber this evening, and no doubt is nodding vigorously.
  A paper was produced by the central unit on purchasing, which
  "followed a review of the future of The Crown Suppliers undertaken by a team of officials led by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office review team concluded on the information available to them that whilst privatisation would be possible"—
  it is always possible—
  "it would not, in their view, be in the pulic interest."
  I understand that that review team is one of the most prominent committes in the land, that it is at the very heart of Government and that it advises the Prime Minister; but it says that privatisation would not be in the public interest. Those are not my words.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: They are the Cabinet Secretary's.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I presume that that is someone like the man who went to Australia some years ago.
  Mr. Sedgemore: It was Sir Robin Butler.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend has now established the identity of the person involved.
  The evidence continues:
  "They recommended that The Crown Suppliers should be retained as a central purchasing agency in the public sector with rather greather autonomy in accounting and staffing matters, but that further consideration should be given to contracting out certain of their non-procurement activities." I am reading all this because that is what is says, although I may not agree with it. The thrust of the recommendation is "Keep it in the public sector."
  380
  "The Central Unit on Purchasing came to a similar conclusion about the central procurement function, but made rather more radical suggestions about The Crown Suppliers' other activities. A request by Dr. Oonagh McDonald"—
  the former Member of Parliament for Thurrock—
  "that a copy of the paper by the Central Unit on Purchasing should be placed in the Library was refused by Sir George Young"—
  the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, then a Minister in the Department—
  "because it was not in a form suitable for publication."
  What that really means is that the paper was embarrassing, that it should not be read by the public and that the union should not have access to it, because it reinforced its case.
  I asked another question, about the study of the feasibility of privatisation by Coopers and Lybrand in association with Samuel Montagu, and the study of the options other than privatisation by Mr. Dewi Jones. They
  "were commissioned because Ministers believed that, taking into account the wider commercial benefits"—
  again, I am quoting Sir Gordon's reply—
  "privatisation might prove to be a valid option despite the conclusions of the earlier reports. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State"—
  who is now in his place but who is not watching my lips—
  "responded to a request by Mr. Tam Dalyell for these reports by saying that summaries had been placed in the Library; the full reports were not proposed for publication because they contained commercially confidential information."
  That was the second occasion on which Ministers were hiding the truth from Parliament because they did not want the case against privatisation to be put, based on accurate information produced by those who had had the opportunity to go into the Department and evaluate what was in the best interests of the general public.
  "The Crown Suppliers Board prepared a commentary for Ministers on the Dewi Jones report."
  Again I quote Sir Gordon:
  "This was an internal document commenting on a commercially confidential report and"—
  in the words of Sir Gordon—
  "was not intended or suitable for publication."
  I can presume only that that is yet another example of Sir Gordon having to defer to the Minister's instruction not to publish information that might be highly embarrassing to the Department.
  I understand that there is another matter to which I might briefly allude at this stage.
  "A team of staff of The Crown Suppliers, who are assembling a bid for all or parts of the business of The Crown Suppliers, asked for assistance with the cost of consultants' fees. The Government has agreed in principle that assistance should be given for some of these costs but no decision has been reached on the level of assistance to be provided."
  I understand that that is a precedent. I hope that the Minister will comment upon it.
  The Government do not want the truth to come out. The privatisation is being driven through by a Minister who is determined to foster his reputation as the grand privatiser of everything in the private sector. However, he has a small problem on this occasion. He has always promoted himself as effective and efficient and as a leading light in the formulation and promotion of the Government's privatisation policies, but the Minister has turned the Crown Suppliers, which was a highly profitable organisation, right round. In 1987 it made a profit in previous years. The Minister has turned the Crown Suppliers into a loss-making organisation. A profitable state concern has been turned into a loss-making state concern.

  381
  In desperation, therefore, the Minister now comes to the House to propose the privatisation of an organisation that he has been unable to manage effectively. He may say that he is not responsible for the Crown Suppliers management, but I understand that he has attended board meetings on privatisation. He takes an almost day-to-day interest in what goes on in the Crown Suppliers and at PSA generally. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. I understand that he has a permanent monitoring role.
  Mr. Chope: I do not have a permanent monitoring role, in the sense of being a Crown Suppliers executive. It has an independent board that consists of full-time employees and non-executive directors. I have occasionally attended board meetings. I attended my first board meeting earlier this year. I hope to be able to be at another one later this month. I have attended a few other board meetings, and I accept my share of responsibility for the Crown Suppliers' performance. In the last year for which there are published accounts, Crown Suppliers made a profit of over £3 million on its trading activities.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister's information perhaps updates that which I have, but there are those who will have heard what he has said. If what he has said can be challenged, it will be challenged on the Floor of the House during Question Time on environmental matters.
  I remind the Minister what happened last year when he was tripped up over Richmond house. He knows what happened. On that famous evening he answered for the Government. We were well-briefed for that Adjournment debate. We knew that he had spent over £40,000 on a service that we knew we could have provided for him, if only he had asked us for our advice, for £1,500. If there had been a Labour Government throughout the Richmond house affair, the taxpayer would be over £40,000 better off, but because there is a Conservative Government who are obsessed with privatisation and contractorisation, public money has been lost.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall give way later.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this matter?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. There is plenty of time. We shall return later to it.
  We caught the Minister out last year and we may have caught him out again this year. Does he remember that on 8 May he answered a written question from me, in which I asked
  "the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Crown Suppliers continue to comply with established public procurement procedures and relevant EEC/GATT regulations."
  The Minister answered:
  "Yes."—[Official Report, 8 May 1989; Vol. 152, c. 355.]
  That was a very clear answer. I understand that no sooner had he given me that answer than there were phone calls to him from the Department asking, "Minister, are you sure that you haven't misled Campbell-Savours with that rather odd reply?" I understand that it was not true. Legal advice was taken by the Department. The Minister might care to intervene to deny what I now say.
  382
  I understand that for the last two years the Crown Suppliers has systematically avoided European Community requirements to open its supply contracts to competition throughout the European Community and has done so in the full knowledge that its actions could not be defended either in the European Court or, if contested, by European commissioners, in the same way as European commissioners will now contest the subsidies paid to British Aerospace in the Rover takeover.
  The Minister is fully aware of the Crown Suppliers flagrant disregard of the Government's international treaty obligations. He has chosen to hide the information from Parliament by not giving direct and clear answers to questions on these matters. The European Community supplies directive 77/62 requires that
  "Government contracts for the purchase of goods valued at over £92,000 are put out to tender and that such contracts are advertised in the EEC Journal."
  The reasons will be obvious to the House. Probity, fair trading, free competition and obtaining the best value of public money are among them.
  For the past two years, however, the Crown Suppliers has been in flagrant breach of the regulations on numerous occasions over contracts for furniture and furnishings totalling tens of millions of pounds. When such contracts come to an end and further substantial quantities of the same goods are required, tender competition should be organised and advertised in the European Community Journal. Instead, contracts have been extended in clear breach of EC directives and the standard of public accountability that the House expects has clearly been breached. I stand to be corrected at any stage in my contribution, but I have been told that more than 120 contracts have been extended in that way.
  I had some notes on Community rules on this matter, but they seem to have disappeared, so I cannot comment on them. I wanted to place them on the record. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends will ask me to give way.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Would my hon. Friend care to develop the Richmond terrace affair, as I was the hon. Member who raised the matter on an Adjournment debate and I received no satisfactory answer at the time? The Minister used to be on Wandsworth council and he claimed to be a value-for-money person. He is now more adept at wasting public money than anyone cares to mention. When my hon. Friend has talked about that, will he draw the parallels between the Rover sale to British Aerospace and the extension of the 122 contracts that do not accord with the EC directive? If he will comment on that, we can then have another intervention from a Conservative Member and I shall come to help him look for his papers.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: They were here all the time. In reply to my hon. Friend, the matter of Richmond terrace remains for those who study Hansard to read well into the future and I am sure that they will draw the same conclusion as I have. Richmond terrace is a very beautiful building, but it was a very nasty contract.
  As I understand the arrangements within the Community, contracts can be awarded under open or restricted procedures or, in specified circumstances, under a negotiated procedure. In open procedures, all suppliers who are interested in the contract can submit tenders. In the restricted procedures, tenders are allowed only from suppliers who have been invited to participate. Negotiation procedures allow contracting authorites to

  383
  negotiate with one or more suppliers of their choice. In certain, closely defined circumstances—and it is on these matters that the Minister will have to comment later—they can do so without prior publication of a tender notice. We may be looking at those areas tonight and I am sure that the Minister will want to be clear about them because we shall be checking to see whether his comment is strictly correct.
  Except in such closely defined circumstances, there must be a call for competition by means of a prescribed tender notice published in the official journal of the European Community, allowing minimum time scales for responses by candidates or by tenderers. When a contracting authority makes an award, it is required to send a contract award notice to the journal for publication and to record details of the award for inclusion later in a statistical return.
  On the technical specifications of the contracts, whether or not procurements are above the thresholds in the directive, the contracting authorities have obligations under article 30 of the treaty of Rome. The Commission takes the view that decisions of the European Court of Justice mean that where there are no European standards, contracting authorities must consider products from other member states manufactured to a different design, but having an equivalent performance on equal terms with products meeting national or other preferred standards.
  There are special procedures for dealing with matters of urgency. The directive provides that purchasers may use the negotiation procedure without prior publication of a tender notice in so far as is strictly necessary when, for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by events unforeseeable by the purchaser, time limits laid down for the open and restricted procedures cannot be met. The circumstances involved must not be attributable to any part of the contracting authority.
  The directive provides separately that when urgency makes the normal time limits impractical, the time limit for the receipt of requests to participate shall not be less than 15 days from the day of dispatch and that the time limit for the receipt of tenders shall not be less than 10 days from the date of the invitation to tender. Purchasers should not abuse these provisions—I hope that the Minister is listening—which the European Court, the Commission and, where relevant, other signatories to the Government procurement agreement are likely to give a narrow interpretation.
  Many of my hon. Friends are concerned that European Court requirements, Commission requirements, parliamentary decisions and whatever has any connection with the European Community are issues that are too often discarded by this Government.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I want to be clear about what my hon. Friend is saying. The Prime Minister tells us constantly that we do not have a level playing field in Europe and that all the other countries are cheating. Is my hon. Friend saying that Britain is cheating?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have been on my feet for 20 minutes and I have spent 10 or 15 minutes on this matter. The Minister has had the opportunity to intervene to put me right, yet he has not. He is looking for his notes, and
  384
  I am sure that Sir Gordon is being consulted most vigorously on the matter and that he is enjoying himself immensely.
  The directive does not include any provisions for enforcing compliance and it is left to the Commission to take action against a member state under article 169 of the treaty for failing to implement the directive properly. The Commission has said that it intends to do so more vigorously where the directive appears to have been breached and that where a breach is established, any Community funding conditional on compliance may be withheld.
  In theory at least, judicial remedies for injured suppliers may already be available in the United Kingdom. Compliance ought to be challenged. It is of increasing importance in the negotiations in Geneva on the improvement and broadening of the Government procurement agreement and suppliers from other signatory countries can be expected to become increasingly aware of the available remedies.
  I have references in my notes to the threshold being £92,000, which is the equivalent of 130,000 ecu. I want to know whether the rules have been breached. I understand that the rules were breached and, despite consulting Sir Gordon and having had a most vigorous consultation, the Minister has still not been able to get to his feet to tell me whether the rules have been breached. The breaching of rules is a major issue within the Department. Legal advice has been taken on the matter and the legal advice is that the rules have been breached. Yet the Minister is still not tempted to come to his feet. I am sure that the European Commissioner responsible for these matters will be examining what I have said in my modest contribution tonight, yet the Minister still refuses to make a comment at the Dispatch Box.
  I understand that sweeteners have been provided at the insistence of leading members of the management buy-out team in the case of the Crown Suppliers. The Minister has encouraged that bid and financed it from public funds. That breach continues today even though top lawyers at the Department of the Environment have advised that it is in clear breach of the treaty of Rome to which the Government are a signatory. There would be no defence if the European Community became aware of the breach and decided to prosecute the Government—if it had that power. I hope that the European Community takes action.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Before my hon. Friend moves on, can he tell us whether he is claiming that it is Ministers who have deliberately flouted European law, or is he claiming—which would be a serious matter in this Chamber—that Sir Gordon has condoned the flouting of European law either tacitly or overtly?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I think that the Minister has condoned the flouting of European law in this case and hoped—as Lord Young hoped—that no one would ever find out.
  There is another matter that I want to raise, which I regard as somewhat controversial. An allegation has been made that the Civil Service is being brought into disrepute. As a member of the Crown Suppliers board, the Minister has sat idly by while members of the management buy-out team have indulged in activity which is highly improper for public servants. I put the allegation to the House. I do not know in any great detail what the evidence is, but I have

  385
  been given vigorous assurances that what I am saying is correct. It seems that one of the people involved accepted an invitation from a manufacturer called Pentos to attend an all-expenses-paid weekend at this year's British golf open. When that fact was discovered, he said that his attendance had been authorised. I understand that it had, indeed, been authorised—by another member of the management buy-out team. The justification was to provide reassurance to a major manufacturer but that same manufacturer had already been provided with hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of reassurance in the form of numerous extended contracts. It is thus alleged that someone involved in the management buy-out had an improper relationship with a company that was a contractor to the Crown Suppliers.
  I understand that such activities can be approved, but there are rules governing these matters. I take my text from the staff handbook of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. Under the heading
  "Acceptance of Gifts, Rewards and Hospitality",
  the handbook says:
  "Working relationships often bring civil servants into contact with outside organisations where it is normal business practice or social convention to offer hospitality, and sometimes gifts, to facilitate useful contact and working relationships. Offers of this kind to individuals or to their families can place civil servants in a difficult position. To refuse may cause misunderstanding, or offence to the giver, especially if the offer comes from an overseas Government or government organisation. To accept could involve criminal liability or otherwise give rise to questions of impropriety or suspicion of conflict of interest."
  The guiding principles are as follows:
  "The actions and conduct of individuals acting in an official capacity should not give the impression to any member of the public, or to any organisation with whom they deal, or to their colleagues, that they have been or may have been influenced by a gift or consideration to show favour, or disfavour, to any person or organisation.… The conduct of an individual should not foster any suspicion of conflict between official duty and private interests."
  I understand that the permanent secretary is the final arbitor on advisability of acceptance or refusal of gifts, hospitality and so on and is advised by the director-general of organisation and establishments. The handbook says:
  "The correct course to be followed in the case of proffered gifts or hospitality will be determined by the context in which the offer is made."
  I want to make it clear that I do not myself make any allegation of impropriety against the civil servant involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Listen to what I am saying. I merely question whether he should have been authorised to do that. That is a fair question.
  Mr. Holt: Whether who should have been authorised?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Well, the allegation is that he was authorised to do it. When he was questioned, he said so.
  Mr. Holt: Who is "he"?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Whoever the civil servant might be. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to to name a civil servant in the House in connection with such an allegation. Is he really that irresponsible?
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is making serious allegations. Why did he not write to me about them rather than raise them in the House without knowing whether they are substantiated? He could have given me notice of
  386
  the matter. It could have been dealt with in correspondence. Surely that would have been a more responsible way in which to deal with the matter.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister will regret that intervention, because it shows that he is not doing his work. If he checks with his Department, he will find that I raised these matters with the National Audit Office two months ago. The correspondence went to his Department, and he should know the answers. If he does not, he should check with his civil servants in the Box. I have raised the matter, and I should have liked it to have been dealt with before tonight.
  Mr. Chope: Has the hon. Gentleman received a reply from the National Audit Office?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have received no reply on the detailed allegation. I do not know as yet what the position is. The Minister must know, because presumably the matter came to him. Or has he once again abdicated his responsibility and told his civil servants to get on with it and ignore any complaints from my hon. Friends and myself?
  Mr. Sedgemore: I used to be what is loosely described as a senior civil servant, and, indeed, a private secretary to Ministers in a previous incarnation. I am now a member of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. My general feeling is that standards of integrity in the Civil Service have declined considerably as politicians have interfered in its conduct. I am sure that the example that my hon. Friend has given is correct, and all that I can say is that in my day that attendance would have been regarded as highly damaging to the integrity of the Civil Service, whether it had been authorised or not.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps the allegation isbaseless. Perhaps it is only a rumour; perhaps it is nonsense. But if it is the truth, the Minister should be asking his Department who authorised and whether, in the circumstances of privatisation, it was correct to authorise.
  A note from the chief executive of the Crown Suppliers to all staff, headed "Conflicts of Interest", says:
  "As the sale of The Crown Suppliers approaches, it may be helpful for you to have a note about particular issues that could give rise to a conflict of interest.
  Staff Conduct
  As privatisation approaches, and particularly after the purchaser has been selected, there is likely to be increasing pressure to look to the objectives and requirements of the prospective new management. Until the sale has been completed (and indeed beyond for those staff who are seconded to the new owner), all TCS staff will continue to be bound by the rules of conduct applicable to civil servants. These are set out in the Staff Handbook."
  It is a very good letter. It goes into the special position of, and the separate guidance to be given to, members of the buy-out team. It deals with the question of personal share dealing and staff conduct generally. The gentleman who wrote the letter is obviously a fine civil servant and understands the responsibility that has been placed on hint by the House to protect the integrity of the Civil Service.
  Even so, we have the allegation to which I have drawn the attention of the House this evening. I do not have concrete evidence. I simply stated my allegation and it went to the National Audit Office, which will have sent it to the Department. As yet, we have had nothing back. I have identified no individuals but the incident has been pressed upon me vigorously and those who have pressed it

  387
  upon me sound very convincing. If the allegation is true, something is very wrong. It means that, during this sensitive privatisation period, the Minister is allowing relationships to develop, which, in the minds of the public could be treated with great suspicion.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Did my hon. Friend understand the Minister to say that the organisation had made a £3 million profit this year, as I did, whereas only last week the staff were informed that the profit indicators for the nine months that have so far been worked this year suggest a projected loss of £1 million this year?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: While I was speaking my hon. Friend must have taken advice on these matters and he must have been advised by people who know about these things. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not have intervened unless he had concrete information. The Minister must reply to this. We are like postboxes in this affair. Representatives of the work force contact us on the one hand and on the other there are the civil servants. Perhaps we can establish the truth during this debate.
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman has made some serious allegations against individuals outside this place and against my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have named no one.
  Mr. Holt: It is suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister must know what every person in his Department is doing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will recall that during the tenure of office of my hon. Friend's predecessor, members of the Department were found guilty of corrupt practices and were jailed. There is no way in which my hon. Friend the Minister or his predecessor would want to shield people who are carrying out criminal activities. It is irresponsible of the hon. Member for Workington to come to the House with a load of smears, no names and no evidence.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not listened to me. I have reported no criminal activity. I said that I can understand the context in which this kind of activity could happen. I have simply questioned the propriety of a civil servant perhaps doing these things with the authorisation of his chief. If that has happened, it is wrong. I have waited a long time for answers to my inquiries. In desperation I came to the Floor of the House tonight because I want to know the truth. Where taxpayers' money is being allocated to purchase products, equipment and services from industry, the general public and I do not want to believe that there is any possibility of irregularity. I am sure that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and his constituents would not want to believe that.
  If the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, or I, were ever tempted by a bottle of whisky or a food hamper in our Constituencies, I am sure that those gifts would he sent back. Although they are meaningless and insignificant in terms of the income of a Member of Parliament, we know that if the public were aware of them, the reasons for those gifts might be questioned. The public might believe that such gifts are wrong, and that is why we do not accept them. The same is true of public procurement. There must be no question of impropriety even if we understand the
  388
  context in which these matters arise. Impropriety must not happen and that is why I have raised the issue tonight. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Secretary of State was not present to hear me tonight, or to watch my lips.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He spoke at great length, and he may now hold the record for making the longest speech in this debate. His filibuster served only to expose the weakness of the Opposition's case with regard to this measure because so few Opposition Members have spoken tonight.
  Throughout his overlong speech, the hon. Member for Workington did not advance one positive argument in support of what I would have thought should be the intellectual starting point for the Opposition's case for opposing the measure. I believe that the starting point for any Opposition Member must be to argue why it is necessary for the PSA to remain a nationalised industry.
  We must remember that a nationalised industry does not come about naturally because legislation is required to create one. Similarly, legislation is required when a nationalised industry is moved to the private sector. However, any group of citizens can arrange the shareholding for a public limited company.
  If Opposition Members were arguing that the PSA should become a nationalised industry, they would surely have argued why that was necessary. The hon. Member for Workington did not do that. However, in that he was not exceptional, because no other Opposition Member advanced any arguments why the PSA should remain a nationalised industry.
  We have had a one-sided debate this evening. All the arguments for privatisation and some important reservations have come from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) repeated the usual Opposition questions, while making appropriate comments about apprehensions felt by the staff. However, he did not offer any positive arguments why the PSA should remain a nationalised industry. I could not be sure whether the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was in favour of the measure or against it. He referred to the PSA as overstaffed and said that the management needed tightening up. Perhaps his was the unique Liberal position in that he was neither in favour of the measure nor against it.
  Mr. Soley: It is possible that the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for the whole debate; if he had been here, he would not have said what he has said. He would have heard me and several of my colleagues quote Ministers saying that it was necessary for the PSA and the Crown Suppliers to be in the public sector because that was in the public interest. Whatever else the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) can say, he cannot say that the argument was not made. It was made forcefully and we used the Government's own evidence as to why it was in the public interest for the PSA and the Crown Suppliers to stay in the public sector. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address that and tell us why he thinks the Government's reports were wrong.
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should not be apprehensive. I know that he has not been present for the whole debate because he has been out for a good dinner.
  Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not out of order for private conversations to take place inside the Chamber?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Conversations outside the Chamber are beyond my range of vision.
  Mr. Jones: I can assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that. unlike him, I have been in the Chamber throughout the debate. He need not be apprehensive. because I will refer to his comments in a moment.
  I listened to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who gave us a perfect example of the lawyers' trade. He realised that his case was so weak that he changed the question. Once he had done that, he invented his own answer and claimed that he had proved his case on the most spurious of grounds.
  I also listened to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, who spoke for about 47 minutes. On several occasions he said that privatisation of the PSA was not necessary. He said that it was not in the interests of the public sector. On one occasion, he even said that it was not in the interests of the private sector. While he referred to reports, he did not develop one argument as to why it was not necessary. More importantly, he did not address the fundamental question why it is necessary for the PSA to remain a nationalised industry. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read his remarks in Hansard tomorrow morning, when he will find that he did not advance any positive arguments in that regard.
  I welcome the Bill as I have welcomed all the government's privatisation measures. However, I still believe that the term "privatisation" is something of a misnomer. I do not believe that privatised companies are made private. They have been taken from state ownership and are now owned by the people. When they were nationalised industries, they were far more private affairs than they are now as public companies. The dead hand of nationalisation has been raised from them. They have become successful public companies, in stark contrast to their traditional condition as nationalised industries.
  It is appropriate that we are considering the privatisation of the PSA today. As has been mentioned earlier, the offer on the sale of shares in the water companies in England and Wales closes today. We knew that the privatisation of the 10 water companies in England and Wales would be successful. This day we are seeing people put their seal of approval on that privatisation. Many of the 4 million people who have registered an interest in obtaining shares in the water companies of England and Wales will take up the opportunity to do so. We have seen television reports of the last-minute applications and many people queueing to make sure that they do not miss out on the opportunity to own shares in the water companies of England and Wales. I refer in particular to employees, such as those of the Property Services Agency and of the water companies.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) reminded us, perhaps the biggest privatisation occurred when 99 per cent. of British Gas employees bought shares in the company. I remember doing a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust. I was assigned to British Gas before it was privatised. At the start of my fellowship, several employees asked me, "Why
  390
  do you want to privatise us? We are not a glamour stock like British Telecom." It took about two years to complete my fellowship, and I completed it almost immediately before the sale of shares in British Gas. Attitudes had changed by then. The same employees and many others impatiently turned to me, asking, "When, at last, will we get the opportunity to own shares in our own company?" That was the attitude of British Gas employees, and it is the attitude of water company employees. I am sure that staff of the Property Services Agency will have the same attitude.
  The Property Services Agency is an appropriate organisation to be privatised. It is a large, important organisation. It is the country's largest building consultancy, and it has an annual expenditure of £3·5 billion. It has resources of £300 million. Nearly 25,000 people work for the Property Services Agency. Its work comprises five main functions: estate management, in which it is involved in the purchase, disposal and leasing of land for departmental needs; building maintenance; the design of new buildings—reference has been made to 22 awards in 1989; the supervision of construction by outside contractors; and, of course, supply, which is essentially the function of the Crown Suppliers. Among the 22 awards in 1989 was the curiously named Europa Nostra diploma of merit for Richmond terrace. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to what the PSA has achieved in Richmond terrace. It is a good example of an attempt to build a brand new functional building but in a style which is appropriate to its setting in Whitehall. I commend all who were involved in it.
  It is appropriate also to mention some other examples which do not hold the PSA to the greatest credit. I have only to think of my own constituency. As some right hon. and hon. Members might know, I have the curious distinction of having in my constituency PD1 of the Inland Revenue—that same Department which handles the taxation affairs of every hon. Member. However, PD1 is sited on a Government block in a surburban part of my constituency. That block contains the most inappropriate high-rise buildings, which should never have been allowed to be built in that setting. They were built some years ago, perhaps before the time of the PSA. I should like to think that the PSA is not to blame for the Inland Revenue complex at Llanishen.
  More recently, a new Welsh Office building has been constructed in Cathays park. It is a building of no recognised outside architectural merit. I would not be at all pleased to be associated with the remarks that have been made about it. I wonder whether even His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales might have cast a glance over that great monstrosity, which is totally out of keeping with Cardiff's otherwise fine civic centre.
  One of the best cases for privatising the Property Services Agency is contained in a union brief. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), I have read a brief from the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, which cites evidence from an outside specialist that
  "management has been less geared to commercial aspects of running a business, naturally".
  It is most unusual that anyone in this day and age should say that it is natural that the management of the Property Services Agency should be less geared to the commercial aspects of running a business. Surely one must be aware of the commercial realities of life these days. One must be

  391
  aware of the need to achieve and improve a sound economy. How else have we increased spending on the National Health Service, social services and education, improved our defence and provided more police? We do so only by having a sound economy.
  The NUPCS brief goes on to refer to
  "no proven commercial information records".
  That is rather strange. The only answer that is advocated in the brief is that Government Departments should be denied the advantages of competition—that they should be denied the advantage of being able to place their business on the best terms that they can obtain to get the best services at the best price. Instead, they would have to pay the highest price. They would be unable to provide important services because they had to pay the highest price for the PSA. It is nonsense to suggest that, as customers, Government Departments should not be interested in achieving the best return on their money.
  The brief goes on to state:
  "More money from the taxpayer has to be found for the Property Services Agency."
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith started his contribution with a realistic point. He sought to remind hon. Members that there is no such thing as public funding, that it is money from the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer must be remembered. I disagree with the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. If the situation were half as bad as it makes out, we would be considering not privatisation but liquidation of the PSA. I have much more confidence and optimism for the future.
  The National Union of Civil and Public Servants brief goes on to state:
  "In 1988 PSA's design costs were shown to be 25-30 per cent. cheaper than private designers."
  That is strange, because it describes the PSA as an organisation which is
  "less geared to commercial aspects of running a business"
  when it managed to achieve costs 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. lower. Could it be because, as the brief says, the PSA's spending power and market information enabled it to secure substantial price advantages? A little earlier in the brief, the union claimed that these are
  "no proven commercial information records".
  One statement does not square with the other.
  Clearly, the PSA is not the hopeless case that the union would like to make out. It is an organisation with great ability. It has enjoyed great achievements. It deserves to be freed so that it and its employees can rise above being part of a Government Department. The PSA deserves freedom because of the more competitive arrangements in Government building, construction, management and departmental supplies. Departments now have effective procurement arrangements and the authority to make their own choices in obtaining required services.
  The Property Services Agency is losing its guaranteed market and it must compete with everyone else outside by providing a good service; otherwise, there would be the bleakest prospects for staff. They would leave for whatever they could find elsewhere, and customers would suffer. The PSA needs freedom to compete effectively and on equal terms, and that can be achieved only by privatisation.
  The Bill will create necessary diversification. Inevitably, when Government Departments are able to choose, some business will be lost through competition. The PSA cannot complacently look forward to retaining 100 per cent. of it
  392
  business—some will be lost. It therefore needs the opportunity to diversify to replace the business that will be lost. One of the most attractive features of the proposal is that that process will enable the removal of the usual Treasury public sector spending constraints from the Property Services Agency.
  We know that the privatisation will take some while to complete. It is suggested that it will not come about before the second half of 1992 at the earliest, but steps are already in hand to reorganise the PSA. The commercial activities, which comprise 90 per cent. of its activities, have been separated from its Government functions. Those activities are now being established in four separate operating divisions: PSA building management; PSA projects; PSA specialist services and PSA overseas. I am glad that, prior to privatisation the PSA will have the scope to expand into other markets and those divisions will be valuable first steps into areas in which I expect greater penetration after privatisation.
  All in all, that bears out the view that I was given by some staff in Cardiff yesterday—that the path to privatisation is well organised. That brings me to the position of the staff. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows of my concern about the PSA in Cardiff, which is situated in my constituency at Gabalfa. About 250 excellent, able and hard-working staff are based there. I understand from yesterday that almost everyone at the PSA at Gabalfa is dealing competently and effectively with an extremely large work load.
  In the run-up to privatisation there has inevitably been some speculation in the press. Some has been well intentioned and some has not. Perhaps the most common story has been that the number of PSA officers will be reduced to eight. I was especially concerned about the future of the PSA office in the capital city of Wales. Accordingly, I corresponded with my hon. Friend during the summer recess. I was pleased that he answered my question in Hansard of 2 November, confirming that the office in Cardiff would continue. Indeed, my hon. Friend's actions on the road to privatisation have left open the door not only for retaining the office in Cardiff, but for very much expanding that office.
  I see the PSA in Cardiff as growing in line with the growth in Cardiff. We have an exciting expansion programme for the redevelopment of south Cardiff and a large construction programme for the Cardiff bay barrage, which is likely to be an integral part of that redevelopment. The interest that is being shown in the redevelopment of south Cardiff suggests that Cardiff will definitely be one of the sunrise locations. Indeed, I predict that in the next century Cardiff will be the city of the south-western quarter of the United Kingdom. I feel sure that the PSA in Cardiff will grow in line with Cardiff, and perhaps at a greater rate.
  I know that the confirmation of the continuation of the Cardiff office has been well received there. It provides the essential framework for the staff in Cardiff to apply their known ability and enthusiasm when taking advantage of the new opportunities and of the open door that is now presented to them.
  However, at the same time, we must have the fullest regard for the staff who work in the PSA. Only yesterday a most significant comment was made to me by one employee there. He said that he had not got over his surprise at the fact that he will no longer be working for a Government Department. When he joined the PSA, it was

  393
  a Government Department, and he had assumed that it always would be. It is important to understand that comment. That employee has completed many years' work for the PSA in Cardiff and others have worked for it for all their lives. We should consider all the staff of the PSA and their natural fear of the unknown and that they might be going into a hostile environment.
  It is all very well to talk about great opportunities, about the staff rising up from being Government employees and about the PSA rising up from being a nationalised industry, but we must never ignore genuine anxieties. The staff must he regarded as the PSA's prime assets. The staff are always important in any company, in any industry, but in a service industry such as the PSA, they are especially important and should be given our fullest consideration.
  The apprehensions that were spelt out to me yesterday included questions such as: would there be the same conditions of service, the same redundancy arrangements and the same pension provisions? The staff need important reassurances in all those areas. I was told that the staff understood that guarantees had been given in other privatisations, but that no guarantees had been given or could be given in the case of the PSA.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am following the train of the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He is obviously making strenuous efforts to demonstrate the importance of consulting and considering the staff. Will he persuade his hon. Friend the Minister in that context that there should be a ballot for all those who work for the PSA and the Crown Suppliers and that they should decide whether they want the privatisation? Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to that thought?
  Mr. Jones: I am sorry, but that would not be an appropriate proposition. The staff have much more important problems that deserve our fullest attention. I have been trying to refer to their apprehensions about their terms of employment, redundancy and pension arrangements. The staff are very concerned because they have the impression that the staff involved in other privatisations have been in a superior position and that they will not be in such a position. I very much hope that that will not be the case because in each of those three areas it is reasonable for the staff to expect the same conditions that have been given to staff involved in other privatisations and to expect that, as far as possible, their terms in those three areas should be comparable. It is reasonable that there might be some variations, but if there were to be any significant variation in, for example, the pension scheme, there should be compensations for the staff.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that clause 2 defines the difference in how people have been treated?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is going ahead of us at this point. That matter is very much for the Committee to consider. However, perhaps he will join me in putting down the largest marker for trying to ensure that the staff are properly looked after and given all the necessary reassurances and safeguards. They must not be treated any less favourably than the staff involved in other privatisations. I want the staff to go forward into the new
  394
  PSA with whole-hearted commitment, because I believe that there is a tremendous future for them in the new PSA and I do not want them to be put off in that.
  Examples have been given to me of staff in their fifties and sixties in Cardiff. Understandably, they might already be thinking in terms of their own pensions and of retiring direct from the PSA. However, they are now worried about facing an unknown future and about what might happen. They are wondering whether they will be able to retire at the time they had expected and whether they will receive the same pension as expected. They are wondering whether they have any reason to be concerned that a new employer might raid their pension scheme. Younger staff do not necessarily have the same apprehensions and although staff under 50 might think that it will be relatively easy to move to another job, that will not be the case for everyone and for some it may involve moving house.
  In every respect, my greatest concern is about the staff, all of whom—both older and younger—deserve the fullest reassurances. I want to be able to look forward to them continuing to be employed on the same pay and with the same hours and holidays and—in this remotest eventuality—that the basis of any redundancies will be the same as it is at the moment. I also want the staff to be able to receive the same pension.
  I heard what my right hon. Friend said earlier and I imagine that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may refer to the same subjects when he replies. I hope that he does, because we cannot over-emphasise the great need to publicise to the PSA staff exactly what will happen and the commitments that the Government have made and must make to ensure that they are properly looked after in the change to privatisation.
  I very much welcome the Bill, which has been introduced on a most appropriate day. I look forward to our time in Committee. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Workington who said that the Bill could pass through Committee like a knife going through butter. I hope that it will have a speedy and satisfactory conclusion and resolution so that we can look forward to a successful privatised PSA.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: In sharp contrast to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. CampbellSavours)—I note that he is not in his place—I warmly welcome the Bill as the first stage in the privatisation of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not here because I had it in mind to take up a point that he made towards the beginning of his speech. I believe in privatisation, not per se, as an item of dogma, but for pragmatic reasons. Some industries and services benefit from passing from public to private ownership, and I firmly believe that the PSA and Crown Suppliers are such services.
  I acknowledge that my remarks bear in mind the findings of the Select Committee on the Environment. That Committee has had much contact with the PSA, and it annually reviews the main estimates. For a long time, it has urged fundamental reform. I regard the Bill as the Government's response to that demand for reform.
  I strongly welcome the Bill. My reasons have already ben put clearly by several of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). Those reasons can be

  395
  summed up in one word—competition. Competition is wholly good and at present wholly missing. That must be rectified, and that is what the Bill will do.
  It is absolutely right that Government Departments should be able to choose where they purchase the goods and services that they require. It will be good for the PSA and Crown Suppliers to have their guaranteed markets removed, because guaranteed markets do no good whatever. Moreover, the measures in the Bill will ensure that, in the few years before privatisation, the taxpayer will obtain greater value for money.
  I wish to pick out three specific points of detail. I ask the Minister to note them, because some matters need to be clarified, although perhaps it would be more appropriate to clarify them in Committee.
  I note that the Bill and accompanying briefs suggest that the PSA will be reorganised into four operating divisions. One of those will be PSA Specialist Services. Is there really a need for such an operating division? Reference has been made during the debate to the problems of recruiting and retaining staff in the PSA. That is especially true of the most specialist areas where the temptation and lure of the private sector is great. I am of the opinion that the services that PSA Specialist Services would offer can already be provided by the private sector, so perhaps there is no need for further duplication.
  A second area of the reorganisation that disturbs me a little is the creation of PSA Overseas, which was the focus of attention earlier. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of security, as did the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The speech of the hon. Member for Linlithgow was an important contribution to the debate. I accept the immediate reassurance given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, we must go further, and I hope that in Committee we shall receive a detailed reassurance. Security must be considered carefully.
  Mr. Dalyell: Absolutely right.
  Mr. Hunter: Another point about PSA Overseas disturbs me. We understand that it is to be created mainly to support Ministry of Defence establishments. The different nature of MOD establishments and their geographical spread means that the creation of one PSA Overseas will not prepare that part of the PSA's activities for competition. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should look more closely and consider a subdivision of PSA Overseas.
  A third point which worries me—I shall try to put it constructively—is the emphasis on the length of time that it will take to prepare the operational divisions for privatisation. It strikes me that the best part of three years is a long time. I should have thought that one of the best ways to prepare for privatisation is immediately, or as soon as possible, to expose the operational divisions to the realities of the marketplace and to learn from it. I hope that in due course we shall return to that theme. Why do the Government believe that such a long period is necessary?
  My next point relates to points made by the Select Committee on the Environment. I mentioned earlier that it has positively criticised the PSA for several years. I wish to relate those criticisms to the next two years, or the pre-privatisation period. Can my hon. Friend the Minister
  396
  give an assurance that our anxieties about the way in which the PSA has operated in the past will be removed during the run-up to full privatisation?
  The Select Committee's first area of concern was the principle of annuality, which has not been mentioned so far in the debate. The Environment Select Committee concluded that one reason why the PSA did not operate efficiently was that it was bound by the principle of annuality. That is not the case for its competitors in the private sector. It can be argued strongly that, in preparing PSA for privatisation, the rigid annuality under which it now operates must be slackened.
  The second area that worried the Select Committee is another instance where the PSA operates artificially, and that is the practice of the property repayment service which is the rates that Departments are charged by the PSA, as a token charge regardless of market reality. Again, the PSA does not operate in market circumstances. Arguably privatisation will increase its efficiency, but one must ask whether the property repayment service aspect will continue during the next two years as the PSA prepares to privatise.
  My last point is about project management. My great criticism of the PSA—it is my conviction that it is right to privatise it—is based on the poor assessments of PSA project management. We have already referred to several of these. When I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I may have unintentionally misled the House. I referred to the cost of the Richmond house project and to an additional cost of £1 million. That was not the total difference between the estimate and the final cost of the project but merely the 1987 increase. There was a discrepancy between the estimate and the concluding price of £5·7 million on the total project. I apologise to the House for getting the figure slightly wrong.
  The project management aspect of the PSA has rightly caused great anxiety.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it not the experience of the National Trust and other ancient monuments organisations that it is difficult to estimate the costs of restoring old buildings? Costs can easily escalate. It is not only the PSA that has problems.
  Mr. Hunter: There is great truth in that, but it is not the entire truth. In these particular projects, there were miscalculations and changes of plan. Even when projects were started, new ideas came in, for example, at Derby Crown court, Richmond house and Buckingham gate. Slack management allowed the projects to spin out over the years as clients demanded one change after another. Public money was at stake. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but we must look for other reasons why costs escalated so much in the PSA.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may be inclined to argue now or in Committee that for Departments the change from being clients to having financial responsibility will increase the efficiency of project management. I hope that that will be the case. The fundamental question is whether reorganisation will improve project management.
  I entirely support and warmly welcome the Bill. There are still questions to be answered and points to be sorted out, but I have no hesitation in saying that I am sure that the new regime will be far better than the existing one.
  9 pm
  Mr. Keith Mans: I am pleased to speak about this important measure. I have spent a considerable amount of my life living in buildings which have been well or badly built, or modified, by the Property Services Agency and its predecessor, the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
  I shall dwell on two aspects of the Bill. They relate to the Opposition's two main arguments why it is not a good idea to privatise the PSA. First, they argue that security will be compromised, particularly in military establishments, if in future the PSA does not have the same ability to look after security matters. Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), are wrong to suggest that the reservoir of knowledge about security matters resides in the PSA and that, if it is privatised, security will be compromised. That argument is fundamentally flawed.
  The major point about good security is that people, not organisations, are important. It is to ensure that those who carry out security exercises and checks on buildings are themselves checked properly and have the necessary expertise. The mere fact that they happen to be members of the PSA or its predecessor or that they work in the public sector does not necessarily mean that the task will be carried out competently. One of the problems has been that security has been judged good or bad according to the organisation rather than the people. In the eyes of many, membership of the PSA seems to have been sufficent to judge that security has been adequate. In the past, that has often not been the case.
  Security, rather than arguing in favour of keeping the PSA in the public sector, is a good reason for ensuring that client Departments, particularly the Ministry of Defence, take greater direct responsibility for the many aspects of security that have resided in the PSA. In that way we could look forward to better security in future in many areas, particularly buildings, than there has been in the past.
  Some remarks made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith about married quarters and accommodation for serving personnel in the three services are way off the mark. The weaknesses in the Opposition's arguments against these proposals are shown by his resort to such tactics. The vast majority of service men live in private accommodation. In the past the PSA advised on the security aspects of new buildings. Now it is not a case of building many more married quarters. The main emphasis now is, and in future will be, on selling them. That, then, is not a good reason to keep the PSA in the public sector.
  The other argument advanced by the Opposition, and specifically by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, is that the PSA is running smoothly in the public sector, so why privatise it? One could turn that argument on its head by asking, why keep it in the public sector? People should not have to make an argument to put things into the private sector, but the argument for retaining anything in the public sector needs to be extremely good.
  Although we might accept arguments for keeping the PSA in the public sector, its record does not stand up to close scrutiny. More than 10 years ago a senior civil servant wrote an incredibly good book on the sort of mistakes made by the PSA and, before that, the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It was entitled "Your Disobedient Servant". He listed in great detail the shortcomings of the PSA—the overmanning, inefficiency,
  398
  lack of objectives and total lack of project planning, which my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) also mentioned. During the latter part of the 1960s and the early part of the 1970s, the author sought to put some of those deficiencies right.
  I read that book many years ago and I reread it a few days ago. I am certain that the author, if nobody else, could appreciate the need to move the organisation into the private sector to improve its performance. In fact, the PSA's performance is considerably better than it was 10 years ago. In the past, the PSA suffered from a considerable number of shortcomings.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the PSA has overcome the shortcomings from which it suffered 10 years ago. He has admitted that the problems of the PSA have been solved. Recently the PSA has given value for money and has proved better than any private sector organisation against which it operated. It has given the service required. If one gets value, service and quality from the PSA, why change it?
  Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman has not quoted me correctly. I said that the PSA's performance had much improved on what it was 10 years ago. That improvement has been achieved because more commercial pressures and greater commercial judgment have been brought to bear on the PSA by the present Government. Such direction was sadly lacking during the Labour Administration. A great deal more, however, can be done and the only way in which to achieve that is to move the PSA into the private sector.
  I welcome the idea of client Departments taking more responsibility for the buildings they occupy. The responsibility for the fabric of a building has been left to the PSA. The Ministry of Defence, for example, has not taken responsibility for the fabric of its various service installations. The client Departments will not only be able to use the PSA for the necessary work but will be able to approach other, more competitive organisations. That is a move in the right direction.
  The move into the private sector will undoubtedly benefit not only the PSA and its staff, but those organisations for which it has worked in the past. Once the PSA is in the private sector it will be able to expand and to use its expertise. Judging from some of the remarks of Opposition Members, there is undoubtedly a huge market for PSA valuation expertise. According to the Opposition. the PSA can undercut the valuation fees of private companies by a large percentage. It is rather odd. therefore, for the Opposition to argue that the PSA should stay in the public sector, especially as it has the opportunity to expand its valuation services rapidly if it manages to keep its prices down to the suggested true levels it has quoted while operating in the public sector.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about the way in which the PSA will be taken into the private sector. I fully approve of, and am encouraged by, his remarks showing that there will be a large measure of employee participation. That is a good direction in which to move. Judging from the experiences of the National Freight Corporation and the water research centre, it bodes well for the PSA if the employees can be persuaded to take part in the buy-out.
  It goes further than that. The hon. Member for Hammersmith was less than honest when he suggested that

  399
  the privatisation of the National Freight Corporation was the only previous privatisation to include an employee buy-out. The water research centre is another example, and in many previous privatisations huge percentages of workers have bought shares, despite pressure from their union bosses to do the contrary. Those examples include British Gas and British Telecom, in which more than 90 per cent. of the work force bought shares. Those work forces want the firms to be privatised, despite the advice not to do so given by their own union bosses.
  Mr. Eric S. Helfer: Why does the hon. Gentleman refer to the elected representatives of the workers as union bosses? Why does he call them bosses when they have been elected? Does he refer to the Prime Minister as his boss? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] He may do, but she is an elected representative. The term "bosses" is used by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to try to denigrate trade unionists.
  Mr. Mans: I shall be quite happy to withdraw the word "boss" if it offends the hon. Gentleman so much. The union leaders—or whatever he wishes to call them—gave information to their members which those members did not take. The members voted with their cheque books and wage packets and bought shares in the companies that were privatised. Regardless of the type of privatisation that takes place in the PSA, I suggest that they will do precisely the same thing and show that they want their firms to be privatised.
  So far, 29 state companies have been privatised, 45 per cent. of the public sector is now in private hands, and 800,000 former public employees are now employees of private firms. That is what has happened during the past 10 years. I welcome this latest privatisation proposal, and my only regret is that it has come at the end of this 10-year programme, not at the beginning.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: It is significant that we are again discussing privatisation. Doubtless Conservative Members will not agree that this is Tory party dogma. However, if we look at the history recorded in the research note by the House of Commons Library, we find that, since 1979, no fewer than 33 privatisations have been approved by the Government or are in the pipeline. Tonight, we are talking about the 34th privatisation scheme to have been brought forward—the PSA. The Crown Suppliers are included in the list in the pipeline. British Coal is also included in that list.
  We have discussed privatisation twice this week. I cannot understand how Conservative Members can deny that Tories are obsessed with privatisation. That obsession is brought to the House and consideration is given to it before any consideration for the taxpayers or the people working in the industry.
  The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and others have said that it is only Opposition Members who are trying to defend and retain the PSA and the Crown Suppliers in the public sector. That is not true. I remind hon. Members of a statement made on 25 July 1986 by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who was then a Minister. He said that the review group employed
  400
  by the Department to review the issue of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers being brought into the private sector concluded,
  "on the information available to them, that whilst privatisation would be possible, it would not in their view, be in the public interest."
  With all the information available to it and the fact that it accepted that it would be possible to include the PSA and the Crown Suppliers in the private sector, the review group believed that it would not be in the public interest. Therefore, it is not just Opposition Members who are saying that it is not in the country's or taxpayers' best interests that the Crown Suppliers and the PSA should be removed from the public sector. Conservative Members have been saying the same thing.
  The same team of officers looking into the matter also recommended that
  "the Crown Suppliers should be retained as a central purchasing agency in the public sector with rather greater autonomy in accounting and staffing matters."
  The body commissioned to look into the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers thought that it should have greater autonomy in certain matters.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), the hon. Member for Acton said:
  "The Crown Suppliers have had another successful year's trading. Despite the fact that over 65 per cent. of their business is now untied and optional, they have more than met their financial objective for 1985–1986. They have achieved this by raising their level of service, speeding up deliveries, reducing resource costs."—[Official Report, 25 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 572.]
  Even when action was taken against the Crown Suppliers to untie it from the guaranteed market to which Conservative Members have been referring, it still had a successful year, increasing business turnover and making the business more efficient and acceptable to the people it was serving.
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Gentleman has constantly referred back to a report in 1986. Of course, he has not referred to the Select Committee on the Environment that has been looking into the PSA for several years. A number of Labour Members on that Committee have subscribed to its report and there has been no difference of opinion on political grounds. It is notable that none of them is here today to say anything about the PSA, which was recommended for privatisation by the Select Committee.
  Mr. O'Brien: A good number of Select Committees are sitting at the moment, and hon. Members on both sides are engaged in Committee business. I was not trying to elaborate on the proposals made by Conservative Members; I was just saying that reports commissioned from independent bodies by Ministers have all stated that privatisation is possible, but not desirable.
  On Monday of this week a report was brought to the attention of the House, stating:
  "Britain's most secret military establishment, the Aldermaston atomic weapons establishment, is to be handed over to commercial management. This raises a fundamental issue of national security. The secrets of Britain's nuclear bomb designs are kept there along with many other American secrets, since the atomic weapons establishment is the main agency for Anglo-US collaboration on warhead development and testing."
  The report calls this contractorisation, which is what the Tories now call privatisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) firmly drew attention to security. It is not only

  401
  Opposition Members who point out the need for a secure system—the Americans and others who are involved with security are pleading for consideration of the dangers that might arise if everything were put in the private sector, as proposed.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the qualities of the 34 privatisations that have been enacted or are in the pipeline. They have also mentioned the golden handshakes that accompany these privatisations. In this context, I draw attention to a recent report on water privatisation which was commissioned from Arthur Collins and Company, financial advisers, who estimated that water privatisation would cost the taxpayer £8·56 billion, and that the income derived from it would be £5·5 billion—a loss to the ratepayers of this country of about £3 billion. Not only taxpayers but a large number of ratepayers will suffer, therefore, because of the Tories' dogmatic atitude to privatisation.
  The PSA is the largest Government department to be privatised so far. The Secretary of State said today that some of the reasons for bringing the Bill before the House were efficiency, customer service and a desire to bring the agency nearer to the people.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope), who will reply to the debate, has served on a number of Committees on which I have served dealing with local government reorganisation. On those occasions it was the policy of Conservatives to take services away from people. We argued for hours in an attempt to retain those services in the domain of local government and to keep them closer to the people so that they could be more efficient and more accountable. However, the Secretary of State says that it is necessary to remove services from the public domain and place them in private ownership.
  The Secretary of State said that each Department will be responsible for its own budget and that customer services will be commissioned from the PSA, if it continues, or from whoever is responsible for the PSA if the Bill is passed. I am sure that hon. Members who have served in local government realise that often, when cuts have to be made, the first thing to be cut is maintenance. We have seen that in education and in social services. When there are more important matters to be considered, the first thing to be cut is maintenance. If we accept the philosophy of the Secretary of State, many of the public services, including security, will he the first to be cut by many Departments. That is one reason for retaining the PSA in the public sector.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) admirably exposed the people who will benefit from this privatisation. Neither the workers nor the taxpayers will benefit, because the people who get their filthy hands on the privatisation will benefit most. My hon. Friend spelled that out quite clearly. The Government have given no reason for privatisation except that they believe that the best prospect for the future lies in making unimpeded progress towards privatisation and all the freedom that it can offer.
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman said that the only people to gain from the privatisation are those who will get their filthy hands on the privatisation. I hope that I quote him correctly. Some of my constituents who are ordinary working people in the PSA have already said that they
  402
  hope to take part in the buy-out that will result frorn the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to stand by his statement?
  Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that they are the people who will make the real killing out of the privatisation, he is living in cloud cuckoo land. The hon. Gentleman should look at the report in the Library on privatisation. It reveals in a startling way who makes the money out of privatisation. It is not the people who pick up a few crumbs. The hon. Gentleman should read the report, because it is worth reading.
  The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) expressed fears about the effects of the Bill in its present form on charities with which he is associated. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place. If he wants to protect those charities and is sincere in his concern about what the Bill will do to the organisations for which he pleaded, he should join us in the Lobby, because the only way to protect those charities is to vote with the Labour party.
  I imagine that all hon. Members and many people outside the House have experience of dealing with the construction industry. It is not famous for its integrity, arid we all know the problems that can arise. Government Departments have had the protection of the PSA safeguarding their interests. The Secretary of State and Conservative Members have suggested that each client Department could engage its own PSA—in other words, that there could be many PSAs duplicating services and wasting money—
  Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the PSA's history shows that precisely the opposite is true, and that it did not look after its client Departments? Indeed, in many cases it was far too close to the very contractors in the construction industry about which the hon. Gentleman is now complaining. I am referring to cost overruns.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should study the report, which refers to the Ministry of Defence and the work carried out on its behalf. It shows that there is protection for client Departments that engage the PSA. Hon. Members have said that client Departments can still engage the PSA to carry out their work. Therefore, the PSA is not so much being taken away as split into a number of PSAs. Services will be duplicated, and that will be a waste of money. No industry would have competition between the various sections within it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  It is not only Labour Members who continually plead for the PSA. In May 1972, the Prime Minister said that the inclusion—
  Mr. Holt: In 1972?
  Mr. O'Brien: Nothing has changed in the need for the PSA. The Prime Minister said:
  "The inclusion of the Agency within the Department of Environment will ensure that the Government's practice as a builder and developer will remain in accord with its policies for the conservation and improvement of the environment." That statement is as valid now as it was in 1972. We need to demonstrate a conservation and an improvement of the environment. The best way to do so is to engage the PSA.
  Mr. Holt: It is apposite of the hon. Gentleman to refer to 1972, because there is a paragraph in the Environment Select Committee evidence headed "Changes since 1972". It shows that the number of people employed has declined

  403
  from 45,000 to 23,000. Of the work that used to be carried out in 1972, 85 per cent. of the planned maintenance and 100 per cent. of new construction work is carried out by private contractors. There have been vast changes, so it is silly to say that there have been no changes since 1972. The PSA has changed dramatically.
  Mr. O'Brien: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what I said earlier—that the protection, conservation and improvement of the environment are as important today as they were in 1972. If the hon. Gentleman reads more of the report he will find that, although there are contractors carrying out work on behalf of Departments, the PSA is responsible for the preparation and supervision of the contracts. Despite the slimming down of staff, the PSA's protective influence remains. Not only Opposition Members but distinguished Tory leaders have pointed out the foolishness of that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has exposed a weakness in the case on security—clearly a subject dear to the hearts of Conservative Members. If it is right for the PSA to provide protection for the Prime Minister and other Members of Parliament, how can it be wrong for the armed forces to receive the same service?
  Hon. Members have mentioned the protection of staff. What protection will be given to the pension rights of those approaching retirement age? The Minister has been provided with a number of answers by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will explain what will happen to those among the 23,000 staff employed by the two organisations who are worried about their pensions.
  I appeal to Conservative Members who oppose the privatisation to join us in the Lobby to vote against it.
  9.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): There have been two notable features of today's debate. First, it has featured high-quality and, normally, good-humoured speeches. Secondly, it has been the privatisation debate in which the Opposition ran out of speakers—which shows, I think, that it is they who are running out of steam, while the Government are moving forward with a vigorous, radical programme.
  No Back-Bench speech was of higher quality than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). All who were present will treasure for a long time the unscripted and unrehearsed exchange between him and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). My hon. Friend reminded us of his long-standing belief that the proper place for the PSA is in the private sector, supporting eloquently a proposition in which Conservative Members all believe—that organisations should be in the private sector unless there are compelling arguments against it. There are no compelling reasons why the Crown Suppliers and the Public Services Agency should be in the public sector.
  There have been positive and constructive contributions from many of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friends the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) have constituency interests; a number of their constituents are PSA employees. They
  404
  stressed the positive approach that many of their constituents have adopted towards that privatisation and the opportunities that it will provide for them with the widening of the market. Important contributions were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves). I shall do my best to reply to their points and to those that have been made by Opposition Members.
  I am sorry that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was so brief. His ministerial experience in the Department of the Environment made him an enthusiastic supporter of these privatisations. It was he who decided in 1986 to seek the advice of an outside financial institution on the feasibility of privatising the Crown Suppliers. In so doing, he helped to lay the foundations of the Bill.
  Debating points were made about the reports on the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers. They were published before 1986. The problems connected with privatisation that worried the writers of the reports have been overcome by restricting sales to the commercial parts of the Crown Suppliers. The reports did not take fully into account the potential impact of untying on the Crown Suppliers. It is a commercial organisation. We are strongly of the opinion that it will operate much more efficiently and effectively in the private sector. That has been confirmed by independent outsiders.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) was predictable. It relied heavily on the tendentious briefing document from the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. The hon. Gentleman resorted to irresponsible scaremongering, particularly when he referred to security.
  Mr. Soley: I made use of only two bits of the NUCPS document. The rest came from the Library's research document.
  Mr. Chope: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the depth of his research.
  Opposition Members are absolutely right to emphasise the importance of security. I categorically assure the House that national security will not be prejudiced in any way by these privatisations. A very few activities, not just those related to Ministers and Parliament, will be excluded from the sale and are not covered by the Bill. The vast majority of both the PSA and the Crown Suppliers services that are covered by the Bill are already commonly carried out for the Government by private firms.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister explain clearly why he is so certain that privatisation is all right for security elsewhere but is not all right for the House of Commons and the royal palaces? We shall be accused, whether he likes it or not, of double standards. People will say, justifiably or not, that the House of Commons takes a very different view when those who sit on green Benches are affected.
  Mr. Chope: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Much of the work in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the royal palaces is carried out by the private sector. There is nothing wrong about that. There is adequate security. The same procedures will be followed in the future as have been followed in the past.
  Mr. Heifer: The private sector is now active in the House of Commons. Is the Minister aware that the House of Commons is filthy compared to what it used to be when it was cleaned by ladies who came in regularly and who were employed as a public service to look after the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Talk about security."] I am not talking about security, but about the whole principle. The House of Commons is dirty. Hon. Members should look at it. They will find that that is because private enterprise has been brought in.
  Mr. Chope: That is a point for the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services). It is stooping a bit low for the hon. Gentleman to attack the staff who work in the House. Most of the construction work that is commissioned by the PSA, including that for the Ministry of Defence, is already contracted out to the private sector. Up to 70 per cent. of the design of new projects is already undertaken for the PSA by consultants in the private sector and it includes a large proportion of work with a high security content. The Ministry of Defence is already familiar with contracting out the manufacture of sensitive defence equipment. On the Crown Suppliers side, secure document delivery and vehicle hire are already carried out for some Departments by private firms. The Ministry of Defence estate will remain in MOD hands, and therefore under the control of the MOD.
  Mr. Soley: When the PSA and the Crown Suppliers go, who will vet the staff? Will the Minister also deal with the point about United States bases?
  Mr. Chope: I am not going to be drawn—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am amazed by the irresponsibility of the hon. Gentleman. I shall not be drawn into saying what arrangements will be made for the vetting of staff. All I can say is that it would be unthinkable for this Government of all Governments to do anything that jeopardised or undermined national security or the personal security of individual citizens, whether or not they work in the armed forces. Conservative Members can say openly that we must be trusted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring security matters out into the public domain, I can only say that it is regrettable.
  Mr. Soley: I charge the Government with being careless about security, as I have on a number of occasions. We know, and it is common knowledge, that the PSA vets staff. The Minister cannot hide behind security. If he is saying that vetting will be carried out by the security services, that is fine, but he must recognise that the manpower consequences of that decision would be enormous. The logical position is to leave vetting with the PSA. I suspect from the answers that he has not even thought about the question, which is a damning indictment of the Government's policy.
  Mr. Chope: I shall say no more about that. The hon. Gentleman may want to develop the point further in Committee, but I hope that after consideration, he will realise that it is not appropriate to discuss security vetting in the House.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith and others made points about the work for the United States forces. The relationship with the United States Air Force is valued by both sides and it is the subject of a Government-to-Government agreement. A study has been put in hand to examine how the formalities of the relationship will be
  406
  affected once the PSA has been privatised. Whatever the conclusions of the review, I am confident that the unique range of skills developed by the staff to meet the specialised requirements and procedures that are demanded by the client will make it possible for the agency to retain a substantial proportion of the business of the United States forces.
  The greatest asset of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers is their work force and, rightly, much of our debate has concerned the staff. I pay a warm tribute to the skill and dedication that all staff throughout PSA and the Crown Suppliers bring to their work. As the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for the PSA for the past three years, I have got to know many of the PSA employees all over the country, and I have also been able to witness the high esteem in which they are held by their clients. There has been a period of considerable change in Government organisation which has put a premium on loyalty and commitment. I am proud of the loyalty and commitment that has been shown by the staff.
  The chief executive and second permanent secretary of the Department of the Environment, Sir Gordon Manzie has been mentioned several times during the debate, and it is appropriate that I should pay a special tribute to him, as he will be retiring from the Civil Service early in the new year and as his work has been an important factor in bringing the PSA to its present successful position.
  The staff of the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are civil servants. Privatisations involving civil servants give rise to particular issues, and I know that hon. Members will want to examine carefully the proposals that we have and the assurances that we shall be able to give to the staff. Staff of both the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme, which includes provisions relating to redundancy.
  That has two important consequences. First, because the staff cannot remain members of the Civil Service scheme when the PSA and the Crown Suppliers are sold, they would, unless special measures were taken, become technically entitled to the redundancy compensation provided for in the scheme. It would obviously not be right to expend substantial sums of public money on redundancy compensation to staff who have retained their jobs. As I have said, their employment will continue with the new owner on the same terms and conditions.
  The second consequence is that the redundancy terms are not passed automatically to the new employment, because they were part of the pension scheme. Therefore, special measures will need to be taken to ensure that equivalent redundancy terms are offered to the staff to give them continued protection in future.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I have never before seen anything like clause 2. It sets a precedent. In the past, all redundancies resulting from privatisation have been as the Minister described. But now the Government are selling the people with the jobs, which is wrong in any case.
  Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman had been here to hear the opening speech given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he would have heard the answer to his question. In fact, such provision has been made in almost every privatisation Bill that has come before the House.
  The measures that we are taking to ensure that the staff's interests are protected as regards pensions and redundancy are worth explaining in more detail. When

  407
  invitations to tender are issued, we shall draw prospective purchasers' attention to the terms of the Civil Service pension scheme, as regards both pensions and redundancy. We shall make it clear that we expect them to offer broadly comparable terms for pensions. The terms that they offer will be subject to analysis by the Government actuary. If the pension terms offered by the chosen purchaser are not assessed as being as good as the Civil Service scheme, some means will be found to ensure that the staff are not disadvantaged in terms of the overall terms and conditions of service.
  The position on redundancy will be slightly different. We shall ensure, by means of the contract for sale, that the staff will be provided in the private sector with redundancy compensation that mirrors what they have now.
  Sir Peter Hordern: If the present pension scheme is to be transferred to the private sector, does not that mean that it will in future be a funded scheme? The Government will be liable to pay a large sum to set up that scheme. Will my hon. Friend tell the House roughly what his estimate is of the sum that will be transferred into a funded pension scheme?
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend draws attention to the difference between the pension arrangements in the public and the private sectors. The job of providing pensions in the private sector will be the responsibility of the purchasers of the organisation, and they will have to take responsibility for providing a fund. At the point of sale all the contributions that have been made so far will be preserved. The money that is available in the public sector to enable the pensions to be paid will be called upon in the future when the pensions become payable in respect of service carried out prior to privatisation.
  Mr. Soley: The Minister is clearly getting into difficulty again. I am here to help him although I appreciate that he does not always see it that way. The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) asked quite rightly about the amount of money and how it would he transferred to ensure that pensions do not fall below what staff receive at the moment. There must be some transfer of funds. That was the question: Will the Minister answer it?
  Mr. Chope: I have answered the question. The employees will retain their existing pension entitlement until the point of sale. Thereafter, the responsibility for their future pension entitlement will be taken up by the new owner. That is perfectly clear and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith does not understand it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) raised an important point about Enham Industries and Papworth village. As he said, I have written to him about that. I am sure that the points that I have set out in my letter will reassure the employees in Enham Industries. As my hon. Friend suggested, I will take up the issue with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. As I have said, privatisation does not alter the position of the priority suppliers scheme. Therefore, the Bill is in no way bad news for Enham Industries.
  Mr. Colvin: Has my hon. Friend taken on my principal point, which is that organisations like Enham Industries and Papworth, which are charitable organisations, and
  408
  manufacturers have done pretty well out of the Crown Suppliers' buying policy over recent years? Will my hon. Friend talk to other Ministers? If preferential treatment is not maintained, the Housing Corporation, the county council social services committees and the Department of Social Security are likely to be burdened with additional costs. My hon. Friend the Minister should alert his colleagues to that eventuality.
  Mr. Chope: There will not be additional costs for Departments. The priority suppliers scheme will continue as it is now, but the Crown Suppliers will no longer necessarily be the intermediary.
  I believe it was the hon. Member for Hammersmith, although I am not sure, who wanted to know how we were going to ensure that the privatisation would be fair. He drew attention particularly to the sale of Wellington house. I can assure the House that Wellington house will be valued carefully prior to sale because it is one of the largest assets belonging to the Crown Suppliers. That sale will be on a competitive basis, thereby ensuring the very best value for money to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Chope: I will not give way, because I have only three minutes left. We have had a long debate and, as I have already explained, Opposition Members were not present to take their turn and we heard a series of speeches from Conservative Members.
  The PSA is basically a major building and estate consultancy. The Crown Suppliers is basically a furniture supplier. Neither has a natural place in the public sector. They are commercial organisations which will operate best in a fully commercial environment. The Government will ensure that adequate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the staff who are transferred have equivalent conditions under the new employer.
  This is a radical Bill, which will bring major benefits. It facilitates privatisation. In that way, it offers a major benefit for employees because for employees the Bill is a springboard for further success.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Chope: The opportunities offered by wider markets and the disciplines of the private sector will replace the controls and shackles of the public sector. I look forward to the time when 20,000 more employees join the 800,000 who have already moved to the private sector as a result of the Government's privatisation policies. The Bill will give customers increased choice and lead to greater competition and increased efficiency. For taxpayers, there will be better value for money all round. This is a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 181.

  Division No. 10]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Allason, Rupert

  Atkins, Robert

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Amos, Alan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  409

  Bendall, Vivian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Benyon, W.

  Hannam, John

  Bevan, David Gilroy

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

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Harris, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hayward, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Heddle, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Holt, Richard

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

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

  Bright, Graham

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Irvine, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Irving, Charles

  Butler, Chris

  Jack, Michael

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Jackson, Robert

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Janman, Tim

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Chope, Christopher

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knox, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Maclean, David

  Colvin, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Couchman, James

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Cran, James

  Mills, Iain

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Moate, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Dover, Den

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Dunn, Bob

  Moss, Malcolm

  Durant, Tony

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mudd, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Neale, Gerrard

  Evennett, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Neubert, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Norris, Steve

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Forman, Nigel

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Paice, James

  Franks, Cecil

  Patnick, Irvine

  French, Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Gale, Roger

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Gardiner, George

  Pawsey, James

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gill, Christopher

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Portillo, Michael

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Rattan, Keith

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Gow, Ian

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Gregory, Conal

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Grist, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Hague, William

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ryder, Richard

  410

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Thorne, Neil

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Trippier, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Squire, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Watts, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Ray

  Stern, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Sumberg, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Summerson, Hugo

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Nicholas Baker.

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Alistair

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Alton, David

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

  Anderson, Donald

  Dewar, Donald

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dixon, Don

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barron, Kevin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Battle, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fearn, Ronald

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boyes, Roland

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flannery, Martin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fraser, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Buchan, Norman

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Buckley, George J.

  George, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Gould, Bryan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clay, Bob

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cohen, Harry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Henderson, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cryer, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Howells, Geraint

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  411

  Hoyle, Doug

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Reid, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lamond, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Short, Clare

  Loyden, Eddie

  Sillars, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  McLeish, Henry

  Soley, Clive

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Strang, Gavin

  Marek, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Maxton, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Meacher, Michael

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Vaz, Keith

  Michael, Alun

  Wall, Pat

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wallace, James

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Walley, Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Morley, Elliot

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Murphy, Paul

  Wilson, Brian

  Nellist, Dave

  Winnick, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Worthington, Tony

  O'Brien, William

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neill, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Pendry, Tom

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Prescott, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments or for defraying his administrative expenses under that Act;

(b) the payment of sums received by him by virtue of that Act into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Sackville.]

10.15 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to raise one or two questions. During the reply, the Minister did not seem to grasp the nature of the question from his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern). Therefore, he might avail himself of this opportunity to explain precisely whether the money resolution, which is in fairly general terms, covers the position to which his hon. Friend referred.
The hon. Member for Horsham was saying that some obligation for pension payments would fall on the new companies and asked what provision the Government would make when the new companies take over those activities. It was not my question, but the hon. Gentleman's. He sought information. By common consent, the question was not adequately answered.
It is awkward when a money resolution is found to be inadequate for a range of purposes. There have been occasions when that has happened. I fondly recall one instance when the Minister had to return to the House three times—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members who are beyond the Bar either to come into the Chamber or to leave it.
Mr. Cryer: It would be embarrassing for the Minister if he had to return with another money resolution to meet those payments. I want him to be clear in his own mind and to assure the House that he will not be required to do that.
Administration expenses are raised specifically in the money resolution. Paragraph (a) authorises
"the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments or for defraying his administrative expenses under that Act."
It may well be that pensions can be included under that paragraph of the resolution, but the Minister gave no indication either of the sums that he would make in payment or of his administrative expenses. In the introduction to the Bill, the financial effects, which normally give an indication of the sort of money that will be needed, do not give an idea of the money that we are talking about. Clearly, the Minister will say that there will be revenue and that the resolution provides for payment from the Consolidated Fund, and we understand that. At the same time, however, it would be interesting to know what the administrative costs of this privatisation venture will be. Parliament has a right to know.
So far, the entire privatisation programme has cost more than £2,000 million in fees and advertising charges. The privatisation programme of the Government has

413
meant that public assets, which we own, have been sold off. Those assets have been sold to the public as though the public do not already own them, and that amounts to legalised theft. The privatisation programme has been extremely costly. Perhaps the administrative money mentioned in the money resolution is a relatively small amount, but I hope that the Minister can tell us something about it.
What will happen during the construction of, for example, the Crown courts in Bradford? The PSA will start off that work because, presumably, the privatisation will not be accomplished by the time the construction starts. What will happen then? Will work be handed over? If the private contractors run over time and need more money, how will we hold the Minister to account? I had an Adjournment debate on the construction of the Crown courts in Bradford, to which the Minister replied. I spoke of the potential damage that might be caused to an important cross-Bradford rail link, which would provide a much improved rail service in Bradford, but that is not germane to the argument tonight.
How will hon. Members hold the Minister to account? With privatisation, does it follow that all public accountability will disappear out of the window? Will Ministers no longer be required to answer questions, whether about money resolutions or about their general level of accountability? It would be a sad day for Parliament were that so. If the Minister has some concern for democracy, he will assure the House that, irrespective of privatisation, Ministers will still be open to question, to challenge and to account. The House holds that right dearly and I would hate to see it diminished, but I suspect that that will be the case.
I have not detained the House too long, but I believe that the questions were worth raising, and I hope that the Minister will provide the answers.
10.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): The money resolution deal with two issues. First, it authorises payment of expenses incurred by the Secretary of State for the Environment in implementing the Bill. Secondly, it also authorises disposal of receipts from the sales of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency.
On the first question, the expenses will be administrative and will relate mainly to advice from consultants about the sales. In the case of the PSA, the privatization
414
itself is not sufficiently advanced to be able to estimate the total costs that will be needed. In the case of the Crown Suppliers, I can tell the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that £54,000 has so far been spent on the expenses of the sale. We expect the total expenditure on the sale to be less than £2 million.
Clause 3 would give the Secretary of State power to subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares or securities of a transferee company, and to make loans to those companies. We do not expect to make use of those provisions for the Crown Suppliers, since the companies will be sold immediately the Crown Suppliers' assets are transferred to them. In the case of the PSA, since the privatisation is some way away, and because we expect that the companies may trade as wholly owned public companies, there may be a need for the Secretary of State to make injections of capital from time to time.
On the second question, receipts from the sale of PSA and the Crown Suppliers will be paid into the Consolidated Fund. In the case of the Crown Suppliers, its debt with the national loans fund will first have to be repaid. The Secretary of State may therefore, with the Treasury's consent, direct sufficient proceeds of the sale into that fund, with the balance paid into the Consolidated Fund.
The hon. Gentleman asked about pensions. When the existing staff transfer to the new employer, should they opt to have their pension entitlement preserved, those pensions will still be the liability of the Treasury, through the Consolidated Fund, at such time as they are called upon. If the individual employees choose to have their pension rights consolidated and transferred to the new organisation which is setting up a pension fund, a sum or sums of money will have to be transferred from the Exchequer to those pension schemes. However, that is not new money, because it represents the present contingent liability of the Exchequer for the pensions of existing staff of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency.
I hope that I have answered most of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. He also referred to the Crown courts in Bradford, an issue which, as he said, I have previously debated with him across the Floor of the House. The procurement of the Crown courts, as of all civil projects, is, and will be, the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. He and his Department will be accountable to Parliament for the expenditure incurred on such projects.
Question put and agreed to.

Local Government (Sports and Leisure)
10.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 25th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The order seeks to extend the range of activities which must be put out to tender by local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988 by including the management of facilities for sport and leisure. The order adds a new defined activity of "managing sports and leisure facilities" to section 2(2) of the Local Government Act 1988. It also adds a new paragraph 8 to schedule 1 of the Act which sets out a definition of the activity and it brings the requirements of section 4 and 5 of the 1988 Act into effect in respect of works contracts for managing sports and leisure facilities from 1 October 1991.
Let me emphasise that the Government place the highest possible value on local authority sport and leisure facilities. We recognise that they meet an essential need in the community and provide a wide range of opportunities for local people to participate in sport. This order is not about selling off local authority owned facilities, nor about preventing them from being built in the future. As everyone from the world of sport should know, competition is both a means of ensuring better delivery of the service which such facilities can provide and of promoting value for money. It is in the interest of the users of facilities as well as ratepayers more generally to find ways to improve the management of facilities and to make them cost effective.
Hon. Members may be aware that the Audit Commission published a report earlier this year entitled "Sport for whom?" which stated that there was scope for improvement in the management of sport and leisure facilities throughout local government. The Audit Commission has confirmed estimates which show that typically, savings from voluntary contracting out have been in the region of 20 per cent. or more of previous costs. Clearly major savings are available, perhaps as much as several hundred million pounds a year. Only by facing up to the constant pressure of open competition for the management of sport and leisure facilities is it possible to ensure efficiency. That is what this order is about.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the all-party parliamentary Scottish sports group, of which I am convenor and which consists of hon. Members from both sides of the House, is strongly opposed to and has roundly condemned these measures? It feels that not only will it decrease access to sporting facilities for many people, including disadvantaged groups of people, but it will probably be a disincentive for local authorities to invest in new leisure and sporting facilities because the local authorities will have to spend a great deal of money and hand over the management of the brand new facilities to private operators. Those operators may simply be intent on making a fast buck out of public facilities which have been financed by public money.
Mr. Moynihan: I recognise that there was considerable concern when the draft order was first published about the
416
points raised by the hon. Gentleman. There was concern that pricing, admissions policies and subsidies for disadvantaged groups, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, would be handed over to the private sector. It is for that reason that I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be pleased to hear that all three of those criteria will continue to be vested in the hands of the local authorities. They will continue to have the right to determine admissions policies, pricing and opening hours in order to protect the interests of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. It is important for the House to recognise that. I am sure that we all recognise that it is important for all users to continue to benefit through participation in sport.
It is clear to me that in many cases it is not a lack of sports facilities or even resources which is a problem. Often the facilities available do not match local needs. Expensive modern sports centres are often under-used in inner cities while down the road other facilities cannot cope with demand. More professional marketing and a better understanding of needs will, I am confident, go a long way towards redressing the problems. In a competitive environment, there is a powerful incentive to get the planning right.
Mr. Roland Boyes: The Minister mentioned under-use. Will he accept that the Crowtree leisure centre in Sunderland has the highest usage of any leisure centre in Britain because of its wide range of facilities and its competitive pricing and because it is well managed? Why should the people of Sunderland and its forward-looking council which provided that facility find themselves disadvantaged by the measure that the Minister is introducing?
Mr. Moynihan: They will not be disadvantaged. When the contract goes out to competitive tendering, we will see whether the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct. I am confident that the management in the sports and leisure facilities of many local authorities is of outstanding quality and will take considerable beating when contracts are put out to competitive tender. However, it is in the interest of the users for that to be put to the test. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Hon. Members ask why. Where a more efficient and effective management team can be put in place, it must be in the interests of the users, not least because that team may be able to recognise, through the contractual arrangements, that more effective marketing and outreach policies to the local community will bring more people into the facility. That matches the objective of most local authorities, which is "Sport for all."
Mr. Richard Tracey: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. I am sure that he will have had a chance to look at the work of Westminster city council, which is a trend-setter in many ways. Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the Queen Mother leisure centre, which is a fine example of exactly what he is talking about? Far more private clubs are going through its doors.
Mr. MoynihanMy hon. Friend has mentioned an extremely good example. It is one of five leisure facilities currently owned by Westminster city council. Several major improvements have resulted from its voluntary decision to put out the management to competitive tender.

417
For example, in 1988, 172,000 people used the facility and 216,000 now use it under private management. Furthermore, under local authority management, it used to open at 8 am, but it now opens at 6.30 am. Most importantly, many people were concerned about special local clubs being denied the opportunity to use the facility under private management. In fact, there has been an increase in the use of that facility.
Mr. Max Madden rose—
Mr. Moynihan: I want to finish answering my hon. Friend first, and then I shall give way.
Most importantly, in response to concerns about pricing in this facility, under the new management entrance prices have risen by only 6·5 per cent., whereas in previous years under local authority management they were increasing by an average of 10 per cent.
Mr. Madden: Having commented on Westminster, will the Minister comment on developments in Bradford over the past year? When there has been bidding for services, groups of senior council officers have proposed setting up private companies to put in bids for services on the basis of confidential information that they have received as council officers. Does the Minister welcome that sort of development, which seems to raise a number of important ethical issues to do with the conduct of a public service?
Mr. Moynihan: In the implementation of this order it is vital that the detail in the contracts be as comprehensive and clear as possible, and that local authorities ascertain and ensure that no individual gains an advantage because of his knowledge of what is not in the contract. Uncompetitive practices of that sort must of course be frowned upon. When local authorities draw up contracts under this order, it is vital that they make all the information available clearly to all parties who may want to compete for the contract, be they direct labour organisations, people who used to work for the council, or private sector management teams.
Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the importance of competitive tendering, will my hon. Friend share with us his thoughts on the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? Competitive tenders of this sort should not go to council officials, as there will be no independent audit. Not very surprisingly, organisations can then mysteriously tender for an item at less than a certain figure.
Will my hon. Friend consider sending these bids to the district auditor, who is entirely independent, not to council officials who are entirely dependent on the political will of the party in power?
Mr. Moynihan: I agree that conflicts of interest should be avoided—that applies as much to people working in local authorities as to others bidding under the tendering documentation outlined in the order—
Mr. Alan Meale rose
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose—
Mr. Moynihan: When I have made more progress, shall be happy to give way.
Hon. Members will be aware that there have been two rounds of public consultation. The first was in 1987, when the Government set out proposals to extend competition
418
to sports and leisure facilities. The second period of consultation was at the end of 1988, when the Department of the Environment issued the first draft of the order. Seventy-four organisations and individuals commented on the draft order. Ministers in this Department and in the Welsh Office and Scottish Office have given careful consideration to all the responses which we received.
Four main issues emerged: first, the question of which facilities are to be subject to competition; secondly, the circumstances in which facilities would be exempted; thirdly, the activities which should be included in the managing function; and, fourthly, the implementation timetable.
Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Minister assure me that the league clubs with grounds at Featherstone, Castleford and Wakefield which were recently purchased and are now owned by the local authority will not be affected by this order?
Mr. Moynihan: I am happy to have this opportunity to clarify the position. We are talking about the management functions of local authority sports and leisure facilities, not about their ownership. Where private sector managers already exist in clubs, whether professional or amateur, those arrangements will continue. In this case, it is not the ownership that leads to a difference in moving towards privatisation. Where the management team is currently from the local authority, the order becomes relevant. I have been privileged to see many northern local authority rugby league clubs in which the management is already seconded. It is leased to individual sporting clubs. Where such leases apply, as in many professional football clubs, the competitive order does not apply.
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is said that consultations took place with representatives of local government where such consultations appeared appropriate. The Minister has said that there have been 74 replies. This year alone district councils have received 30 consultative documents from the Department of the Environment to which they have been asked to respond. Those councils are overworked, which means that proper consultations and responses do not take place. Did proper reponses occur in this case and were there facilities for correct consultations? Is the Department going through an exercise by sending documents to local authorities and not providing a real chance to consider them? If there was no chance to give firm consideration, would the Department take account of representations?
Mr. Moynihan: The round of consultations has proved to be an extremely important exercise. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the House has debated competitive tendering before. One of the matters that emerged from consultation with some of those consulted concerned the whole question of pricing. The local authorities that responded expressed great concern about the possibility of pricing being vested in the new management teams from the private sector. We listened to those anxieties because we were concerned, as were Opposition Members at that time, that that could lead to new management teams pricing out of the local authority sporting and leisure facilities specific groups of local people, disadvantaged groups and others who were not able to pay the going rate for, perhaps, a neighbourhood private club.

419
That led to the Government responding to the first draft order and to the consultations from which we have had responses from local authorities and governing and national bodies. We sought to vest the pricing decisions with the local authority when drawing up the tender documentation. That was one example of the Government amending the legislation in the light of the consultation exercise. That exercise did not take place over six or nine months: it has now been in place for over two years. That shows the importance that we rightly attach to consultation.
Mr. Meale: My hon. Friend for the Member Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked the Minister about clubs that were in existence and their management servicing. The new paragraph to the schedule talks about courses for horse racing. The Minister knows that three race courses in Britain are owned and controlled by local authorities: Worcester, Yarmouth and Doncaster. Doncaster is granted by royal charter. Because of the relationship of the Jockey Club to that course, there is a limited list of personnel who can be recruited to the course, and that list is provided by the Jockey Club. There is a limit on the people who can even be shortlisted for jobs. Will the Minister give to those three race courses and in particular to Doncaster the same guarantee that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford in relation to rugby clubs? Doncaster race course, which enjoys the royal prerogative, does not cost the ratepayers a penny but earns many hundreds of thousands of pounds. Surely he will give the guarantee that I ask for.
Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Gentleman's point is not relevant to the debate. It is relevant not to the management of the facility but to the decisions that the local authority has taken in relation to its ownership and the criteria under which the race course is managed. As a result, provided that the tender documentation is not anti-competitive, it will be possible to include details that outline the very high standards required. That will be a matter for the local authorities concerned, both with race courses and with other facilities. There is nothing to stop local authorities, in determining the high standards that they require for management, outlining that sufficiently high standards should be obtained by the management team when, for example, contracting out the teaching of swimming. The governing bodies can have a positive and important role to play just as much in the Amateur Swimming Association as in the Jockey Club.
On the question of the managing function, a number of those who responded to the document were concerned that the definition of "management" in the first draft order precluded coaching, instruction and supervision by anyone other than the new management team—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Moynihan: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak and there is only one and a half hours for debate.
I understand the concern expressed, and the order has been amended so that the new management team can, if it wishes, arrange for coaching, instruction and supervision along the lines that I have outlined. That will allow it to bring in local coaches or trainers if it wishes.
420
Under the terms of the 1988 Act, the implementation timetable is not specified in the order but will be included in a separate order that is subject to negative resolution. Hon. Members may be aware that we postponed the original implementation date by one year to January 1992 to avoid cutting across the timetable of competition for other services under the Local Government Act 1988. As a result of that—
Mr. Michael Colvin rose—
Mr. Moynihan: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but, having refused to give way to Opposition Members, it would be unreasonable of me to give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to contribute to the debate. I apologise to him.
To spread the work load of the councils in preparing tenders and also that of the contractors, we propose to phase in implementation on a percentage basis. Thus, all authorities in England and Scotland will be required to have exposed to competition facilities representing 35 per cent. of their gross expenditure by 1 January 1992, 70 per cent. by 1 August 1992 and 100 per cent. by 1 January 1993. In Wales, competition will be phased in over a two-year period. The detailed interpretation of the order will be for local authorities themselves. It must be for individual authorities to make sensible judgments about, for example, the facilities that will or will not be exempt within the terms of the order.
To assist the Department of the Environment, the Scottish and Welsh Offices will prepare for publication during the first half of next year circulars giving guidance on a number of issues. They will offer general guidance, and local authorities will continue to have a close interest in the running of facilities, even if the contract is awarded to a private sector firm. In addition to retaining control of pricing and admissions policy, they will be responsible for drawing up the tender specifications.
As I hope I have made clear, this order is about improving the management of sports and leisure facilities. It is about securing better value for money and heightening local government's sensitivity to local sporting needs. I believe that everyone will benefit—the local councils, the ratepayers and the users of the facilities. I commend the order to the House.
10.48 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: This order takes a bad idea, gives it a new lease of life and then lets it loose where it can do most damage. It applies the idea of compulsory competitive tendering to an area—the management of local authority sports and leisure facilities—where it is certain to create the maximum disruption and disbenefit for the least possible gain.
The best evidence for that is the somewhat defensive tone adopted by the Minister when seeking the approval of the House for the order. He well knows that, from the outset, this proposal has been profoundly unpopular with all those whom it will affect. He knows that not a single sports or leisure body has approved of or supported this proposal in principle. They well understood how damaging it would be to the availability of these facilities to the wider community, to the principles of Sport for All, which hitherto has enjoyed bipartisan support, and, in many important instances, to the achievement of

421
excellence in sport, as it is to local authority-run facilities that so many top sportsmen and women turn when they need to train at non-commercial hours.
Mr. Gregory rose—
Mr. Gould: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way; I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this short debate.
The other bodies with which the proposal was deeply unpopular were local authorities themselves. I think that the Minister will confirm that all the local authority associations opposed it in principle, and they have expressed their misgivings.
Mr. Gregory rose—
Mr. Gould: No, I will not give way. I want to speak very briefly.
The local authorities speak from some experience: after all, they have encountered compulsory competitive tendering in other contexts. We have the benefit of a study of such tendering, commissioned by Manchester city council, which reveals that local authorities' direct service organisations have been 80 per cent. successful in securing contracts for which they have tendered. Often, however, the price of winning those contracts—the title of the report is "The Price of Winning"—has been the necessity for cutting staff, reducing wages, making terms of employment worse and lowering standards, while at the same time incurring largely hidden but nevertheless real costs, estimated at £41 million for the country as a whole. Those have been the costs of preparing and administering the often unnecessary chore of implementing compulsory tendering.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
Mr. Gould: No, I have already made it clear that I am not giving way.
All those costs have been for the sake of savings that are much lower than forecast. [Interruption.] The Minister spoke for nearly half an hour; I do not intend to emulate him.
Some local authorities have already tried putting out to tender the administration and management of their facilities. We have been given some instances: my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned them when the Minister made his statement in July. Wandsworth came a terrible cropper in the management of its swimming pool; Chelmsford, having entered into a new contract for the management of its pool, found that within three months that contract had come to a sad end. Torbay entered into a ground-maintenance contract that lasted an even shorter time—just 10 days.
Mr. John Carlisle rose—
Mr. Gould: As I have said, I will not give way, because I want to give my hon. Friends a chance to speak. [Interruption.] I know that the Minister gave way, but he spoke for half an hour. I do not intend to do that.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gould: There is no point of order.
Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not part of the spirit of our debates that
422
Front-Bench speakers give way at least once, and sometimes two or three times? The Minister did; why does not the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): That is a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor.
Mr. Gould: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is very unpleasant and uncomfortable for Conservative Members to hear a stream of common sense without being able to respond, but they will have their opportunities later.
It is little wonder, in the light of local authorities' experience of being forced to put the administration of their services out to competitive tendering, that they evince so little enthusiasm and support for the proposals; for the proposals concern arrangements that are widely acknowledged to be working very well. How will it help the communities that authorities serve to substitute for that principle of service the search for profit maximisation? How will private profit-takers meet the demands, interests and needs of the disadvantaged groups whom the Minister has mentioned—something that the local authorities have already done very successfully?
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in that regard. He emphasised that pricing, admission policies and opening hours will be fixed by local authorities and included in the tender documents. That is extremely welcome, although it has to be said that the only pricing freedom that local authorities will have will be to fix and pay subsidies in relation to prices set by private contractors.
If the Minister is inviting us to place such reliance on the freedom that he says local authorities will enjoy, why do we have to wait for a circular that has yet to be published? Why has the draft order been introduced before the circular has been published? He has promised that it will be published next year. Much more important, why shall we have to rely on a circular? Why is that provision not in the draft order? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions. If that important provision is so central to the Government's defence of what is otherwise indefensible, why is it not given legislative effect? We demand that it should have legislative effect; otherwise, the provisions of section 7(7) of the Local Government Act 1988 will limit any discretion that local authorities may believe that the Minister's pronouncement gives them.
There are other major concerns. They include health and safety. Why does the order not provide that contractors should be required to adopt staff training programmes so that health and safety standards are met, particularly by managers of swimming baths? Why does the order abandon the original timetable and speed it up very considerably for some local authorities? For many local authorities, the already unnecessary and burdensome expense of preparing for the tendering procedure will be very much exacerbated by having to introduce it much earlier than they had anticipated.
Local authorities will now be required to parcel up their management contracts into neat little groups. That will make it very difficult for them to move their staff from one project to another, particularly if they are engaged in organising large projects. For example, Sheffield is now organising the world student games. Local authorities will be unable to move staff in an emergency to large projects. Why are they to be saddled with a system that will benefit

423
and is intended only to benefit private contractors? To parcel up the work means that private contractors will be able to pick and choose and to cream off the bits that they think are the most profitable.
Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gould: No. I have already said that I do not intend to give way. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should even try to intervene.
Does the Minister not understand that the measure means that local authorities will lose control and responsibility, in many instances, for the management of these facilities but that they will still retain the onerous responsibility of repair and maintenance and will still be faced with demands to invest in new facilities? The draft order makes it highly unlikely that local authorities will risk putting their own capital into important facilities over which they will have little control. Has the Minister considered the impact of this ill-thought-out measure on the future provision by local authorities of sports and leisure facilities that he has described as an extremely valuable element in the life of many communities?
This ill-thought-out measure owes its origin to dogma and it has been driven by dogma ever since. It is a triumph of ideology over common sense and practicality. Nobody wants it; it has no friends. The Government reveal by pushing it forward that they are operating at the far reaches of their own dogma.
If the public had ever been asked what a Government enjoying a 100-seat majority and with two and a half years to run should do to improve the state of Britain, not one person in 100,000 would have replied, "Privatise the management of the local swimming pool." This is one more example of a Government who are out of touch with the British people, so we shall oppose the proposal tonight.
10.59 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: The House has been treated to an extraordinary performance by the Opposition tonight. The Labour party has fielded its key Front-Bench spokesman on the environment. I do not know whether it was an attempt to prove to us that he was well versed in all aspects of the environment. He has actually shown us that he knows extraordinarily little about this matter, to the degree of not even accepting any interventions. On future occasions when the Opposition are debating sport, they should perhaps bring out again that old warhorse the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who might have taken the odd intervention and might have enlightened us more.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend, with his considerable experience of sport and his previous portfolio as Minister with special responsibility for sport, agree that the Government's action is something of an insult to Conservative-controlled authorities that run their sporting facilities extremely efficiently and with a management who are probably second to none? I refer to my own authority of Macclesfield and the chief amenities and recreation officer, Max Hartley, who is an outstanding man. In Macclesfield, the leisure centre has contracted out many services, such as catering. Does my hon. Friend believe that local government is unable to manage
424
efficiently in accordance with the philosophy of the present Government? If he believes that it is incapable, I can say only that I disagree with him.
Mr. Tracey: I was happy to take that intervention. I do not disagree at all with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). The point behind the principle of putting local government services out to tender is to bring forward the most cost-effective and efficient method of doing the job. It is conceivable, as has been proved on a number of occasions, that, when asked to look at its own operation and to consider whether it is truly as efficient as it should be, the local authority comes up with the most remarkable methods of improving its efficiency. I look forward to many more examples.
In the past year or so, since tendering was first introduced into the argument by the Government, we have seen the most amazing synthetic indignation from the Opposition parties. I suspect that far more of it has been spurred on by their close affiliation with the National and Local Government Officers Association than by any real regard for the interests of sporting facilities.
There is no reason why this measure should not deeply improve the facilities of sports centres, and there are many examples that already prove that. Pricing policies have been set by the local authority and the prices have not gone through the roof, as the right hon. Member for Small Heath and many of his hon. Friends have so often warned would happen.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport gave the example of Westminster, and a very good example it is. The same will happen throughout the country. Far from sportsmen and women and sports clubs opposing the measure, they will welcome it once they realise that professional management—either by private companies or by local authorities that have had their costs driven down—is very much in their interests.
Once again we have had a synthetic show of indignation from the Opposition. It was quite meaningless, however, and once they see the results that the order will have, they too will welcome it.
11.5 pm
Mr. Tom Pendry: When the Local Government Act 1988 was first introduced, it was clear that the privatisation of sports and leisure facilities would be omitted. That was due to the strength of opinion against it, and many Opposition Members thought that that was a pretty good idea. Having been obliged to consult the interested parties, the Government have blithely ignored their fears and worries and pressed ahead with the draft order even though the majority of local authorities and sporting organisations are against it.
Despite their objections, local authorities will now be compelled to put the running of their sports and leisure facilities out to tender, regardless of the detrimental effect that that will have on their efforts to involve more local people in sport and recreation. Cheap prices and concessions for the elderly, unemployed and disabled will be disregarded by the private sector in its drive for more profit.
The Government have blatantly ignored the views of those whom they consulted. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the timetable for the implementation of compulsory competitive tendering. Sports associations and local councils urged a cautious approach involving the

425
phasing-in of CCT to allow those involved later to learn from the experience of the councils that first operated the procedure. The new timetable requiring all local authorities in England and Wales to have implemented the CCT procedure 100 per cent. by January 1993 is both impractical and unworkable. It will create intolerable pressure for some local authorities, including my own local authority in Tameside, with the draft order bringing the tender date forward by a whole year.
The contract has also been designed in such a way that escalating costs of administration—in combination with the new timetable—will defeat the very object of the tendering exercise. Pressure of time will adversely affect the safety of sports and leisure facilities such as swimming baths, as health and safety specifications must be comprehensive to protect the consumer.
Mr. Allen McKay: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Pendry: May I continue, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I am sure that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The situation is reaching crisis point, largely because of the legislation that the Government are introducing. I could list many examples of the concerns felt by sports people and sports organisations. Instead, let me give one. I recently attended a forum at which many teachers expressed concern about the way in which physical education is being threatened as a result of the introduction of the national curriculum. It is almost certain that, because of the pressure of time, physical education will lose out to other worthwhile subjects such as maths and science at a time when the situation, especially in primary schools, is becoming critical. It seems ironic that the current disposal rate of so-called surplus playing fields—800 were up for grabs last year—even in inner-city areas so desperately short of open spaces means that soon no fields will be available, even for private management to exploit.
It is therefore clear that the order is yet another half-baked measure of a type that is becoming characteristic of the Department of the Environment. It was a vain hope on the part of many of my colleagues and 1 that the new Secretary of State would have a clearer understanding of the problems of sport, but no such luck. He should have listened to the views expressed following the Green Paper exercise when 95 per cent. of those consulted rejected the Government's whole approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred to the third volume of the contractors' audit commissioned by Manchester city council entitled "The Price of Winning" which was published last week. It shows how unlikely it is that hundreds of companies will eagerly queue up to take over the 1,500 sports halls, 1,000 swimming pools, 250,000 soccer pitches, 100,000 cricket pitches, golf courses, tennis courts and parachute centres that are up for grabs.
History tells us that when sports facilities are privatised the outcome can hardly be considered an unqualified success. Reference has been made to Wandsworth. That jewel in the Government's crown, that pioneer of privatisation, tried to put the Latchmere centre pools out to tender in 1983, but not one bid was received. The Sobell centre in Islington was brought into the public sector by
426
the council because, even with subsidies of £250,000, the trust established to run it, involving firms such as Mecca, could not make the centre pay.
Some people in sport have said that within five years we will see little difference between the good management in the public sector and that in the private sector. A more likely scenario would be a repeat of what has happened to other privatised council services. Last week's audit study found that the lower paid suffer. Where CCT has been introduced, 90 per cent. of the 1,400 jobs lost were manual jobs and 70 per cent. of those jobs were filled by women at very low wages.
Given that councils will continue to own the sports centres and retain discretionary powers over pricing, the only possible way to make savings for the new private sector managers—who will undoubtedly arrange higher salaries for themselves because that is what has happened over the past few years—will be through cutting wages, cutting staff numbers and lowering safety standards. As a Member sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees, I deprecate any move that makes lower-paid workers earn even lower wages, and I also deprecate the lowering of safety standards. Even if private sector companies bother to bid, how will the companies that win tenders hope to make a profit without cutting pay rates, staffing levels or corners in safety provision?
Much play has been made by the Government—and the Minister did this again today—that local councils will supposedly be able to continue to determine admission prices and opening hours at sports facilities. When the Minister replies, will he comment on the point made by the former Under-Secretary of State, who said that local authorities will be permitted
"to delegate their discretionary charging powers … to contractors who manage sports facilities". [Official Report, 2 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 283.]
This order will have a serious effect on sports like swimming which is particularly expensive to operate. It is highly significant that many of the failures of CCT have involved swimming pools. There is particular concern among physical education teachers and the Amateur Swimming Association that in future children will have less opportunity to learn to swim under supervision. Even without this legislation, it is a sad fact that one in five men and one in three women cannot swim, and on average 800 people are drowned every year.
We have already heard about Westminster. The Otter swimming club in Westminster is one of the country's most consistently successful clubs, but it has lost three subsidised hours of swimming a week because prices for pool hire have risen. In my constituency, the Hyde Seal amateur swimming club, which was once the world champion club, is alarmed by the threat that this order poses for the sport. Organisations representing disadvantaged groups such as the disabled have expressed strong fears. Those who need encouragement to pursue sport and leisure activities—that includes the disabled—are certainly not at the forefront of the Government's thinking.
The goal of achieving high quality and widely accessible services will be replaced by the need to meet financial targets. In short, the Government should realise that private contractors cannot compete with local authorities in developing certain management facilities. Local authorities have much more intimate knowledge of local needs and conditions. The private sector, motivated by profit or by cost-effectiveness, is unlikely to have the same

427
positive approach to encouraging mass participation through subsidisation. If the Government genuinely believe in a sport-for-all policy, they must withdraw this nonsensical order. More and more sportsmen and women are asking, "What have the Government got against sport and recreation?"
The Government's sports policy—if that is not a contradiction in terms—is completely bankrupt. The order is just another example of the way in which they are discriminating against sporting activity in this country. It is desperately sad that the Government seem unable to grasp the fact that sport is of immense benefit to our society and an integral factor in improving the quality of life.
11.15 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: I promised the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that, if he caught your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would say nice things about him because of my savage attack on him during the debate on the Football Spectators Bill. After the nonsense that hon. Members have heard, I must desist from the accolades I was about to pay him. At least we heard some words of knowledge from him about sport, which is rather more than I can say about his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that this is a privatisation matter. That is nonsense. Some Conservative Members almost wish that it were. Many of us would like most sports centres and facilities to be taken out of local authority hands and sold to the private sector, which would be of immense benefit. However, that is not what the order states. It states that the facilities are not for sale. The motion merely asks the House to approve the order, which says to the ratepayers of this country that we believe that sports centres and leisure facilities should be considered in terms of the money that they are spending—taxpayers' money—to make absolutely certain that that money is spent correctly and wisely.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlisle: I will not give way because there is not much time left.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has said, the siren voices among the Opposition have no concern for ratepayers' money. They think that there is a bottomless pit and they will not even consider sports facilities in terms of their management capability and the opportunities that they offer. It is nonsense for the Opposition to say that the order excludes any form of public benefit. Many examples could be given—they can be given if need be, but it would take until tomorrow morning to do so—of facilities that have had private input. They have brought immense benefit to those who genuinely believe in and want to participate in sport. The benefit has been afforded not only to participants but to hard-pressed ratepayers.
Of course, Opposition Members do not worry. about ratepayers. They exclude them from the debate. Opposition Members say that the order will exclude the disabled and those in our society who are most disadvantaged. Again that is nonsense. The order gives
428
councils, so beloved by Opposition Members, the opportunity to say to those who manage their facilities—I sincerely hope that many private firms will manage facilities—"We still want an input. We still want to give some subsidy to make sure that those very people are given opportunities."
That is the tragedy of the speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham. He came fresh into the debate, advised as he was at the very last minute by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for whom Conservative Members have great affection because he knows what he is talking about. Sadly, he may not catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dagenham did not understand the order, but that is no surprise in one who has so suddenly come on to the scene.
Mr. Colvin rose—
Mr. Carlisle: I willingly give way to my hon. Friend.
Hon. Members: "Oh."
Mr. Colvin: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I must spring to the defence of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). 1 thought that he made the case convincingly for greater flexibility in the provision of the services for which local government currently tenders, but surely, the one way to obtain the flexibility that he wants is to put these services out to tender?
Mr. Carlisle: Of course it is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I am afraid that the hon. Member for Dagenham was obviously so new to it tonight that he did not understand the full implications of the two years' discussion.
The order will bring a sharper perspective to the management of leisure and sports facilities. It will also bring vast opportunities to those young people who are training now and attempting to enter sports facility management but who are currently unable to find any opportunities. If the private sector is allowed in, as I believe and hope that it will be—although many town halls will obviously try to frustrate that—it will enable a complete new career structure to emerge. The Audit Commission has said that, in all the other services that have been put out to tender, a saving of 20 per cent. is available, and that will increase the opportunities available to those young people.
Mr. Keith Vaz: May I take the hon. Gentleman away from the aspects of profits and into the aspects of safety? Does he share my concern about some of the terms of the order? Although local authorities will be able to set the programme for the safety aspects of sports centres, the order does not make clear the influence that the local authority can exercise over the contractors' ability to comply with health and safety legislation. Does he agree that when costs are cut to make greater profits, safety becomes an issue and the public's safety is put at risk?
Mr. Carlisle: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He must understand that whoever takes on the management of these facilities must remain within the law and the strictures that the Health and Safety Executive imposes upon those leisure facilities. Just because a facility passes into private hands, that does not mean that it becomes outside the law. Opposition Members seem to feel that those who might tender—indeed, people are queueing

429
up to tender for these facilities—will have to keep within the rules and the legislation that has been laid down by the House.
But what really grates on the Opposition is that that will bring a new professional approach to leisure and sports facilities. Opposition Members must understand—and in their heart of hearts they must agree—that that does not exist in the majority of sports centres today. Of course there are the exceptions which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned in the rather Mad Hatter style that he brings to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not agree with all that he says but in terms of improving the management of those facilities, those in the private sector can bring a breath of fresh air—
Mr. Pike rose—
Mr. Carlisle: No, I cannot give way because I have given way twice already.
The order at last brings the ratepayers of this country—
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you agree that it is outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to attack the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in his absence in such a way? Is it in order to call into question the sanity of the hon. Member for Macclesfield?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have the impression that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is well able to look after himself.
Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and myself are the closest personal friends; we have a deep affection for each other and I know that when he reads the Official Report in the morning [Interruption.] Perhaps my hon. Friend has ventured out of the Chamber because he does not want to be embarrassed by the vote at 12 o'clock—I do not know.
In conclusion, Conservative Members find it extraordinary to wonder about exactly what the Opposition are frightened of. They are frightened of another body looking at the facilities that are run by both Labour and Conservative councils and saying to them, "The facility that you are offering your ratepayers could be improved." Of course, "improvement" is not a word that the Opposition like. It is the availability—
Mr. Allen McKay rose—
Mr. Carlisle: No, I cannot give way.
The order presents an opportunity for many young people in this country to have new facilities and new opportunities. As has been said, in places such as Basingstoke, which is to privatise, or put into the private sector, its swimming facilities, there will be longer hours and greater variety in the services that are offered. It is that type of variety and opportunity that sticks in the throats of Opposition Members and that is why we support the order.
11.24 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should like to take this opportunity to raise a point of particular constituency interest before turning to some more general observations. I shall try to he as brief as possible because many hon. Members wish to speak.
430
I do not know whether, when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), attended St. Andrews university, he played golf. If he did not, I hope that he is aware that the golf courses there, particularly Old Course, are managed by trustees appointed under the St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974. The local authority owns the golf courses but has no part in their management. Indeed, by legislation the House has provided otherwise.
I understand that the order can apply only to what are described as defined authorities which are defined in section 1 of the principal Act. It seems that the order cannot apply to the golf courses at St. Andrews, particularly to Old Course which is of world renown. I observe from the assenting nods of the Minister for Sport and the hon. Member for Stirling that that is the case. In the light of that silent undertaking, which will undoubtedly be repeated verbally when the Under-Secretary replies, I can pass on to more general observations.
The debate has revealed a sharp division in philosophy about the way in which public facilities should be managed. I am most interested in the anxiety of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) to ensure that ratepayers get value for money. If he were to conduct an opinion poll among ratepayers in an area with a substantial number of public sporting facilities, he would find that the vast majority are perfectly satisfied with the management of the facilities. They would undoubtedly regard it as doctrinaire and unnecessary that the policy of privatisation should be applied to such facilities.
In his introduction to the order, the Minister did not promise us one more international sportsman as a result of the order passing into law, or a broadening of the base of the pyramid of participation which is the essential feature of the development of sport and recreation.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: No, I shall not give way because of the lack of time.
The Minister for Sport should have opposed these measures root and branch. He should not be here signifying his acquiescence to them. His job is to be the sports representative in Government, not the Government representative in sport.
All these proposals have been universally condemned by sporting bodies that know something about the management of facilities. The proposals undermine the national strategy which the Scottish Sports Council is endeavouring to implement in its programme Sport 2000. They are opposed by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. Mr. Peter Lawson recently pointed out that the average deficit on running a swimming pool is £200,000 a year. How is a pool to be run profitably unless one makes some concessions in safety and staffing? The curious legal relationship which will exist between the local authority and the management company may well mean that the local authority will continue to have the legal responsibility for safety, but not the means of discharging it because the management company has been interposed between it and the people who use the facility.
These facilities were built with public money and with a public purpose. They were never designed to be run by management companies in any element of their activities. When did we last hear of private enterprise building a

431
track such as the international standard running track at Gateshead which has had such a profound effect on sport and social conditions? How many Olympic swimming pools have been built by private money? Not one.
Mr. David Clelland: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned Gateshead. I would have done so if there had been time and if I had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Gateshead has been successful because staff of all departments can be used when major events are taking place at the stadium. That flexibility will be lost if the order is agreed to. Flexibility is an extremely important factor, and Conservative Members are ignorant of it.
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, and I do not seek to add to it.
The Minister seems not to understand—I speak of track and field athletics, which I profess to know something about—that the majority of the fine atheletes who represent the United Kingdom in such events as the European cup enjoy their first taste of sport at public facilities which are provided by public funds. Their Olympic aspirations, unlike the Minister's and my own, were not nurtured in the cloisters of universities. The days of Corinthian sportsmen have long since gone. Public facilities make the most significant of all contributions to sport. The order will do nothing for sportsmen of the next generation, and that is why the Government stand condemned. We shall vote against the order.
11.31 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: The House will have noticed the remarkable contrast between my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who gave way generously to those who wished to intervene, and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who did not give way at all. I am not surprised, because my hon. Friend, like myself, is an ex-Olympic athlete and is not worried about competition.
I wish to make a brief constituency contribition on timing, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the matter for me. He will know from the strong representations which I have made on behalf of my constituents that Worthing is to host the world bowls championships and that it is anxious that there should be appropriate preparations to ensure that the greens are of an exceptionally high standard. That being so, the timing of the implementation of the order is important. A change of management ahead of the championships would create a considerable problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the facilities at an international event should be of the highest possible standard.
I understand that the order will accommodate the representation that I am making and that the existing management will be able to proceed to prepare facilities for the world bowls championships without interruption.
Mr. Moynihan: I can assure my right hon. Friend that his understanding is correct.
Mr. Higgins: The lady in the crowd used to say, "Whatever happens don't shoot Santa Claus, and don't go on talking." I express my thanks to my hon. Friend and resume my place.
11.33 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: It must be made clear that local authorities in Wales and throughout Britain are appalled by the scale of the task that will face them, and that is what the Minister seems to have disregarded. A heavy burden will be placed on local authorities by the inefficiency and the cost penalty for local services that the Government are introducing. The timescale for the introduction of the measure is worrying when we consider the leisure centres, pools, bowling greens and other facilities that will be involved. The proposals are predictable and contain nothing that is new. The Government have listened to no one and they have learnt nothing.
I can say on behalf of Welsh Members that the measure is rejected wholeheartedly in Wales, where local authorities recognise the manpower burden that is being imposed on them by a political party whose record of providing sports and leisure facilities has been appalling. Why has the Secretary of State for Wales been so silent? Why has he allowed this piece of dogma to be imposed on Wales? I do not wish it to be imposed on England or Scotland either, but in Wales there are many local councils that have spent years trying to provide decent facilities for their communities, and there is no reason for this piece of inefficiency to be imposed upon them.
The Minister tried to say that the order was not about preventing sports and leisure facilities from being provided in future, but that was meaningless in view of the straitjacket that is being placed on local authorities. Cardiff city council has received a 65 per cent. cut in capital money for the coming financial year. Most of the minuscule remainder will have to go to housing, where there is a desperate need. That proves that the Government are determined to undermine sports and leisure facilities as facilities for the communities.
Local authorities in Wales have long sought to provide decent facilities for their communities. Neither the Conservative party nor its masters in the private sector did anything to provide decent facilities. For example, in 1973 Cardiff had no leisure centre. Now we are close to having a pattern which can serve the whole city. Slowed down by occasional aberrations of Tory administrations, Labour has created the pattern, communities have benefited and the centres are generally respected and valued. They should not be messed up by this measure, which introduces another tier of wasteful administration into local government.
Why do this dogmatic and blinkered Government have to interfere and thrust their partisan views down local councillors' throats? If the Government are right and the measure will introduce efficiency, why do they have to dictate to local authorities and force the order down their throats? Local councillors know what their local communities need and want, and have provided it. One Conservative Member who left the debate early said that the order was pure political diktat. The Minister should keep his nose out and leave local authorities to provide what their communities want and need.
11.37 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: What we have heard from Opposition Members tonight makes it abundantly clear that the Labour party is interested only in who runs sports facilities, not what goes on inside them.

433
It is not interested in how much they are used, how good they are or in seeing them improved. Those interests are held only by Conservative Members, not Opposition Members.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that the philosophy of the measure is wrong and the Government should never have conceived it in this way. I do not know what the outcome was when Chelmsford council put its facilities out to private tender. However, that council is run by the hon. and learned Members' party and if the philosophy is wrong and something of which the Government should be ashamed, why did he not at least admit what had been done by councils run by his own party? Perhaps he does not even know about that.
Mr. Martin Flannery: They were wrong.
Mr. Hughes: Now we are told that those councils were wrong. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East merely gave a political view which was humbug, as he knows. The measure will lead to the use of more imagination.
Mr. Clelland rose—
Mr. Hughes: I certainly shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. No one would give way to me.
This country's leisure industry is growing in private hands. Imagination and flair are being shown and new opportunities are being brought to young people in many areas.
The Opposition's argument has been dominated by the idea that the measure will put safety standards at risk. Private industries are concerned that their own high standards— including their methodical approach to safety and the way they train their staff are frequently being lowered by local authorities. In some cases, local authorities run facilities without trained staff and operate complicated leisure machinery without ensuring that the people using it know how unsafe it is. There are many incidences of that. Standards are higher in the private sector.
Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for an hon. Member who is protected by the House to slander local authorities and say that their leisure centres are short of staff and dangerous? Does not the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) know that they are run by professional people, not the local authorities?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate.
Mr. Hughes: Opposition Members should listen to this, because any accidents would be on their consciences. [Interruption.] I intend to name a local authority to illustrate my point. Leisure facilities at the Glasgow garden festival, run by the Glasgow local authority, were operated by local authority staff who, in the opinion of many people in the private sector, had not been trained to use them. They did not know what they were doing, and it is the opinion of many safety experts that it was only a matter of luck that an accident was avoided.
We heard an important announcement from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). He said that councils are unlikely to build new facilities if the order is passed. I believe that he was expressing the Labour party's
434
view which is, "If you do not allow us to manage and operate these facilities, we will take our hat and ball home and we will not build any new ones." That is not our view. Many Conservative authorities will use this opportunity and the money generated to ensure that they increase the number of facilities in their area.
The order is welcome in my local authority. People will recognise it for what it is—an opportunity to provide better facilities for the people who want to use them.
11.41 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: We have just heard an appropriately squalid little speech to match a squalid little measure. Glasgow district council needs no lessons from wee boys from Harrow about how to run its leisure facilities. We will pursue that matter again.
The Minister has attracted an unusual number of soubriquets in his short career. Perhaps after this he will go down in Thatcherite mythology as the man who tried to privatise putting greens. The only argument we have heard in support of the measure is based on the incompetence of Westminster city council, which apparently could not open its leisure facilities before 8 am.
This is a doctrinaire measure which will be supported in the Lobby by people who know nothing of sport and who care even less. they certainly cannot aspire to the vision of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who realises that sport can change people's lives. Access to facilities in many areas of the country provides an opportunity for young people to achieve and to aspire to a world outside. All that which has been built up by local authorities in this direction is to be put at risk, in the interest of private profit.
We have nothing against the private sector. There are many opportunities open to the private sector in leisure and recreation. The report "Sport 2000" published by the Scottish Sports Council listed what sports facilities are needed. By the year 2000 we need in Scotland alone 210 new centres, 44 new swimming pools, 25 new ice halls, 400 new tennis courts and 13 new track and field facilities. That would provide plenty of opportunities for the private sector to contribute. However, it will contribute nothing. It is at present closing down ice rinks and private sports centres. All that the private sector has to offer in response to the great need that exists for better sports and leisure facilities throughout the country is to act as a parasite upon that which has already been created by public enterprise.
Conservative Members do not understand; they can think only in terms of bricks and mortar combined with commercial services. The Magnum leisure facility in Irvine, which serves my constituency, is open from 5 am to 3 the following morning and is used by 1 million people a year. It is a wonderful public enterprise, and to separate the bricks and mortar from the management functions and social commitment of the people who run it is a fantasy that only Conservative Members could entertain. The centre is an integrated unit, and as soon as anyone tries to split it, the philosophy that brought it into being in the first place and has sustained it, is destroyed.
Let us see what those who understand and care for the arguments about how facilities are run have to say. The Amateur Swimming Association says:

435
"we … do not relish the prospect of being at the mercy of operators intent on achieving financial targets, at the expense of facilities available to the sport or indeed as a service to the community at large."
It understands. The All England Netball Association:
"It will be exceedingly difficult to retain the philanthropic aims of the local authority centres with a commercial operator standing to reap the rewards of a more commercial approach."
It understands. These organisations understand that one cannot separate the facility from the service provided in it—
Sir Nicholas Bonsor rose—
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the debate, and I have little time left.
If the local authority is committed to its social remit and the commercial operator to his profit motive, friction is caused in what should be a big happy family serving the community. The clash of interests leads to a diminution of the purpose for which the centre was created.
The definition of management function in the order poses far more questions than it answers. Instruction and supervision, we are told, are to be part of the management function. Would any parent prefer supervision and instruction to be in the hands of the private operator, not those of the local authority? Taking bookings will also be in the hands of the private operator, not of the local authority. That pros des scope for manipulation and the squeezing out of minority interests.
Mr. John Carlisle rose—
Mr. Wilson: This management function does not seem to include outreach to the community. Who is to be responsible for the outreach that has brought in so many disadvantaged groups to the sports centres? Will the local authority continue to pick up that tab if that whole edifice is not to collapse?
There is no mention of the training of staff, even of swimming pool staff, in the definition of management function. Is it for the local authority to pick up that tab, or will the training of staff be removed from the responsibilities of those running sports facilities?
We hear so much about privatisation and enterprise from Conservative Members, but it is a pathetic apology for private enterprise when all it can do is to take over existing public enterprises. Conservative Members cannot stomach the fact that so many of the great sports and leisure facilities around Britain, and the vision that underlay them, were provided by the public sector. Meadowbank, the Kelvin hall, Gateshead, and the great municipal golf courses were all provided by public enterprise. When the private sector can match that, it will have something to offer. Instead, it takes over these facilities to commercialise them.
Nothing has worth, according to Conservative Members, unless it has a commercial value. We reject this philosophy. Sport and leisure have much more to offer our society than mere commercial value. This measure is due to take effect in 1992. By then the Government will be out of office, and there will be no more of the sort of squalid rubbish that we are debating tonight.
11.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) made a somewhat scathing attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and on his knowledge of the leisure and recreation activities of Glasgow district council. Its most recent publicised activity on the leisure side was to entertain the East German Government to celebrate 40 years in power. Perhaps at least on that occasion it was somewhat misguided. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport might take note of that.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North came up with the astonishing assertion that no parent would want instruction to be in the hands of anybody but the local authority. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not an expert on sport. I do not profess to be one, but at least I am aware, as the hon. Gentleman plainly is not, of the splendid work on instruction carried out by the governing bodies. The hon. Gentleman implied that local authorities would be better at it. It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read the order and in that sense was sharing the fate of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who started by asserting that the order was damaging to sport. He made a lengthy speech and refused to take any interventions. At no point did he mention the customer. His speech was all about facilities and local authorities and not once did he talk about sportsmen and sportswomen.
Mr. Gould: That is quite wrong.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that I am quite wrong, but I listened carefully to his speech. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to correct me.
Mr. Gould: I am glad to see that the Minister is prepared to spend the minutes that remain to him in that way. If he looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I referred frequently and repeatedly to the importance of making facilities available to the local communities whom local authorities serve. The Minister may not recognise local communities as customers, but we certainly do.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said. He says he talked about making facilities available. He did not talk about the needs of sportsmen and sportswomen, or about the range of local authority facilities that are run for the convenience of local authority staff with opening hours that are not convenient for members of the public. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport gave an example of how, in the Queen Mother sports centre, bringing in private enterprise extended opening hours and facilities.
The hon. Member for Dagenham also spoke about the cost of the exercise and completely ignored the Audit Commission's view that savings of 20 per cent. or more could be obtained. He asked how will private profit takers meet the needs of the disadvantaged. The answer is that the needs of the disadvantaged will be determined by local authorities. They will write the contracts and determine the pricing policy and the range of services to be provided. The hon. Gentleman should know that, and should not oppose the measure if he is unaware of it. He also said that local authorities will determine only the subsidy. That is

437
not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, local authorities will determine the pricing policy.
Mr. Gould rose—
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman would not give way, but I shall give way to him.
Mr. Gould: Where in the order will local authorities find the power to fix prices, admissions, and opening hours?
Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman goes to the Library tomorrow and asks for a copy of the Act, I am sure that the staff will give him one. He will find the power in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that the whole point of this exercise is to find out who provides the best deal for the customer. Opposition Members who made speeches extolling the virtues of local authorities have nothing to fear. If they are so confident that local authorities are providing the services that the customer wants and the best possible value, what on earth do they have to fear from competition and the order? Opposition Members speak not for the customer or for the sportsmen and sportswomen, but for the National and Local Government Officers Association, which is terrified that the customer will get a better deal and the ratepayer will get bette value for money.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asserted that local authorities would be able to delegate their charging policy as part of the contract. That is untrue. The hon. Gentleman also asserted that consultation had been of no worth. If he had gone into the matter he would know that part of the consultation and part of our response was to ensure that local authorities will not be able to delegate their charging policies. I hope that we can expect the support of the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
The hon. Gentleman also made the remarkable statement that this Government had done nothing for or to encourage sport. Under this Government the number of people participating in sport has increased by some 6 million.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) rightly pointed out that what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said in the Glasgow Herald on 1 December 1989 was a load of nonsense. The hon. Gentleman was concerned that Old Course should not be affected by this order. He, as Member of Parliament for Fife, North-East, is a trustee of the Links Trust that runs Old Course, which is owned by the local authority. The hon. Gentleman said that there was a difference of philosophy, and there certainly is. He is a member of an organisation running a service for a local authority that is providing a service second to none and that he seeks to defend. It is precisely the kind of measure that this order seeks to introduce.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 159.

Division No. 11]

[11.55 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Alexander, Richard

Allason, Rupert

438

Amess, David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Amos, Alan

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Arbuthnot, James

Gregory, Conal

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Grist, Ian

Ashby, David

Hague, William

Atkins, Robert

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Baldry, Tony

Hanley, Jeremy

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

Batiste, Spencer

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Bellingham, Henry

Harris, David

Bendall, Vivian

Haselhurst, Alan

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hayward, Robert

Bevan, David Gilroy

Heddle, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hordern, Sir Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Boswell, Tim

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hunter, Andrew

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Irvine, Michael

Brazier, Julian

Jack, Michael

Bright, Graham

Jackson, Robert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Janman, Tim

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

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Key, Robert

Budgen, Nicholas

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Burns, Simon

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Burt, Alistair

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Butcher, John

Lightbown, David

Butler, Chris

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Maclean, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Carttiss, Michael

Miller, Sir Hal

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Mills, Iain

Chapman, Sydney

Miscampbell, Norman

Chope, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Moate, Roger

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Moss, Malcolm

Colvin, Michael

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Mudd, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Neale, Gerrard

Couchman, James

Nelson, Anthony

Cran, James

Neubert, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Nicholls, Patrick

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

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Norris, Steve

Dover, Den

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Dunn, Bob

Page, Richard

Durant, Tony

Paice, James

Dykes, Hugh

Patnick, Irvine

Eggar, Tim

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Emery, Sir Peter

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Evennett, David

Pawsey, James

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fallon, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Favell, Tony

Portillo, Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Fishburn, John Dudley

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Fookes, Dame Janet

Rhodes James, Robert

Forman, Nigel

Riddick, Graham

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Franks, Cecil

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

French, Douglas

Rowe, Andrew

Gale, Roger

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Gardiner, George

Ryder, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Sackville, Hon Tom

Gill, Christopher

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Goodlad, Alastair

Sayeed, Jonathan

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gow, Ian

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

439

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tracey, Richard

Shersby, Michael

Trippier, David

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Squire, Robin

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Warren, Kenneth

Stern, Michael

Watts, John

Stevens, Lewis

Wells, Bowen

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Whitney, Ray

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wiggin, Jerry

Sumberg, David

Wolfson, Mark

Summerson, Hugo

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Thurnham, Peter

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Townend, John (Bridlington)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Fatchett, Derek

Allen, Graham

Fearn, Ronald

Anderson, Donald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fisher, Mark

Armstrong, Hilary

Flannery, Martin

Ashton, Joe

Foster, Derek

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Foulkes, George

Barron, Kevin

Fraser, John

Battle, John

Fyfe, Maria

Beckett, Margaret

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Bell, Stuart

George, Bruce

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

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bermingham, Gerald

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bidwell, Sydney

Gould, Bryan

Blunkett, David

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Boyes, Roland

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bradley, Keith

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Haynes, Frank

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Henderson, Doug

Buchan, Norman

Hinchliffe, David

Buckley, George J.

Home Robertson, John

Callaghan, Jim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Howells, Geraint

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Canavan, Dennis

Hoyle, Doug

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clay, Bob

Janner, Greville

Clelland, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cohen, Harry

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kennedy, Charles

Corbett, Robin

Lamond, James

Cousins, Jim

Leadbitter, Ted

Crowther, Stan

Livsey, Richard

Cryer, Bob

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cummings, John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cunningham, Dr John

Loyden, Eddie

Dalyell, Tam

McAllion, John

Darling, Atistair

Macdonald, Calum A.

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McLeish, Henry

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

McWilliam, John

Dewar, Donald

Madden, Max

Dixon, Don

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dobson, Frank

Marek, Dr John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Maxton, John

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Meacher, Michael

Eadie, Alexander

Meale, Alan

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Michael, Alun

440

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Spearing, Nigel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Steinberg, Gerry

Morgan, Rhodri

Stott, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Strang, Gavin

Mowlam, Marjorie

Straw, Jack

Murphy, Paul

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Nellist, Dave

Turner, Dennis

O'Brien, William

Vaz, Keith

O'Neill, Martin

Wall, Pat

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wallace, James

Patchett, Terry

Walley, Joan

Pendry, Tom

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter L.

Wareing, Robert N.

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Radice, Giles

Wigley, Dafydd

Reid, Dr John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Robertson, George

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Rooker, Jeff

Wilson, Brian

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Sheerman, Barry

Worthington, Tony

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Short, Clare

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Mr. Frank Cook and

Soley, Clive

Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition in Sports and Leisure Facilities) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 25th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5). (Standing Committees on European Community documents.)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  PUBLIC TAKEOVER BIDS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5032/89 relating to takeover bids for public companies; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that a Community regime can be agreed which is compatible with the flexibility and speed necessary for effective regulation of takeovers and with a continuation of the present system of regulation within the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  12.7 am
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 450 of my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme. They protest that broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers by means of subtitles or sign language. They also say that the more than 4 million deaf viewers are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext sub-titles, sign language or other means and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie on upon the Table.
  12.8 am
  Mr. James Wallace: I, too, like the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), beg leave to present a petition that seeks to allow access for deaf people to the broadcasting of our proceedings and to broadcasting generally. It is signed by 253 of my constituents in Orkney and Shetland. It notes that broadcasters are not at the present time providing complete access for deaf television viewers, that there are at least 4 million viewers affected by this and that deaf viewers are equal citizens with the rest of us and deserve to be treated equally.
  The petitioners pray in terms similar to those set out by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. They hope that we shall pass legislation that will oblige television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people.
  To lie upon the Table.

Live Animals (Export)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
12.9 am
Dame Janet Fookes: I rise this evening to draw the attention of the House to the plight of animals which are exported abroad for slaughter, either immediately or after further fattening. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who was deeply angered by the revelations in The Sunday Times recently, in which Sunday Times reporters, in conjunction with inspectors from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, followed a consignment of sheep. They found that virtually every welfare regulation was flouted and that some of the unfortunate lambs, which had started their journey somewhere in Scotland, ended up in the south of France and some of them in Spain. As one fairly hard-bitten and seasoned RSPCA inspector said: "When you follow them for hour after hour after hour and see the steady deterioration in their condition, it makes your blood boil." It certainly makes my blood boil.
Worse still, I get a sense of frustration because this is not an isolated incident. Incidents such as this have been recorded meticulously by the RSPCA and by other organisations over the years. Some will recall that in the early 1970s, the position was reached where the Government of the day suspended export licences because of the deep worries that were felt about the welfare of animals, which are subject to enough stress in going from fairly quiet farms to markets, to ports, across the Channel and then on to an unknown and probably grim destination, as we all realise.
We still have a long way to go before anything like humane regulations are enforced. It is not enough to have good regulations on paper. They are worth nothing if there is not someone to enforce them and, clearly, that has been sadly lacking over the years.
What is worse is that the export trade of animals on the hoof appears to be booming—worse, that is, from the point of view of welfare. In 1988, well over 750,000 animals were exported in this way. Many of them were young animals, such as lambs and veal calves. If that continues, it is of grave concern to us all. However, the position is unlikely to remain the same. If anything, it could get worse.
I should like to widen my speech to consider 1992, the economic results of which we all speak about in varying ways, and the creation of an area in which there will be no exports, as it were, between member countries because we shall have one single market. Unfortunately, this will also apply to live animals, which are regarded as agricultural goods for this purpose. Many of the safeguards that we have, such as the stipulation that before the animals set out across the Channel they must be rested at a lairage for 10 hours, checked and given food and water, may no longer be able to exist.
That is a matter of grave concern and we shall need to look most carefully at the directive that will then cover the whole of Europe. In theory, that should be a magnificent opportunity to improve the situation for all animals throughout the Community, and therefore we should see a vast improvement. However, when I look at the record to date of how the directives have failed to be implemented, my heart sinks. We may lose what we already have, even if that is not marvellous, and instead

443
have safeguards that are there in theory only. I urge the Government to put pressure on their European allies. We seem to be prepared to do it on other matters, so I hope that we will do it in the interests of animal welfare.
I suspect that the public will be outraged at the plight of horses and ponies if they are exported for meat. At the moment, that is not possible because of the minimum value order, which makes it uneconomic for people to export the animals. If that goes, something that was stopped many years ago—the export of animals of precious little value in money terms to the slaughterhouses of Europe—may begin again. I know that many organisations in addition to the RSPCA are especially worried about the matter and I believe that there would be an outcry from members of the public if this trade were to start again. As far as I can gather, we should be on very thin legal ground if we attempted to keep the minimum values order after 1992.
We should try to make the most of the opportunities that are offered. I should like to present to the Government the view of the British Veterinary Association, which has said for many years that animals should be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible. If that principle, which is practical in the extreme, were introduced throughout Europe, animals would be spared some of the suffering, stress—and, at times, cruelty—that they have to bear as they are transported all over Europe by people who in many instances could not care less. That would be worth having as our goal. Whether our European partners would accept it is a matter for doubt, but it is nevertheless something for which the British Government should ask.
Failing that—as a second best—I suggest that we try to tighten up the draft directive on the welfare of animals in international transit. Above all, we need a proper inspectorate whose job it is to ensure that the rules of welfare are observed. No matter how good the rules are on paper, they will be worth absolutely nothing without that. I do not believe that we should throw away any of our existing legislation until the inspectorate has been set up. I shall not be content with any promises of an inspectorate being set up. I want properly trained inspectors to be there doing the job, especially at transit points—where animals are gathered at ports, where they are moving from one form of transport to another, at the point of disembarkation after a journey and at slaughterhouses.
What is more, we must be very careful about the detailed regulations. We can make a lot of difference by ensuring that the transporters are properly constructed. I am quite sure that we can lay down such rules in detailed directions if the will is there to do it. I hope that Euro-MPs will join hon. Members in Westminster in putting real pressure on the powers that be in Europe to ensure that that is done.
I greatly fear that if we do not ensure that those things are done, the plight of animals will be made worse rather, than better, following 1992. That would be an absolute disaster, and the British people would be outraged. As it is, I frequently receive letters and telephone calls from members of the public, including my constituents, who have seen distressing sights—for example, animals crammed into transporters as they are exported to Europe from my constituency of Plymouth. People write and ask
444
why that is allowed. I cannot give them a satisfactory answer. It should not be allowed. When the Minister negotiates on our behalf in considering the draft directives in detail, I beg him to ensure that they are made watertight, because unfortunately that has not been the case in the past.
We should also consider closely the people who drive the animal transporters. So far as I can see at the moment, anyone can drive a transporter provided that he has a driving licence. I do not believe that anyone should be allowed to drive an animal or cattle transporter unless he has been trained in dealing with animals and has shown that he will treat them humanely. We should be able to remove licences because that would be an incentive to ensure that drivers carry out their duties.
The welfare considerations also make good economic sense—as is often the case. Much work has been carried out by veterinary surgeons into the condition of animals at slaughterhouses. It is clear that there is a great deal of waste meat if animals arrive damaged or bruised. The quality of the meat can also suffer if the animal has been placed under great stress prior to slaughter. My suggestions need not necessarily increase the cost of meat or reduce its quality. On the contrary, they should make good sense from that point of view.
In short, instead of a possible disaster in 1992, I hope that we make real efforts in this country to ensure that animals travelling throughout Europe do so in better conditions. I will want to monitor that very closely. I can assure the Minister and the Government that if we do not see the kind of reforms that we want, we will make the Government's lives a misery.
12.21 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) on choosing to raise a subject which is of constant public concern, but which has not been debated in this House for some four years. It is also most appropriate that my hon. Friend should raise the matter, because she has been a doughty champion of providing proper care and dignity for animals.
The Government regard the welfare of animals in transport as very important. My hon. Friend was right to threaten to make all our lives a misery unless the Government look after the welfare of all animals wherever we can. We regard animal welfare as terribly important and that is why we take considerable steps to ensure that exported farm livestock receive full care and attention while in our jurisdiction. I have in mind here animals for fattening or immediate slaughter, which we describe as "food animals".
Under our law, such animals must be rested for at least 10 hours at an approved export lairage, which must be within a reasonable distance of the port of embarkation. The animals must be inspected by a Government veterinary inspector for fitness to travel and food and water must be provided. In every case, the loading of animals is officially supervised into vehicles which must themselves have been approved for the particular task of carrying animals on roll-on/roll-off ferries. The Ministry offers advice on the conditions for loading and stowing those vehicles.

445
Once the animals have crossed the Channel, they are, strictly speaking the responsibility of other Governments, but we ask exporters for prior assurances about the onward journey. The main concern here is that arrangements are made for feeding and watering the livestock on the longer journeys. We require staging posts to be declared to us where journeys would take longer than 18 hours from the export lairage.
None of those measures absolves other Governments from checking that animal welfare during transport is in accordance with the existing directive on international transport. Enforcement must be their responsibility when animals are on their territory. My hon. Friend will understand that MAFF officials cannot, of course, follow journeys into other member states, but there has been close liaison with the French authorities. It has included the monitoring of some journeys, either by accompaniment or by other surveillance. On occasions when the RSPCA or others report on journeys, we pass details to the country concerned for its full investigation.
The recent article in The Sunday Times of 29 October, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, was a case in point. At this moment we are waiting to hear from the French veterinary services, but we took other prompt action. We are no longer issuing licences for sheep exports to the named premises in the south of France run by the gentleman who was featured in the article, pending French and our inquiries. I should like to make it quite clear that cruelty to animals in transit will not be tolerated. We will act against offenders where necessary and within our jurisdiction.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Exactly what restrictions are imposed by MAFF on the justification for the export of live animals in the first place? To what extent does the Ministry investigate whether the exportation of live animals is absolutely necessary, or whether it is merely at the whim of the person who is importing animals? What controls do we have over the quality of slaughterhouses in other countries? My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) made an excellent speech, and I agree with every word of it, but she did not mention the quality of slaughterhouses abroad, which are often awful compared with the conditions which, mercifully, we must endure here.
Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has raised two good points. It is not possible for us to try to seek the intention of those who may want to export animals or those who may wish to receive or import animals into the Community. I may be skating on thin ice, but I suspect that it would be contrary to the treaty to try to make such interpretations. It is irrelevant to the means of transport and to the measures on which we insist. It is not relevant to know the end use of the animal, because we want to insist on the highest possible standards of care and transport for that animal, irrespective of the end use. We export pedigree animals—bulls and so on—to France and to other countries. We insist on the highest possible welfare standards, just as we insist on the highest possible welfare standards for sheep which may be exported for slaughter.
My hon. Friend's last point is absolutely right. We do not allow animals to go to Spain and Portugal, simply because they have not come up to the standard for
446
slaughtering animals in slaughterhouses which the EC directive describes and which would satisfy us. There is a check. We do not physically check the slaugherthouses, any more than a Frenchman can check our slaughterhouses, but slaughterhouses in the Community are up to an acceptable standard, except for those in Spain and Portugal.
I shall give the House an example of the prompt action that we have taken to demonstrate that we will not tolerate cruelty to animals during transport. Our inquiries are now complete, following the tragic deaths of the 79 beagles while they were being conveyed to Sweden in September. My hon. Friends will understand that I cannot comment further tonight, in advance of possible proceedings against those concerned.
Returning to the Sunday Times article and the RSPCA trail of sheep to France, it was claimed that these were being sent on to Spain for slaughter. As I have just said, we specifically do not license exports of food animals to non-EC countries or to Spain and Portugal which have yet to implement fully the existing EC directives on international transport and pre-slaughter stunning. But we must realise that it is very difficult to police this control where animals are sent to destinations in France for further fattening. Nor are our restrictions related specifically to cruelty in Spanish abattoirs. Once the European Commission is content that the directives are properly implemented, we will be in hot water with the European Court if our exporters continue to be depraved of markets currently met by the EC competitors.
My hon. Friend suggested that we should aim, as an ideal, to have slaughter as near as possible to the point of production. I agree that that is an ideal, but the only practical control that we could effectively have on that would be a complete ban on animals over a long distance.
I fully understand the calls for a complete ban on food animal exports, related to operating a carcase-only trade, but this unfortunately is not a line we can pursue. First and foremost, such a ban would contravene the EC treaty, as my hon. Friend has suggested. There is already an export trade of carcases to EC countries, but a separate demand exists for fresh home-killed meat. The importers concerned need live animals and would simply go elsewhere for their supplies, perhaps even to eastern Europe. So it would be absolutely pointless for us to take a British unilateral stand only for the markets we had refused to supply to be taken up by animals imported from even further away, where welfare standards may be lower. There is no point in our ceasing to supply a market with our higher welfare standards only for that market to be flooded by animals from other countries which might have lower standards.
Compassion in World Farming has also called for animals to be elevated in EC classification from "agricultural products" to "sentient beings". It does no harm whatsoever to emphasise that living animals need special care. Indeed, we applaud this. But the Government take the view that our effort in Brussels is better directed at negotiating and achieving Communitywide safeguards that protect farm animals at all stages. The European Commission has been active recently in proposing direct new animal welfare controls. The proposed regulation on the protection of animals during transport is relevant to the subject under debate. The document would replace and go further than the existing EC directive on the protection of animals during international transport, introduced in

447
1977. As my hon. Friends will probably know, the directive in turn was based on the Council of Europe convention agreed in 1968.
We have circulated the new proposal very widely for comment in this country. The European Parliament is now directing its attention to the document which will be debated in Standing Committee here next month. The objective in the ensuing Brussels negotiations will be to ensure that all countries introduce and police the same high standards of welfare. We are encouraged in this by the proposed involvement of a Commission veterinary inspectorate to ensure uniform application throughout the Community. I hear what my hon. Friend has said, and we are as keen on it working and applying uniformly enforced standards throughout the whole of the EEC as is my hon. Friend. That is an important point.
It would be unwise for me to under-estimate the size of the task which faces us with these new transport proposals. In particular we must make sure that the domestic controls we have built up over many years are not replaced by diminished and unenforceable measures.
I am fully aware of the widespread concern in this country about the prospect of losing British controls, linked to minimum values, designed to prevent the exports of horses and ponies on the hoof for slaughter. My postbag has been bulging on this difficult point.
It may be helpful if I explain briefly what the arrangements are for exporting horses. I am sure that my hon. Friends are fully aware of them, but it may be helpful to put this on the record. The arrangements are immensely complicated, but they include export licensing, pre-export rest and veterinary inspection. The export of ponies and certain types of horse are prohibited if their value is less than that laid down in the Animal Health Act 1981. These categories require official valuation. The values were last fixed in 1978, and we approached horse interests and welfare organisations about two years ago. They were unanimous in agreeing that minimum values should not be increased.
Some people may still claim that horses continue to be exported for slaughter, despite controls. I disagree. We have no substantiated evidence of that. As we issue all the permits for horse exports and inspect certain categories of animal, we would expect to detect any organised trade in them.
I shall conclude that part by stating the minimum values. I shall not go into the detail on ponies, which is far too complicated, and I do not profess fully to understand it. The minimum values for a heavy draft horse is £715, for a vanner mule or jennet £495 and for an ass £220. Such animals must not be more than eight years of age.
The existing controls have been built up over many years following public concern over conditions in which horses were formerly exported. The legislation on horses dates from the 19th century while that on ponies was completed in the Ponies Act 1969, since consolidated in the Animal Health Act 1981. So the minimum values are purely national arrangements. It was therefore inevitable
448
that they would be called into question during the completion of the internal market. It remains to be seen whether we can persuade other member states to take on similar controls throughout the Community. Whatever the precise means of control in future, however, we will insist on measures which fully protect the welfare of animals leaving these shores for slaughter.
My hon. Friend mentioned European Members of Parliament. There is great scope for my hon. Friends and all those who are concerned to lobby European Members on this issue not only to exert pressure on the British Government, who will be campaigning for the toughest measures possible, but to use European contracts and others in Europe who feel as passionately about this as we do.
The new EC transport proposals give an opportunity to negotiate a fresh regime covering the movement of animals throughout the Community. It is an important chance to provide effective safeguards for all animals which are transported, whether for slaughter, exhibition, breeding, pets, circuses or other purposes. My hon. Friend asked us to exert maximum pressure, and I can assure her that we shall do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to One o'clock.

Mr. Speaker's Ruling (Money Resolutions and Revenue Support Grant)
The following Private Ruling given by Mr. Speaker is published in accordance with Mr. Speaker's statement of 5 November 1981—[Official Report, c. 113.]
In the past when any Bill authorised or required local authorities in Great Britain to undertake new services or otherwise to incur expenditure, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, the expenditure was by statute taken into account by Ministers when levels of rate support grant were determined. Rate support grant was paid out of voted money, and accordingly a money resolution was required to sanction the relevant expenditure provisions in the Bills concerned.
Under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc (Scotland) Act 1987 as amended by schedule 6 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, revenue support grant is to replace rate support grant. Revenue support grant will be paid out of voted money, but Ministers are not statutorily required to have regard to the level of local authority expenditure when they determine the amount of grant to be paid. I am asked to rule whether a money resolution should continue to be required for Bills which imply increases in local authorities' expenditure.
I am satisfied that revenue support grant will in the future in practice, if not by statute, take account of local authorities' expenditure. I therefore rule that a money resolution will continue to be required in respect of such Bills.

ENVIRONMENT

  Regional Directors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the frequency with which regional directors of the Department of the Environment have met together on a formal basis since 1984; what is the frequency with which full or partial meetings of the regional emergency committees are held; and if he will place minutes of the meetings in the Library.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In addition to any ad hoc meetings that may be required, the regional directors meet regularly, about once a month, to discuss departmental business. The regional emergency committees meet as required, at the discretion of the chairmen.

  It would not be appropriate to make available the minutes of either type of meeting.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the annual weight and volume of the waste sent to Drigg for each of the years 1980 to 1988 inclusive; and what are his estimates for the years 1989 to 2000.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Water Distribution, London
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the leakage levels from the London water distribution system.

  Mr. Howard
  This is a matter for Thames Water. It is referred to in the first paragraph of page 415 of the prospectus for the water share offers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Water Leakage Control
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to publish the next leakage control policy and practice report;

  (2) if he will place a copy of the appendix to the 1985 leakage control policy and practice report in the Library.

  Mr. Howard
  A copy of this report, together with its appendices, has been placed in the Library. There are no plans to publish a further edition.

  Tendering
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the cost of tendering for public sector contract work under the Local Government Act 1988, in terms of time and resources; and if he will make a statement;
  212
  (2) what is the proportion of local authority contracts won by (a) the private sector and (b) direct labour organisations in (i) catering, (ii) refuse collection, (iii) vehicle maintenance, (iv) street cleaning, (v) grounds maintenance, and (vi) building cleaning.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No figures are available at present. An in-depth research project is currently being carried out on behalf of the Department to assess the impact of competition policy and this will examine costs incurred as well as savings made. We expect the first phase of the project to be completed next May. Local authorities have been asked to complete a questionnaire which will provide information on the number of contracts awarded to DSOs and private contractors. I hope that the results will be available early next year.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to local authorities on the practice of using the schedule of rates in seeking competitive tenders from private contractors.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Advice issued by my Department in its circulars 10/81, 6/82 and 19/83 has encouraged the use of schedules of rates by local authorities. The Department has not issued guidance about the use of schedules but has, in those circulars, referred local authorities to guidance and practical advice produced by bodies such as the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the National Federation of Building Trades Employers (now the Building Employers Confederation), the Society of Chief Quantity Surveyors in Local Government, the Institution of Municipal Engineers and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

  Mr Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the Audit Commission's estimate of the savings to be made through compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  The Audit Commission's occasional paper "Preparing for Compulsory Competition" published in January indicated that local authorities can obtain savings of 20 per cent. or more in contract price irrespective of whether work has been won by the private sector or by authorities' own work forces.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to provide sufficient information to enable private firms to tender competitively for contract work.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the competition pro visions of the Local Government Act 1988, authorities are required to prepare and make available a detailed specification of the work for which tenders are being, invited. Any failure to include adequate information might be regarded as anti-competitive and lead to the exercise of the Secretary of State's sanction powers.

  House Prices
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the average annual percentage rise in house prices in(a) England and (b) Wales since 1968; and what information he has on the annual average building society interest rate for depositors since 1968;
  213
  (2) what has been the average annual percentage rise in house prices in Scotland since 1968; and what information he has on the annual average building society interest rate for depositors since 1968.

  Year to year percentage change in Building Society mix-adjusted Price index1

  Building Society average net (UK) share rate2

  Year

  England Percentage

  Wales Percentage

  Scotland Percentage

  Percentage

  1968

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4·37

  19693

  5

  5

  7

  4·82

  1970

  8

  7

  7

  4·94

  1971

  14

  13

  7

  4·95

  1972

  31

  24

  19

  4·88

  1973

  38

  38

  37

  6·51

  1974

  7

  10

  15

  7·53

  1975

  6

  9

  13

  7·21

  1976

  6

  9

  18

  7·02

  1977

  9

  5

  10

  6·98

  1978

  16

  18

  14

  6·46

  1979

  30

  26

  18

  8·45

  1980

  21

  20

  15

  10·34

  1981

  6

  8

  9

  9·19

  1982

  3

  5

  7

  8·80

  1983

  11

  10

  13

  7·27

  1984

  11

  4

  7

  7·74

  1985

  9

  8

  5

  8·69

  1986

  15

  8

  6

  7·75

  1987

  17

  9

  7

  7·42

  1988

  27

  20

  8

  6·87

  19894

  24

  41

  17

  59·08

  1 Based on 5 per cent· building society mortgage survey which began in the second quarter of 1968· Figures for the fourth quarter of 1989 are not available·

  2 Net share rates from Council of Mortgage Lenders/Building Societies Association·

  3 Percentage change in index between last three quarters of 1968 and same period for 1969·

  4 Percentage change in index between first three quarters of 1988 and same period for 1989·

  5 Average rate paid at the end of June 1989 by largest 20 societies·

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location to transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred;

  (2) what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are curently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Approximately 60 posts in the Crown Suppliers were moved from central London to Bootle in 1982. The Department's Eastern Regional Office, comprising some 70 posts, was moved from London to Bedford in 1988. This year, the newly established Historic Royal Palaces Agency, with 20 posts, was transferred from central London to Hampton Court palace. The Department's rent charges unit, with 11 posts, has recently been moved from central London to the Department's north-west regional office in Manchester.

  In April this year, the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, for which the Department is responsible, moved its office dealing with properties in care in the northern region, with 20 posts, from central London to Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Around 38 per cent. of the Department's staff of approximately 6,000 (excluding the Property Services Agency) are already located outside London, 24 per cent. outside the south-east. All other posts have been assessed for relocation potential, and some 1,350 posts have been identified for detailed investigation. Studies covering 320 posts are complete, leading to proposals to move some 90
  214
  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  posts out of London. These proposals—which include the relocation of the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and rent charges unit—are now being implemented. Studies covering the other posts will be carried out over the next two years or so, as operational requirements allow.

  Seventy per cent. of the PSA's staff of 22,400 (including the Crown Suppliers) are already located outside London, 45 per cent. outside the south-east. The agency is being restructured in preparation for commercialisation. The scope for further relocation is being examined through the business planning process.

  Methane
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to ensure that, wherever possible, methane from landfill sites and oil fields will be collected or flared efficiently.

  Mr. Trippier
  All those involved in landfill management have been urged to consider appropriate systems of monitoring and control for landfill gas in accordance with the technical memorandum in waste management paper No. 27. The Department of Energy is responsible for the control of gas from oilfields.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government are taking measures to ensure that international exchange of data on global warming is not impeded by commercial considerations in the United Kingdom.
  215
  Mr. Trippier
  The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology has similarly suggested the need for unimpeded exchange of data relevant to global climate change in the sixth report. The Government will respond to this and other conclusions of the Committee in due course. Much data generated by global monitoring programmes will be available on the same basis as is currently the case for world meteorological data. Arrangements are in hand to provide data from the ERS1 satellite to suitably equipped and qualified universities and institutes groups. Discussions under way on data dissemination in the longer term will take into account the recommendations of the Select Committee.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consideration he has given to the conclusion contained in the Select Committee on Science and Technology report on the greenhouse effect about the Government's abandonment of research into fast reactor technology; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consideration he has given to the conclusion contained in the Select Committee on Science and Technology report on the greenhouse effect about the United Kingdom's commitment to the proposal for a successor satellite to ERS1 (ERS2); and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what consideration he has given to the conclusion contained in the Select Committee on Science and Technology report on the greenhouse effect about the Government's commitment to the ocean drilling programme beyond 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government will be responding in due course when full consideration has been given to all the conclusions and recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's sixth report.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds the Government intend to allocate in 1990 and 1991 to finance research and development into the field of fuel use and emissions control in road transport.

  Mr. Trippier
  Projected Government expenditure (by financial year) on research and development into fuel use and emissions control covering the period in question is as follows:

  Financial year 1990–91: £2·015 million

  Financial year 1991–92: £1·150 million

  Climate Modelling
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to develop better facilities for climate modelling at the Meteorological Office and if he will offer generous access to those facilities to relevant university research departments.

  Mr. Trippier
  As the Prime Minister announced in her speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 8 November, the Government intend to establish a new centre for climate prediction. It will build on the existing expertise at the Meteorological Office, which is of the 216
  highest international repute. An important function of the centre will be to identify research work including that done in universities, of relevance to climate prediction and to encourage and facilitate its incorporation into improved predictive modelling. International collaboration with other centres of expertise will be a fundamental aspect of the centre's work.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant his Department will make available in the next financial year to fund the United Kingdom centre for the prediction of climate change.

  Mr. Trippier
  Establishing a centre for climate prediction is expected to cost over £5·5 million in 1990–91.

  Hazardous Waste (Imports)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tonnes of(a) special waste, (b) toxic waste and (c) radioactive waste have been imported through Newhaven for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's records do not differentiate between toxic waste and special waste which is also classified as toxic waste. In 1986–87 23 tonnes were imported through Newhaven, and in 1987–88 48 tonnes. We have no record of any imports in 1988–89. Radioactive waste is not imported into the country.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase the frequency of visits by inspectors of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution to landfill sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. A primary role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is assessing the performance of the waste disposal authorities. This involves visiting a selection of landfills to assess standards and performance. Sufficient landfills are inspected for the inspectorate to reach a balanced view on how well the waste disposal authority discharges its statutory duties.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the homelessness situation in Britain.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, on 15 November, on the conclusions of the Government's review of the homelessness legislation. A copy of the full report is in the House Library.

  Litter
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to enable local authorities to take more severe action against those responsible for dropping litter.

  Mr. Trippier
  We propose to empower all district and borough councils to operate fixed penalty schemes for
  217
  littering, similar to that currently operated by Westminster city council. In addition, we propose to increase the maximum fine for littering in England and Wales under the Litter Act 1983 from £400 to £1,000.

  Radioactive Substances Act 1960
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what responses he has received to the consultation document on the proposed amendments to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and for a cost recovery charging scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  Organisations responded to the consultation document issued jointly by myself with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. A list of these has been placed in the Library of the House: copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library. Respondents gave a broad welcome to the proposals put forward in the paper.

  In particular, there was enthusiastic support for the proposal to establish practicable de minimis levels of radioactive material and waste. Many comments were received on the section regarding the disclosure of information concerning possibly contaminated land and our proposals have been amended to clarify this section taking into account the suggestions made.

  The proposal to introduce a cost recovery charging scheme attracted many comments with only a small minority objecting to the principles of charging. In developing the scheme we will take into account the helpful suggestions and comments received as a result of the current consultation exercise.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response his Department received to the questionnaire sent to local authorities on 3 May about their progress in implementing the new community charge arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of 267 out of 366 local authorities in England responded to this questionnaire. The picture which emerged was generally reassuring. All authorities which responded were implementing the new arrangements and all confirmed they would meet the requirement to send community charge register entries to their residents by 1 December 1989. A report on the results of the questionnaire has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations which have(a) supported him and (b) criticised in writing to him his proposals for changes in the Nature Conservancy Council; and what representations he has had from Mr. Derek Ratcliffe on the future of science in the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: My Department has received a large number of representations about the proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council. It is not possible to allocate these in a meaningful way to the categories requested. A number of
  218
  representations contained elements both of support and of criticism. A letter from the former chief scientist of the NCC, Mr. Ratcliffe, made a thoughtful contribution on the need for cohesive operational strategies, the maintenance of high standards in conservation science, evaluation and practice and on maximising the use of scarce resources. We took account of all the points made in the representations received in formulating the Government's proposals (announced on 23 November) to establish a statutory joint committee of the new country agencies to maintain scientific standards and take responsibility for the scientific aspects of nature conservation issues which have a Great Britain or international dimension.

  Pollution
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the planned level of inspection of factory discharges into rivers by National Rivers Authority officials over the next 12 months; and what percentage of factory discharges this is estimated to represent.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: I understand that the National Rivers Authority is currently reviewing its monitoring programmes, including the level of inspection of discharges by factories to rivers and other controlled waters.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons who inspect factory discharges are employed by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding reply Monday 4 December 1989]: I understand that approximately 430 officers are engaged in pollution control duties in the field. They are involved in inspecting all forms of discharge, including those from factories.

TRANSPORT

  M11 Extension Inquiry
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all those who have been excluded from the proceedings of the M11 extension inquiry; and if he will give the reason for exclusion in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  The exclusion and readmission of individuals at the current inquiry into the Al2 Hackney to M11 link road are matters for the independent inspector.

  Several people have been excluded to prevent further disruption of proceedings. Their names are not known to the Department.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the proceedings of the M11 extension inquiry to be concluded; and what assurances he has received that all points of view will be properly aired and fully considered during the inquiry.

  Mr. Atkins
  The inquiry will conclude when the independent inspector is satisfied that he has heard all statutory objectors and those others with material points who, at his discretion, he chooses to hear. The inspector has already announced that this will mean the continuation of the inquiry in the new year.
  219
  It is for the inspector to decide whether representations made to him are appropriate to the specific purposes of this inquiry.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Atkins
  Following is the information requested by the hon. Member:

  Unit

  Location of origin

  Location of transfer

  Number of staff

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch1

  London

  Bramshott2

  40

  HM Coastguard Training Centre1

  Brixham

  Christchurch

  8

  London Marine Office

  London

  Orpington

  30

  1 Then part of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  2 Bramshott (1982), and then to Farnborough (1984).

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is planned to relocate the headquarters of the Driving Standards Agency from London to Nottingham in mid-1990. About 100 posts are involved. The location of certain other London headquarters directorates is being reviewed: up to a further 430 posts are involved.

  Traffic Accidents (Children)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children of school age have been injured in traffic accidents in the last 12-months'; and how many have been killed.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, 47,429 children aged between five and 16 were injured in road traffic accidents and 440 were killed.

  This is the most recent 12-months-period for which full data are available.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children of school age have been injured in traffic accidents involving designated school buses in the last 12 months; and how many have been killed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not available.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people in the last 12 months have been injured in traffic accidents; and how many have been killed.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, 317,253 people of all road users were injured in road traffic accidents and 5,052 were killed. This is the most recent 12-months period for which full data are available.

  Provisional estimates for the 12 months up to June 1989 show 320,576 injured and 5,082 killed.

  School Buses
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of statutory regulations for operators of designated school buses which require standards of safety to be met(a) in the other member states of the European Community and (b) elsewhere; and what assessment he has made of their comparable figures for accidents involving children of school age and designated school buses.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have considered what we can learn from the statutory regulations applicable to school buses, so far as we are aware of them, in other European countries and elsewhere.

  Some European countries require a special sign showing two children in silhouette on a yellow background to be displayed on school buses. We think that this simple, cautionary sign has much to commend it and as I told the House on 14 November, we shall shortly circulate for comment proposals along these lines.

  In Japan all minibuses, buses and coaches, except those providing a local bus service, are required to be fitted with seat belts on every seat. I have received many representations requesting similar legislation in the United Kingdom. At present we are prevented from enforcing legislation while the European Community seat belt directive specifies that no seat belts need be fitted to minibuses and coaches. We shall continue to press for change, but the view of most of the other member states is that coaches and minibuses are so safe that seat belts would not be worth while except on the front seats. This we have already required. We believe that seats themselves can give a measure of protection in a frontal accident, but seat belts generally prevent ejection and can thus reduce death and injury in a roll-over accident.

  We have no figures for accidents involving children of school age using buses either in the United Kingdom or in other countries. Our own figures show that in 1988 409 children were killed and 7,923 were seriously injured on the roads in all.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of traffic accidents involving designated school buses where children of school age have been injured or killed; and what consideration he has given to(a) the state of the road, (b) the type of vehicles involved and (c) the time of year as contributory factors.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is our established practice to make a detailed investigation covering every possible contributory factor leading to a spectacular and major crash. This applies equally to crashes involving buses carrying children of school age as to other vehicles.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the need for an additional adult to be carried on designated school buses to ensure proper safety procedures are followed.

  Mr. Atkins
  Supervision is a matter for education authorities and schools. We encourage them to ensure that adequate arrangements exist.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations exist to ensure that drivers of designated school buses are trained in first aid.
  221
  Mr. Atkins
  There is no regulation requiring any driver to be trained in first aid.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety requirements exist for transport operators of school project trips; and if he will ensure that any new safety standards imposed on designated school buses must also be met on school project trips.

  Mr. Atkins
  The public service vehicle regulations apply equally to all bus operators. We will indeed propose that any new safety requirements for buses used to carry children between home and school shall also apply to school project trips.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he decided to allow the Civil Aviation Authority to delay by one year its response to his predecessor's request for advice on airports policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend acknowledged, when he sought advice on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity through to 2005, that he had given the authority a testing undertaking. We recognise the need to carry forward airports strategy, but it is important that this is based on fully researched and considered advice. We respect the authority's judgment that it needs to carry out further work before responding.

  Airports (Slot Allocation)
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those sections of the relevant United Kingdom and EEC statutes which relate to the precedence of allocation of slots between charter and scheduled services at United Kingdom airports; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what examination of the validity under EEC law of his powers to make airport traffic rules has been undertaken; what are his powers to give preference in slot allocation to scheduled carriers over competing charter carriers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Section 31 of the Airports Act 1986 empowers my right hon. Friend to make traffic distribution rules which may, inter alia, specify classes or descriptions of air traffic that are permitted under the rules to use any of the airports concerned, and impose prohibitions or restrictions in relation to the use of any of those airports by air traffic of any class or description specified in the rules.

  Section 33 of the 1986 Act empowers my right hon. Friend to require the Civil Aviation Authority to prepare for his approval a slot allocation scheme for airports at which a limit on movements has been set under section 32, or at which he judges that demand exceeds capacity, or is likely in the near future to do so. No such schemes have been made, and slot allocation at United Kingdom airports is carried out either by the airport operator or by the airport scheduling committee. Such committees are composed of representatives of airlines operating at the airport, and work in accordance with guidelines established by the International Air Transport Association.

  The relevant EC legislation is Commission regulation (EEC) No. 2671/88. Article 1 exempts from article 85(1) of
  222
  the treaty of Rome agreements between undertakings in the air transport sector, decisions by associations of such undertakings and concerted practices between such undertakings which have as their purpose slot allocation and airport scheduling in so far as they concern scheduled international air services between airports in the Community. Article 5 states that this exemption applies only if any rules of priority established are neither directly nor indirectly related to carrier identity or nationality or category of service and take into account constraints or air traffic distribution rules laid down by competent national or international authorities.

  Car Insurance (Disabled People)
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold an inquiry into the cost of car insurance charged to disabled people; and if he will take steps to ensure that disabled drivers are not prevented from driving their cars by high insurance.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. It is for insurance companies to set premiums in the light of their own underwriting experience. I welcome the initiative the Association of British Insurers have taken to make available a dossier of insurance advice for disabled drivers and their offer to look into any individual difficulties.

  British Rail
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last discussed(a) possible expansion of the network; (b) possible closure of passenger lines and (c) possible passenger fare increases with the chairman of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend discusses a wide range of railway issues at his regular meetings with the chairman of British Rail. He has recently discussed with the chairman the objectives he proposes to set for the next three years. He hopes to publish them shortly.

  British Rail (Chairman)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will announce the appointment of the next chairman of British Rail.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I am very pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Bob Reid to take over the chairmanship of British Rail next year. His distinguished career as a senior manager in private industry will bring valuable experience to bear on the challenges and opportunities which British Rail will face in the next decade.

  At the same time, I pay warm tribute to Sir Robert Reid's achievements as chairman over the last six years. He has led British Rail to a new, more commercial approach, with a massive investment programme and more customer-orientated structure. The Government, and the travelling public, owe him a large debt of gratitude.

  Mr. Reid's appointment will be for a five-year term, at a salary of £200,000 a year. Mr. Reid will join the board from 1 January as chairman-designate and for a period from 1 April until his responsibilities at Shell come to an end in October, he will be non-executive part-time chairman.

  I am also pleased to announce the appointment of Mr. Derek Fowler as deputy chairman for a six-month period

  223
  next year, and am grateful to him for agreeing to take on this important role. Mr. Fowler, at present vice-chairman and finance member, will become deputy chairman in April to provide continuity and to support Mr. Reid as non-executive chairman. Mr. Fowler has made a valuable contribution throughout his long service on the board, and this extension will make a fitting final stage in his career, to the benefit of British Rail.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Market Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many market research and sample surveys were carried out by or for his Department in the last 12 months; what was the cost of each; what was the total cost; how many were carried out in-house; how many were carried out for his Department by outside organisations; and what percentage of the total expenditure was paid to outside organisations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of nine individual ad hoc surveys were carried out by outside organisations at a cost respectively of £114,110, £10,626, £10,243, £230,630, £25,650, £33,732, £4,550, £4,300 and £100,000 making a total of £533,841 in the 12 months ending 30 November 1989. All these surveys were funded by the Department.

  In addition, the Department has carried out three in-house sample surveys at an estimated total cost of £45,000. The percentage of total expenditure paid to outside organisations, therefore, was 92 per cent.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department transferred 30 posts from London to its Darlington office in 1988. Only two of the staff transferred with the work.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Department is proposing to relocate a further 50 posts from London to its Darlington office during 1990. In addition, a senior official of the Department is about to undertake a study of the long-term location requirements of the Department in the light of the Government's policy on relocation. The study will consider various possibilities, including the handling of some functions regionally. It is not at present possible to say how staff will be affected.

  PhD Students
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken by the Government to encourage PhD students into university research departments.

  Mr. Jackson
  Approximately 60 per cent. of full-time PhD students are supported from Government sources,224
  primarily through grant in aid from the Department of Education and Science to the research councils and the British Academy. Three thousand nine hundred and ninety six new research studentships were awarded by these bodies in 1989, an increase of 134 over 1988. The postgraduate award-making bodies are better placed than Government to assess national needs for PhDs and to determine the optimum distribution of these studentships between different departments and subjects.

  Energy Conference
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what departmental representation there was at the fourth international energy conference of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, on 4 and 5 December.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that attendance at the conference was by invitation. I am not aware that the Department of Education and Science received an invitation, and therefore the Department was not represented at this conference.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many disabled children are currently in special schools within the South Yorkshire area; and what steps he has taken to ensure that for each child, the local education authority is issuing a statement of needs in accordance with the law.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The number of children in special schools within the southern Yorkshire area in January 1989 was 2,807. LEAs have a duty under the 1981 Education Act to identify special education needs and issue a statement when appropriate. It is for each authority to decide on their own local policy.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has of the true cost of supporting disabled children in main stream education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not collect data on spending on children with statements of special educational needs in ordinary schools.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the extent of in-service teacher training on disability awareness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No information is collected centrally on the extent of awareness training on disability. The Government provide substantial support, through the local education authority training grants scheme, for training to meet special educational needs, which include certain disabilities. Five categories of training in respect of special educational needs are currently designated as national priorities, eligible for support at the higher rate of grant under the scheme. In the current financial year, grant is available to support expenditure of £6·6 million in these areas. In addition, authorities are free to draw on the grant available to them under the scheme at the lower rate, in support of further expenditure at their discretion on training on aspects of disability.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is currently allocated by the Government for the funding of the study at universities of the behaviour of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; and how much it plans to allocate for this purpose in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that in 1989–90 the NERC has allocated £155,000 to higher education institutions for research into the chemistry and physics of greenhouse gases. This basic work is included in the £890,000 that the NERC is providing overall in 1989–90 for research in higher education institutions related to climate change and its impacts. It will be for the research councils to decide their future priorities for specific research areas, within the overall totals allocated. My right hon. Friend will shortly receive the ABRC's advice on the allocation of the science budget for 1990–91, and his decisions after receiving that advice will be announced in due course.

  Climate Change
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds the Government intend to allocate for the United Kingdom's participation in the WCRP's global energy and water cycles experiment to place a lidar on one of the polar platform satellites in the late 1990's.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has requested the ABRC's advice on what further allocation is appropriate for earth observation instruments, particularly on polar platforms, in addition to the minimum £6 million recently announced for an instrument associated with the proposed earth remote sensing satellite (ERS2). His decisions after receving that advice will be announced in due course. It will be for the research councils to decide, within the overall totals allocated, their priorities for specific research areas.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds the Government are making available in 1990–91 to ensure the maintenance in the United Kingdom of an independent national research programme into global climate changes.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has requested the ABRC's advice on the allocation of the science budget for 1990–91. His decisions after receiving that advice will be announced in due course. It will be for the research councils to decide, within the overall totals allocated, their priorities for specific research areas. Global climate change is necessarily a problem on an international scale, and the strength of United Kingdom research enables our scientists to make key contributions to important international collaborative programmes.

  Local Authority Bids
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on the treatment of local authority supplementary bids for(a) education capital expenditure in 1990, 1991 and 1992, (b) education support grant in 1990–91 in respect of training for school governors, (c) education support grant in 1990–91 and (d) local authority training grants scheme support in 1990–91
  226
  where such bids are being made to support the development of magnet schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is willing to consider any bids for grants within his responsibility which are submitted by local education authorities as being consistent with the objectives of the grant and the arrangements for its allocation, and are designed to support worthwhile developments. He is currently considering the bids submitted by LEAs for education support grant funding, including those for school governor training, and for LEA training grant scheme funding in 1990–91; the allocations for all LEAs will be announced around the turn of the year.

  Annual capital guidelines are assessed in accordance with well-established criteria which are familiar to local education authorities. My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement about annual capital guidelines for LEAs in 1990–91 shortly before Christmas.

  Magnet Schools (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the minute of the meeting between his Minister of State and members of Bradford council on 28 September records as the statement of the policy which his Department would operate in relation to a supplementary bid for local authority training grants scheme support in 1990–91 in relation to magnet schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The statement of policy given at my meeting on 28 September was as set out in the reply that I have given today to a separate question from the hon. Member on the same subject.

  Training Grants (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what view was expressed in the letter from J. W. Whitaker of his Department, to Mr. Nils Purser, assistant director 13-plus, Bradford education directorate, dated 19 October, following a meeting between the Minister of State and elected members at Bradford council, about the availability of resources under the local authority training grants scheme support in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The letter said that the Department could not offer any prospect of making available the significant additional funds the authority was seeking for 1990–91 from within the LEA training grant scheme, since the grant is allocated to LEAs on a formula basis and it was likely that resources would be fully committed on the lines indicated by the indicative allocations, which had been set out in DES circular 20/89. The letter went on to say that LEAs' expenditure is monitored at the end of each calendar year and spare resources resulting from projected underspending are reallocated for use in the final quarter of the financial year.

  Medical Research Council
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the Medical Research Council for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.
  227
  Mr. MacGregor
  The annual report of the Medical Research Council for 1988–89 has been submitted to me under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965. A copy has been laid before the House, and the report is being published today. I was most interested to study the report and, in an eventful year for the Council, I was particularly encouraged to note:

  (i) Exciting fundamental research in such fields as neurobiology and molecular, cell and developmental biology offering the prospect of practical advances in diagnostic and therapeutic techniques and of commercially important developments. Examples include the work on protein function and design, on antibody engineering, on pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic disease, and on the role of neurotransmitters in the brain.

  (ii) The establishment of the Council's human genome mapping project.

  (iii) Promising research on the factors that influence susceptibility to coronary heart disease, and the trial of anti-coagulants in reducing the risk of thrombosis following myocardial infarction.

  (iv) The continued build-up of the Council's broad programme of research on AIDS which includes work on vaccines and drugs, epidemiological studies, and a new joint Anglo-French clinical trail of zidovudine for patients who are infected with HIV but have not yet become ill.

  (v) A major programme of breast cancer screening trials to determine: the optimum frequency of screening; the proportion of deaths which could be prevented by mammographic screening of women under 50; and the best way of detecting cancers by mammography. This is being funded jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health and the Cancer Research Campaign.

  (vi) A wide range of work of direct relevance to the health services, particularly studies: of vision screening in infancy; of the care of asthma patients; of determinants of re-attendance at accident and emergency departments; of procedures for identifying elderly people at risk of hip fracture; of cervical screening procedures; and of the care of terminally ill cancer patients.

  Economic and Social Research Council
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has received the annual report of the Economic and Social Research Council for 1988–89; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Macgregor
  The annual report of the Economic and Social Research Council has been submitted to me under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and a copy is being laid before the House today.

  I was most interested to read about the council's achievements in a challenging year in which its headquarters moved to Swindon. I was particularly interested to note:

  (a) the continued good progress in improving the communication of its research to a wider audience;

  (b) the establishment of interdisciplinary research centres in micro social change at the university of Essex and in human communication at the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow; and

  (c) the priority given by the council to improved training in research methods.

  I congratulate the council on these and its many other achievements and anticipate reading of further progress in next year's report.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General if the serious fraud squad has now completed its investigations into the implications of the House of Fraser report.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I frequently discuss the investigation with both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. It is our joint intention that it should continue to be pressed forward with all dispatch and speedily concluded. The remaining inquiries, which are current, relate to matters outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction.

  Westway Locksmiths Ltd.
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Attorney-General whether criminal proceedings are to be brought against Westway Locksmiths Limited relating to the sale and fraudulent advertising for sale of skeleton car keys; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service has received no reports from the police concerning Westway Locksmiths. However, I understand that criminal proceedings brought by Tameside trading standards department are pending before Manchester Crown court. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to comment further.

  Land Registry, Plymouth
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the average delay in replying to inquiries to the Land Registry in Plymouth in(a) November 1989 and (b) November 1988.

  The Attorney-General
  The great majority of urgent pre-contract and pre-completion applications are now completed within four days. The percentages of such applications taking longer than that are set out in the table.

  (a) November 1989 Percentage

  (b) November 1989 Percentage

  Searches of the whole of a registered title

  0

  1

  Searches of part of a registered title

  1

  8

  Searches of the index map

  6

  16

  Office copies (register and filed plan only)

  3

  12

  Note: Overall averages for the time taken to deal with such applications are not available.

THE ARTS

  Community-based Arts
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he has any plans to give financial assistance to community-based arts organisations.

  Mr. Luce
  I fund the arts at arm's length. It is a matter for the Arts Council and the regional arts association to decide on the funding of such organisations.

  Performing Arts (East Anglia)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the performance arts in East Anglia for the financial years 1987 to 1990.

  Mr. Luce
  During this period, the performing arts in East Anglia have expanded as in the country as a whole. Audience attendance figures and levels of self-generated income have generally increased. Particular successes have included the Cambridge festival, Wingfield arts and music, and the Norfolk and Norwich triennial festival. For more detailed information, the hon. Member may care to write to David Cargill, the Chairman of Eastern Arts, which is the regional arts association with responsibility for East Anglia. The RAA's address is: Eastern Arts, Cherry Hinton Hall, Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge, CB1 4DW.

SCOTLAND

  Babies (Special Care)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1981 the number of babies born weighing under 1,500 grams.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of babies born weighing less than 1,500 grams in Scotland in the years 1981–87 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1981

  649

  1982

  622

  1983

  650

  1984

  719

  1985

  664

  1986

  705

  1987

  684

  British Medical Association
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Medical Association (Scotland).

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I are regularly in contact with representatives of the British Medical Association in Scotland about a wide range of matters.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish the research funded by his Department and carried out by Dr. Carol Jones of the centre for criminology and the social and philosophical study of law at Edinburgh university, which was undertaken in 1987 into the study of the sheriff courts in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dr. Carol Jones's report on contested cases in the Scottish sheriff courts has not yet been submitted in final form. The question of publication will be considered after it has been received.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro),Official Report, 28 November,
  230
  columns 188–89, how many of the 179 respondents expressed (a) an unconditional welcome for the proposed NCC-CCS merger and (b) the need for a strong science base or co-ordination of standards, research and matters of British or international significance, and (c) the need for sufficient resources.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department's consultation paper invited comments on the Government's proposals to bring forward legislation to merge the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the proposed Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland to form a natural heritage agency for Scotland. Of the 179 respondents, 159 expressed a view on his proposal and, of these, 98 in principle supported it. Almost all respondents commented on a range of issues including science and resources, or sought assurances that the Government would address particular issues before finalising their proposals. As a result, the responses are not capable of analysis in terms of the questions posed.

  In connection with co-ordination on science issues, I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 23 November, at columns 16–17.

  A file containing a copy of all the responses, except the few which were submitted in confidence, is available for inspection in the House of Commons Library.

  Playground Supervision
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in response to consultation on draft regulations on playground supervision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Sixty-four representations have been received from education authorities, teachers' associations and a wide range of other organisations and individuals representing parental and other educational interests.

  There has been widespread support for the proposals in the draft regulations which would (a) put a statutory duty on education authorities to take reasonable care for the safety of pupils under their charge; and (b) introduce a specific statutory duty to provide adult supervision of primary school playgrounds in breaktimes.

  Respondents also made a number of specific suggestions for improvement of the regulations, and the Government will be taking account of these in bringing revised regulations before Parliament. The revised regulations will require that the duty to provide playground supervision should extend to special schools as well as to primary schools. We will also provide for primary schools with fewer than 50 pupils to be exempt from the duty to have an adult supervisor in the playground except where circumstances require it. And we will require a clear definition to be made locally of what area is covered by the term "playground".

  We regret that education authorities felt unable to meet the proposed timetable for implementation in January 1990. In the interests of smooth introduction of the new arrangements we now intend that the regulations should come into force in April 1990, although I will be encouraging local authorities to provide playground supervision before then if possible.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the projects concerning the rehabilitation of people with disabilities which his Department is currently funding in developing countries; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what action he takes to consult organisations of people with disabilities in the countries concerned before making grants for projects concerning rehabilitation of people with disabilities in developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The following projects concerning the rehabilitation of people with disabilities are being funded from ODA's bilateral programmes in 1989/90:

  Country and Project
  Bangladesh—Rehabilitation Institute and Hospital for the Disabled: Orthopaedic Surgeons.
  Fiji—Disabled Children in the Community Speech Therapist, Bailey Clinic.
  India—Assistance to Spastic Societies in Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi.
  Consultancies to Formulate Projects to Assist Various Disabled Groups.
  Sri Lanka—Cleft Lips and Palates.

  Zimbabwe: provision of orthopaedic technicians, equipment and training for a hospital in Harare (recently completed). These Government-to-Government programmes result from official requests received by Her Majesty's Government; consultation with local groups is usually a matter for the recipient countries' authorities though in some cases officials, including specialist health advisers in ODA will have direct contact with beneficiary groups at an early stage.

  Under the joint funding scheme, ODA also provides grants to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations operating in developing projects for the partial funding of their countries. JFS projects are normally executed by local organisations working with the United Kingdom NGOs. ODA is currently financing the following JFS projects:

  Agency/Country and Project

  Action on Disability and Development

  Africa

  Employment of Development Officer

  India

  Development and Training Group of People with Disability

  Orthopaedic Workshop, Bangalore

  Training Course and Extended Orthopaedic Workshop

  Sudan

  Orthopaedic Workshop, Nyala Society for Disabled

  Tanzania

  Development Programme for Disabled People

  Uganda

  Regionalise Management/Support, National Union Disabled People

  Zimbabwe

  Income Generation for Disabled People

  British Red Cross Society

  Papua New Guinea

  Special Education Centre

  Uganda

  Mulago Hospital Orthopaedic Project

  Help the Aged

  India

  Rehabilitation of Handicapped in Rural Areas

  Kenya

  Refracting Service

  232
  Impact Foundation

  India

  Leprosy Disability Prevention and Limitation

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  Ethiopia

  Medical Education and Rehabilitation Centre

  Malaysia

  Far East Region Training Programme

  Video Training

  Richmond Fellowship

  India

  Bangalore Pilot Project, Mental Health Rehabilitation

  Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind

  Bangladesh

  Community Based Rehabilitation

  Manpower Development Programme and Primary Eye Care

  Malawi

  Ophthalmic Assistants Training

  Solomon Islands

  Eye Care Services in the Pacific

  Further assistance for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities is provided through the heads of mission gift scheme, the heads of mission small projects scheme and the British volunteer programme; a list of these is not readily available.

  The overseas aid programme will continue to respond positively to requests to provide assistance for the rehabilitation of people with disabilities. It will also continue to support programmes aimed at combating tropical diseases which result in disabling conditions.

  Sri Lanka (Aid)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his reply of 29 November to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, what is his forecast for aid for Sri Lanka for 1990–91; what type of projects in Sri Lanka are likely to attract British overseas aid; and what additional aid will be made available to Sri Lanka following the damage and injury caused by civil disturbance.

  Mr. Maude
  Britain supports a wide range of projects in Sri Lanka in the education, power, roads and natural resources sectors. Last year a grant of £20 million was signed for reconstruction aid, including the provision of vehicles, railway track, hospital and educational equipment, and support for NGO programmes. The grant has not yet been fully allocated to specific uses, and projects under consideration with the Sri Lankan Government include road rehabilitation and forestry. Britain is also considering providing balance of payments support as part of an economic reform programme which the Sri Lankan authorities are discussing with the IMF and IBRD. Aid expenditure in 1990–91 is uncertain at this stage, and will depend upon a number of factors, including any delays caused by civil disturbances.

  Market Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many market research and sample surveys were carried out by or for his Department in the last 12 months; what was the cost of each; what was the total cost; how many were carried out
  233
  in house; how many were carried out for his Department by outside organisations; and what percentage of the total expenditure was paid to outside organisations.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No market research or sample surveys have been undertaken in house in the past 12 months. In this period, one sample survey was carried out by an outside organisation at a cost of £10,470·75.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons above the age of(a) 60, (b) 65 and (c) 70 years he has appointed to public bodies in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is not immediately available, and I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Immigration Service Union
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why his Department decided not to recognise the Immigration Service Union or to deduct membership contributions for its members seconded from the Home Office to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Immigration service officers serving in Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts overseas remain members of the Home Civil Service. Any negotiations on pay and conditions of service of Immigration Service Union members overseas are conducted by the Immigration Service Union with the Home Office and/or Treasury as appropriate. The question of formal Foreign and Commonwealth Office recognition therefore does not arise.

  South Africa
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of South Africa about the need to treat all British citizens equally with regard to visa requirements.

  Mr. Maude
  We would of course be concerned if evidence was presented of discrimination against a British citizen on grounds of colour by any country in the operation of their visa regime.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set up an inquiry into the working of the United Kingdom's visa treaty with South Africa.

  Mr. Maude
  The United Kingdom has no visa treaty with South Africa.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the South African Government's guidelines for British citizens who travel to that country of(a) European and (b) not pure European descent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has received no such representations.

  Poland and Hungary
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the amount and types of economic assistance currently being given to Poland and Hungary; and what is the planned future level and types of such assistance.

  Mr. Maude
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) on 29 November, at column 318. With regard to future amounts and types of assistance, the know-how funds for Poland and Hungary are expected to continue for five years: it is not possible at this stage to say whether additional assistance will be made available in the future.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many orphans there are at present in the camps in Hong Kong; how they are to be repatriated; and what measures he will entake to ensure a satisfactory result.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to the reply, 4 December 1989, c. 26]: No figures are available for the number of orphans in the camps in Hong Kong, but there are estimated to be about 1,000 unaccompanied minors. The Hong Kong Government are discussing with the UNHCR the establishment of special procedures under the comprehensive plan of action for dealing with unaccompanied minors, with the aim of identifying the most humane and appropriate course in each individual case. This might mean repatriation where the child's parents or closest relatives are in Vietnam, or resettlement where the nearest family ties are overseas.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimate of the current level of personal debt in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimate of the current level of personal debt in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the estimate of the current level of personal debt in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for personal sector debt are given in "Financial Statistics" table 14·4. The amount outstanding at end June 1989, as shown in the November issue, was about £378 billion. An analysis of the greater part of this debt using an alternative instrument classification and showing the amount regarded as consumer credit is given in "Financial Statistics" table 9.3.

  Exporters
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the effect upon exporters of current Government policies on interest rates and the pound sterling exchange rate.
  235
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department has assessed the effect upon exporters of current Government policies on interest rates and the pound sterling exchange rate.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the effect upon exporters of current Government policies on interest rates and the pound sterling exchange rate.

  Mr. Ryder
  A forecast of exports for 1990 is given in the Autumn Statement.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount investment by manufacturing industry in the north-west increased during 1988.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Regional information for 1988 is not yet available. Net capital expenditure by manufacturing industries in the north-west in 1987 was £1,204 million, compared with £1,000 million in 1986. The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom as a whole are £9,754 million and £8,705 million. These figures are expressed in current prices. Constant price estimates are not made, because regional price indices are not compiled.

  House Purchase
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate at 1989–90 income levels the cost to the Exchequer of(a) raising the ceiling on mortgage interest relief from £30,000 to £50,000 and (b) raising the ceiling for exemption from stamp duty on land and buildings from £30,000 to £60,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  (a) The direct revenue cost at 1989–90 income levels of raising the ceiling on mortgage interest relief from £30,000 to £50,000 is estimated to be about £900 million. This estimate makes no allowance for any consequential change to the distribution of outstanding mortgages. It is based on a projection of the 1987–88 survey of personal incomes, and is therefore provisional.

  (b) An increase in the stamp duty threshold for land and buildings from £30,000 to £60,000 is estimated to cost about £210 million at forecast 1989–90 levels.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate what general guidance is given to banking institutions in the United Kingdom about the total proportion of Third world debt which would be appropriate for them to consider as irrecoverable for taxation purposes, as defined in his answer of 15 November,Official Report, column 330, when writing off amounts of such debt in any one year.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Inland Revenue issued a statement of practice on 25 January 1983, a copy of which is in the Library, setting out the general principles which it regarded as applying in law to the tax treatment of sovereign and commercial debt. As to the amount, the Bank of England has issued a matrix to the banks to assist them in the process of setting provisions for supervisory purposes; the Inland Revenue has indicated that this should provide relevant material for considering the extent to which specific provisions are properly deductible for tax purposes.

  Market Research
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many market research and sample surveys were carried out by or for the Central Office of Information in the last 12 months; what was the cost of each; what was the total cost; how many were carried out in-house; how many were carried out for the Central Office of Information by outside organisations; and what percentage of the total expenditure was paid to outside organisations.

  Mr. Ryder
  One hundred and forty-four separate research projects were undertaken by COI on behalf of various Government Departments in 1988–89. The total cost of these, including VAT, was £2·3 million. Interviewing, data analysis and the majority of report preparation was undertaken for COI by specialist commercial organisations, usually appointed on tender: some 70 per cent. of the above cost was paid to those outside organisations. The details of each project is a matter for the Department which commissioned the research.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what research has been conducted into the effect of the ending of all personal income tax allowances and in particular the effects on the poverty trap; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  All options for reforming the tax system are kept under review.

  VAT
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total repayment of value added tax to local authorities for the last complete period.

  Mr. Ryder
  Total value added tax repaid to local authorities in the last financial year, 1988–89, was £1,479 million and in the current financial year, up to the end of October, was £1,030 million.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the repayments of value added tax to local authorities.

  Mr. Ryder
  There are no plans at present for a review of the provisions of section 20 of the VAT Act 1983.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Ryder
  No relocations of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department's staff have taken place since May 1979.

  Married Couples (Taxation)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the married couple's allowance, which is to be introduced in April 1990, will be worth as a proportion of the current available personal allowances.
  237
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: The value of the married couple's allowance in 1989–90 terms is £1,590, equivalent to the different between the present single person's and married man's allowances. My right hon. Friend will announce the level of allowances for 1990–91 in the usual way, in next year's Budget.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate at 1989–90 income levels the level to which the ceiling on mortgage interest relief could be raised if the annual cost to the Exchequer were limited to(a) £0·25 billion, (b) £0·5 billion, (c) £1 billion and (d) £2 billion.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Provisional estimates of the costs of increasing the ceiling for mortgage relief above £30,000 are given in the table. All estimates exclude behavioural effects which, for the higher ceilings quoted, would be substantial.

  Direct revenue cost at 1989–90 income levels

  £million

  Ceiling (£)

  250

  34,000

  500

  38,000

  1,000

  54,000

  2,000

  no limit

  Retail Price Index
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what items are included in the calculations for the retail price index of(a) Japan, (b) West Germany, (c) France, (d) the Netherlands, (e) Denmark, (f) Sweden, (g) Canada, (h) the United States of America and (i) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Each national survey office includes a great number of items in its retail price index, details of which are published in national statistical sources. Copies of the relevant material have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The information requested for the United Kingdom was published by the Department of Employment in the Employment Gazette for April 1989.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in manufacturing output in(a) 1964 to 1970, (b) 1970 to 1974, (c) 1974 to 1979 and (d) 1979 to the latest date available; and what was the change in manufacturing output for (i) West Germany, (ii) Japan, (iii) USA, (iv) France, (v) Italy, (vi) Benelux countries and (vii) Spain during the same periods.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Following is the information requested.

  (annual average percentage change)

  1964–70

  1970–74

  1974–79

  1979–88

  United Kingdom

  2·8

  2·2

  -0·6

  0·8

  United States

  4·4

  4·7

  3·8

  3·9

  Japan

  13·7

  5·1

  3·3

  3·9

  Germany

  5·5

  2·0

  1·9

  1·1

  France

  5·1

  5·9

  1·4

  0·4

  Italy

  6·9

  4·5

  2·2

  1·5

  Spain

  12·1

  11·1

  0·3

  1·5

  238

  1964–70

  1970–74

  1974–79

  1979–88

  Belgium

  5·0

  5·2

  0·9

  1·3

  Luxembourg

  2·9

  5·0

  -2·3

  2·9

  Netherlands

  6·9

  4·7

  1·6

  1·7

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Soft Loan Facility
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the aid and trade provision soft loan facility.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1986, a soft loan facility within the aid and trade provision of the overseas aid programme was established for an initial period of five years, ending March 1991. It has enabled ATP grant funds to support long-term loans to developing countries, at concessional rates of interest, provided by private banks and guaranteed by ECGD, for agreed sound development projects. This complemented the existing mixed credit instrument by which ATP grants are provided normally in association with export credits to help finance the capital costs of sound development projects.

  A review of the soft loan facility has now been completed. It has been agreed that the facility should be extended beyond March 1991. The method of ATP support will, however, be changed so that ATP funds used to reduce the rate of interest to the borrower, will be provided over the construction period of the project and during the drawdown period of the loan, rather than as at present over the full life of the loan.

  The proposed new method of funding will enable us to dispense with the need for separate allocations of ATP funds for mixed credits and soft loans. This will enable us to respond more flexibly to individual circumstances using whichever financing mechanism is the more cost effective. The level of the overall ATP allocation within the aid programme is a matter for Ministers to review annually, but no significant future changes are seen at present from current levels of ATP project support.

WALES

  Sheep
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many lowland sheep farmers in each of the Welsh counties have 500 breeding ewes or over; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The number of holdings outside the less favourable areas with 500 breeding ewes or over is shown in the following table:

  At June:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Powys

  13

  13

  4

  Gwynedd

  40

  40

  41

  Dyfed

  22

  27

  28

  Clwyd

  35

  34

  33

  South Glamorgan

  7

  6

  9

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  4

  5

  West Glamorgan

  3

  4

  3

  Gwent

  15

  17

  17

  239

  1 Where fewer than 3 holdings are involved the precise number has been withheld in order to protect individual farmers' confidentiality.

  Corresponding figures for earlier years are not available.

  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on(a) the average size of sheep flocks in Wales and (b) comparable sheep flocks in the rest of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  (a) At June 1988 the average size of a sheep flock in Wales was 587 (head).

  (b) the latest comparable information available is in respect of 1985 and is shown in the following table:

  Average size of sheep flock

  Country

  Number

  Wales

  540

  United Kingdom

  404

  Belgium

  18

  Denmark

  16

  Federal Republic of Germany

  27

  Greece

  38

  France

  69

  Ireland

  91

  Italy

  46

  Luxembourg

  18

  Netherlands

  41

  Europe (10)

  94

  Nursery Factories (Ceredigion)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action has been taken in the current year to build nursery factories in Ceredigion; and what further action is proposed.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Development Board for Rural Wales's factory construction programme for 1989–90 does not contain any proposals to build nursery factories in Ceredigion. I am currently considering the board's proposed factory construction programme for 1990–91 and expect to make an announcement in the new year.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what actions were taken by his Department to establish the causes of food poisoning in Wales between the publication of the annual notification rate for 1985 and April 1989;

  (2) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in food handling in the home;

  (3) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in food production;

  (4) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in agriculture;

  (5) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of
  240
  reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in food technology;

  (6) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in food distribution;

  (7) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in retailing practices;

  (8) what steps were taken by his Department between the publication of the 1985 returns for notification of reported cases of food poisoning in Wales and April 1989 to establish whether rises in the number of cases were linked to changes in catering.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 30 November at column 342. The notifications to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the analyses by the communicable disease surveillance centre will not necessarily indicate the point in the food chain where contamination might have occurred.

  The purpose of the Food Safety Bill is to strengthen food law and improve controls across the whole of the food chain in order to minimise the incidence of food poisoning.

  Area Health Authorities
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) chairpersons and (b) members of area health authorities in Wales he has appointed since June 1987, by reference to each authority area.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Authority

  Chairmen1

  Members

  All reappointments

  New appointments2

  Reappointments

  Clwyd

  2

  4

  2

  Dyfed

  1

  2

  4

  Gwent

  —

  4

  —

  Gwynedd

  —

  6

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  4

  4

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  1

  4

  Powys

  —

  1

  4

  South Glamorgan

  1

  5

  3

  West Glamorgan

  —

  6

  1

  5

  33

  22

  1 The Chairman in Clwyd has been reappointed twice during the period in question.

  2 Three people were appointed and later reappointed during the period in question and appear in both columns.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community psychiatric nurses are employed in each area health authority in Wales; and how many vacancies currently exist for such nurses.

  Mr. Grist
  Information on community psychiatric nurses in post is shown in the following table. Information on vacancies is not available centrally:
  241

  Community psychiatric nurses in post as at 30 September 1989 (whole-time equivalents)

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Clwyd

  49·1

  13·0

  East Dyfed

  21·1

  4·4

  Gwent

  31·5

  16·2

  Gwynedd

  27·0

  23·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  31·9

  13·9

  Pembrokeshire

  5·0

  —

  Powys

  19·0

  6·5

  South Glamorgan

  43·7

  12·0

  West Glamorgan

  25·0

  11·4

  "Working For Patients"
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the White Paper, "Working for Patients"; how many were in favour of the proposals; and how many were against.

  Mr. Grist
  The Department has received several hundred representations on this White Paper from MPs, MEPs, professionals and other representative bodies, trade unions, health authorities and the general public. A detailed analysis could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Therapists
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are attending colleges and universities in Wales which will lead to qualifications entitling them to practise as(a) speech therapists, (b) occupational therapists, (c) physiotherapists and (d) sign language interpreters.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The number of students undergoing training in Wales is shown as follows:

  Number

  Speech therapists

  54

  Occupational therapists

  76

  Physiotherapists

  95

  Speech therapy training is provided at the South Glamorgan institute of higher education. The occupational therapist and physiotherapist students are receiving their training at the combined training institute in Cardiff. A further 43 people are attending an in-service occupational therapy course administered by the Mid Glamorgan district health authority on behalf of the Health Service in Wales.

  No information is held centrally about students training as sign language interpreters.

  Community Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to provide training for social workers and other local authority staff who may be responsible for the community care programme.

  Mr. Grist
  The primary responsibility for training local authority staff in community care rests with local authorities. The Department has provided additional help through its service initiatives for particular client groups and is, for example, spending £436,000 this year on training within the all-Wales mental handicap strategy. Further steps to enhance training in the community care 242
  field, in particular in relation to management and to services for elderly people, are currently under consideration.

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any notification from any doctor's practice in Wales to apply for its own budget pursuant to the proposal contained in the White Paper, "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Grist
  No.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has received any notification from any hospital in Wales that it would seek to apply for a national health hospital trust.

  Mr. Grist
  No.

EMPLOYMENT

  Textiles and Clothing Industries
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on job losses in the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on job losses in the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statment on job losses in the United Kingdom textile and clothing industries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates of employees in employment in the textile and clothing industries in Great Britain from June 1984 to June 1989 are set out in the table which follows. Estimates for the United Kingdom are not available.

  Employees in employment in textile and clothing industries (SIC 80) Great Britain

  (Thousands)

  Textiles

  Clothing including fur goods

  SIC 43

  SIC 453

  June 1984

  233·5

  212·2

  June 1985

  234·5

  213·0

  June 1986

  238·2

  210·7

  June 1987

  229·0

  205·0

  June 1988

  231·0

  204·3

  June 1989

  217·8

  192·8

  Changes

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  June 1984 to June 1989

  -15·8

  -19·4

  (-6·7)

  (-9·1)

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many jobs have been lost in the textile and clothing industries in the United Kingdom over the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 5 December 1989]: Estimates of employees in employment in the textile and

  243
  clothing industries in Great Britain from June 1984 to June 1989 are set out in the table which follows. Estimates for the United Kingdom are not available.

  Employees in employment in textile and clothing industries (SIC 80) Great Britain

  (Thousands)

  Textiles SIC 43

  Clothing (including fur goods) SIC 453

  June 1984

  233·5

  212·2

  June 1985

  234·5

  213·0

  June 1986

  238·2

  210·7

  June 1987

  229·0

  205·0

  June 1988

  231·0

  204·3

  June 1989

  217·8

  192·8

  Changes

  June 1984—June 1989

  -15·8

  -19·4

  (-6·7 per cent·)

  (-9·1 per cent·)

  Training Credits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the proposals for training credits for young people.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are many issues to be considered before any decision is reached on the recommendation in the CBI's task force report in favour of training credits. The Government are examining the report's recommendations with interest.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training and enterprise councils in Wales have received development funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has approved applications for development funding from five groups of employers in Wales.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which London boroughs participate in employment training; and how many places each of them has.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The London boroughs which are employment training training managers and the number of places each has contracted for are given in the following table. Boroughs may also participate through providing practical training placements or directed training (at their colleges) to other training managers. Information is not kept centrally on such involvement.

  Employment Training London boroughs: contracted places September 1989

  Borough

  Places

  Enfield

  300

  Brent

  250

  Harrow

  150

  Kingston upon Thames

  150

  Hounslow

  400

  Hillingdon

  100

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in the Barnsley, East constituency are currently registered on the employment training scheme.
  244
  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on the numbers on employment training is not available for the Barnsley, East constituency. On 24 November 1989, the latest date for which information is available, there were 1,752 trainees on employment training in Barnsley, which includes the Barnsley, East constituency.

  British Coal (Disabled Employees)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what percentage of the work force employed by British Coal are registered as disabled.

  Mr. Eggar
  As at 1 June 1988, 0·4 per cent. of the work force of British Coal were registered disabled, as published in the Employment Gazette in May 1989. Figures for 1989 will be published early in the new year.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to designate employment training as an approved training scheme in 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My Department has no plans to designate employment training as an approved training scheme.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to make refusal of a place on employment training evidence that a claimant is not actively seeking work.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Employment training offers a valuable route back into work which all long-term unemployed people would do well to consider. Well over 500,000 people have already benefited from training on the programme.

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to make restart courses compulsory.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are no such plans, but conditions attached to restart courses are kept continuously under review.

  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what dates(a) Rochdale football club, (b) Manchester United football club, (c) Manchester City football club, (d) Stockport County football club, (e) Oldham Athletic football club, (f) Bury football club and (g) Bolton Wanderers football club were last inspected by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Club

  Date of last inspection

  (a) Rochdale Football Club

  14 February 1977

  (b) Manchester United Football Club

  9 May 1984

  (c) Manchester City Football Club

  No inspection visits made

  (d) Stockport County Football Club

  No inspection visits made

  (e) Oldham Athletic Football Club

  23 November 1977

  245

  Club

  Date of last inspection

  (f) Bury Football Club

  No inspection visits made

  (g) Bolton Wanderers Football Club

  8 June 1988

  Inspections of football clubs by the Health and Safety Executive are restricted to the health, safety and welfare of employees. Enforcement of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which covers spectator safety, is the responsibility of local authorities.

  Relocation
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Eggar
  On 2 August 1989, my right hon. Friend announced that 1,100 jobs from my Department's headquarters in London, Watford and Reading will be moved to Runcorn (800) and Sheffield (300) over the next two to three years.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the number of staff affected.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6 November 1989 at columns 471–72 to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

  Table 1—Applications registered

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  581

  582

  581

  582

  581

  582

  581

  582

  Applications registered

  822

  15

  4,760

  12

  421

  6

  334

  3

  Table 2—Outcome of applications to industrial tribunals

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  581

  582

  581

  582

  581

  582

  581

  582

  ACAS—Settlement

  1291

  6

  2907

  3

  33,776

  3

  88

  2

  Other—Withdrawal

  150

  4

  151

  4

  186

  2

  143

  2

  Successful

  56

  7

  51

  2

  35

  —

  15

  2

  Dismissed—Out of scope

  115

  1

  31

  1

  48

  —

  12

  —

  Dismissed—Other reasons

  110

  6

  145

  3

  72

  2

  73

  1

  Disposed of—Otherwise

  8

  138

  —

  42

  —

  5

  —

  Total

  730

  24

  1,423

  13

  4,159

  7

  336

  7

  1 Including multiple application of c. 125.

  2 Including multiple application of c. 780.

  3 Including multiple application of c. 3400.

  Notes on tables:

  581 = Complaints under Section 58 (1)(a) and (b).

  582 = Complaints under Section 58 (1)(c).

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of applications to industrial tribunals under section 27 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 recorded in the period 1979–88 and indicate of those(a) the number of Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service conciliated

  BAT Factory (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the overall effect on unemployment in Liverpool of the proposed closure of the British American Tobacco factory.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is not possible to estimate the overall effect that the proposed closure will have on unemployment in Liverpool. The company has announced that 476 jobs will be lost at the Liverpool site.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department was informed of the proposed closure of the British American Tobacco factory in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The company sent my right hon. Friend an advance copy of the press release which it issued on 24 November.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of applications to industrial tribunals under section 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in the period of 1984 to 1988 and indicate how many were complaints under section 58(1)(a) and (b) compared with the number under section 58(1)(c); and if he will give the outcome of these cases under the two separate categories and indicate(a) the number of Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service conciliated settlements, (b) withdrawal, not via Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, (c) successful at tribunal hearing, (d) dismissed at tribunal out of scope, (e) dismissed at tribunal hearing, other reasons and (f) disposed of otherwise.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information, which is available in the form requested only from 1985 onwards, is set out in the tables:

  settlements, (b) withdrawal not via the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, (c) successful at tribunal hearing, (d) dismissed at tribunal out of scope, (e) dismissed at tribunal hearing, other reasons and (f) disposed of otherwise, respectively.
  247
  Mr. Nicholls
  Most of the information is not available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is set out in the tables:

  Table 1—Applications registered:1

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Applications registered

  60

  149

  1 The figures in this table refer to applications under sections 27, 28, 29, 31 and 31A of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Separate figures for applications under section 27 are not available.

  Table 2—Outcomes of cases falling under section 27:

  1987–88

  1988–89

  ACAS—settlement

  2

  2

  Other—withdrawal

  14

  147

  Successful

  2

  2

  Dismissed—out of scope

  3

  —

  Dismissed—other reasons

  4

  3

  Disposed of otherwise

  —

  —

  Total

  25

  54

  1 Includes multiple application of 28.

  CBI Skills Report
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received about the Confederation of British Industry report "Towards a Skills Revolution—A Youth Charter"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: There are many issues to be considered before any decision is reached on the recommendation in the CBI's task force report in favour of training credits. The Government are examining the report's recommendations with interest.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cholecystokinin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the veterinary products committee has considered an application for an animal test certificate in respect of cholecystokinin.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Spanish Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of Spanish fishing vessels registered as British in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and the latest available month of 1989, the number of such vessels prosecuted for fishing offences in each year and the present location of Spanish vessels whose British registration was withdrawn under the Merchant Shipping Act.

  Mr. Curry
  Definitive annual figures are not available, but our current estimate is that the number of fishing vessels on the British register which were beneficially owned abroad (mostly in Spain) rose from about 43 in 1985 to about 140 at the time the new registration provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act came into effect on 1 April 1989. At present no vessel can be registered as 248
  a British fishing vessel unless its owners are resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom and the vessel's operations are directed and controlled from this country. The information on prosecutions of vessels believed to be beneficially owned in Spain is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1985

  2

  1986

  0

  1987

  14

  1988

  7

  1989 (to end March)

  26

  No comprehensive information is available on the location of vessels which ceased to be registered as British fishing vessels on 1 April. A number are laid up in this country; others are understood to be in Spain.

  Liriomyza Trifollii
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will ban the importation of plants from Holland in order to control the spread of Liriomyza trifollii among plants;

  (2) what compensation is proposed for those growers compelled to destroy crops inflicted with Liriomyza trifollii;

  (3) what has been the incidence of Liriomyza trifollii in plants over the last 10 years: and what steps are being taken by his Department to counter this problem.

  Mr. Curry
  Between 1979 and 1988 there were about 350 confirmed Ministry findings of the North American leafminer, Liriomyza trifollii, on plants. The Ministry has maintained a policy of eradication of this pest and has so far succeeded in ensuring that it has not become established in this country. No compensation is given by the Government to growers who are compelled to destroy crops infested with the pest. However, we are operating eradication measures which are designed to limit the loss suffered by producers to the minimum necessary to secure eradication and in practice this often now means the destruction of plants can be avoided. We have recently reached agreement with the Dutch authorities on a wide range of measures necessary to combat the threat from the South American leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis. We are watching the situation very carefully and will not hesitate to take further action if necessary.

  Porcine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions the veterinary products committee has considered the issue of porcine somatotropin; and whether they have reached any conclusion.

  Mr. Maclean
  The VPC twice considered an application for an animal test certificate for porcine somatotropin product in 1987 and recommended that it should not be granted.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any current animal test certificates exists in respect of porcine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Sulphadimidine
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the clearance given to sulphadimidine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Licensed veterinary medicines containing the active ingredient sulphadimidine are in the process of being reviewed as part of a general exercise to ensure that licensed products meet current standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Decisions on the granting or revocation of licences are being taken on a product-by-product basis.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of all those commodities for which an intervention regime exists, held in store, giving in respect of each, by volume and value, the current stocks and the level at the appropriate time in 1988.

  Mr. Curry
  Stocks levels in 1988 and 1989 of commodities for which an intervention regime exists are held in the Library of the House. Valuation figures may vary according to the age of the stock and are shown in the table for the United Kingdom (comparable figures for the European Community are not available).

  Commodity

  1988 (£/tonne)

  1989 (£/tonne)

  Reference/month (end of)

  Butter

  1,536·95

  1,422·35

  September

  SMP

  1,046·69

  1—

  September

  Beef

  1,807·64

  1,309·63

  August

  Feed Wheat

  63·86

  35·77

  October

  Bread Wheat

  68·83

  1—

  October

  Barley

  61·50

  35·77

  October

  Rye

  57·96

  1—

  October

  1 = No Stocks

  Date

  Work Unit

  Number of posts

  Location of origin

  Location of transfer

  1981

  Finance (travel claims section)

  32

  Inner London

  Alnwick

  Office Services (publications section)

  20

  Pinner

  Alnwick

  1987

  Office Services (stationery section)

  4

  Pinner and Inner London

  Alnwick

  April 1988

  Statistics (census and prices)

  20

  Inner London

  Guildford

  April 1988

  Information Technology Directorate

  5

  Inner London

  Guildford

  August 1988

  ADAS Cartographic Unit

  11

  Inner London

  Gloucester

  May-October 1989

  Establishments (General) (Superannuation Section)

  28

  Inner London

  Exeter

  Food Science Laboratory

  20

  Inner London

  Norwich

  About 70 per cent. of the Ministry's staff are currently located outside London.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affectted.

  Mr. Curry
  Officials of my Ministry are currently considering the potential for further relocation of headquarters' work away from the south-east, and a relocation concerning work of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce is also under consideration. It is too early to say what numbers of posts may be affected. A decision has already been taken to relocate the Ministry's central science laboratory, involving about 400 posts, to a site in the midlands. A decision has also been taken to

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into alternatives to organophosphorous sheep dips; and if he plans to alter the regulations relating to such chemicals.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is currently funding research at Bristol university into fly control on sheep, with preference given to the use of non-organaphosphorous compounds. I have no plans to change the controls which apply to sheep dips under the Medicines Act.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the use of organophosphorous sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  Sheep must be dipped to an approved standard under the terms of the Sheep Scab Order 1976, and the sheep dips authorised for this purpose under the Medicines Act have all been subject to a stringent review of their safety, quality and efficacy. Instructions and conditions of use are required to be specified on the product labels.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Curry
  Full details of all office relocations over the period in question are not readily available. The following blocks of work have been or are being relocated away from the London area since May 1979:

  relocate the Ministry's records review work, currently being undertaken at Chessington, to Alnwick during the first half of next year. This work will replace that now being done by staff at Alnwick, but its transfer will not result in any redundancies in either location.

  Aplastic Anaemia
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of the link between the development of aplastic anaemia and lindane and pentachlorophenol.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Health and Safety Executive is currently reviewing lindane and is looking at the available evidence for a link between lindane and the development of aplastic anaemia. The Advisory Committee on
  251
  Pesticides will be advising Ministers of the results of this review. I know of no evidence of a link between aplastic anaemia and pentachlorophenol.

  Genetically Engineered Organisms
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals for the regulation of the use of genetically engineered organisms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have been asked to reply.

  Yes. As envisaged in the Queen's Speech, my Department intends to introduce an environmental protection Bill this parliamentary Session, which will include appropriate provisions. These will augment existing legislative controls over the use of genetically engineered or modified organisms to provide additional protection against any risks to the environment arising from the import, containment or release to the environment of such organisms.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Transport
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to ensure that subsection (6)(a) of the Road Traffic, Transport and

  Numbers of eligible non-recipients for income related benefits

  Thousands

  Supplementary benefit 1985

  Housing benefit 1985 (1)(2)

  Family income supplement 1985–86 (2)(3)

  Pensioners

  380

  760

  1(4)

  Sick and disabled

  50

  2—

  1(4)

  Unemployed

  330

  2—

  1(4)

  One-parent families

  20

  2—

  2(5)

  Others

  60

  2—

  2(5)

  Total

  840

  1,610

  190(6)

  1 — not applicable.

  2 — not available.

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to those eligible for standard FIB only as non recipients of certificated Housing benefit will already be included as non recipients of supplementary benefit. In total, approximately 1·8 million households are eligible and not receiving standard or certificated HB.

  2. Figures exclude families where the head or spouse is in full-time self-employment.

  3. Based on pooled FES data for reasons of sample size.

  4. FIS was paid to working families with children whose gross weekly income was less than a 'prescribed amount' determined by the number of children.

  5. Although two years' survey data are pooled the number of sample cases are still small and insufficient to provide reliable estimates of these figures.

  6. This figure will include some families who are also shown in column two as non recipients of HB.

  7. Estimates are based on the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Source: Technical notes on take-up of benefits. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library or on request from DSS.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the working of the family credit regulations to ensure that low-income self-employed families do not lose their entitlement to assistance because of the interpretation of the authorities that they must abide by cash movement rules, rather than normal accountancy treatment of overhead costs and stock fluctuations.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We believe that a trading profit arrived at by normal accountancy practices is not an appropriate basis for arriving at the income to be taken into account in calculating family credit. The cash-flow basis was introduced when family credit replaced family
  252
  Roads (N.I.) Order has been fully complied with when making the Road and Railway Transport 1989 Statutory Rule No. 400 in respect of the Level Crossing (Coleraine Bushmills Road) Revocation Order (Northern Ireland) 1989.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The provisions of that subsection did not apply to the making of the order.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Take-up
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of(a) elderly people, (b) sick and disabled people, (c) unemployed people, (d) one-parent families, (e) others and (f) total who are not claiming benefit to which they are entitled, giving the date to which his estimates apply.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our latest estimates show that 90 per cent. of income-related benefit to which people are entitled is claimed.

  The detailed information requested is as follows:

  income supplement in 1988 as being more appropriate for this purpose, and we have no plans to 'review it at this stage.

  Income Support
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to reform the income support transitional provisions as they relate to families with children in care who return on home leave; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We intend, shortly, to bring forward amending regulations so that transitional
  253
  additions are not reduced when children in local authority care return home temporarily on leave. Until they are in place, extra-statutory payments will be available.

  Child Support
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will update to April 1990 the information provided in the reply of 28 November 1988 to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett),Official Report, columns 93–94, relating to child support, giving figures in columns (g) and (h) in September 1989 prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Although upratings of benefit are calculated by reference to the movement in the index of retail prices to September, comparisons in the value of benefits are more meaningful if made at general uprating dates. The figures requested as at April 1989 were given in the reply of 6 November 1989 to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) at columns 459–60.

  Community Care Grant
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services, further to his reply of 27 November,Official Report, column 154, who is responsible for setting his priority of community care grant clients' needs.

  Mr. Scott
  The Secretary of State's general guidance on priorities and priority groups is in the social fund manual, a copy of which is in the Library. As I explained in my previous reply, local office managers give social fund officers further guidance on priorities taking account of local circumstances. Guidance is not binding on social fund officers. Each case must be considered on its merits. A social fund officer may decide, for example, that an item normally classed as of low priority should, in the light of the applicant's circumstances, be treated as high priority.

  Dietary Requirements
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance is issued to social fund officers about the dietary requirements of(a) adult men, (b) adult women, (c) children and (d) those persons aged 16 and 17 years when considering a claim for a crisis loan or income support under severe hardship rules.

  Mr. Scott
  Social fund officers are not provided with guidance on the dietary requirements of different categories of people. We expect social fund officers to use their experience and judgment in deciding how much an applicant needs in a crisis to avoid serious risk to the health and safety of the individual or his family. This will depend on the circumstances of each case including any particular health problems.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British nuclear test veterans are in receipt of(a) attendance allowance, (b) mobility allowance and (c) invalidity allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that the information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 14 November 1989 that 150 posts from the office of the chief adjudication officer in Southampton, and 650 London-based posts are to be relocated to Leeds starting in late 1991. The latter posts include those required for the headquarters of the forthcoming benefits agency, the chief medical adviser's divisions and some other administrative functions, such as liaison with agencies, pay and records, staff training and estate management.

  I should emphasise that these movements are of posts rather than of staff as such. All London-based staff will be asked whether they are prepared to move whether their particular post is affected or not. The Department hopes that sufficient staff will move voluntarily to avoid the need for any compulsory transfers.

  Vibration White Finger
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of applications made by applicants claiming to suffer from vibration white finger, under regulation 13 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1986, at local offices of his Department in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Glasgow, (c) Dundee, (d) Sunderland, (e) Newcastle and (f) Liverpool in each of the the past two years and in the current year up to the most recent date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional families would qualify for family credit if the £6,000 capital limit were increased to £8,000 or abolished; and what would be the cost of each of these changes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimates are as follows:

  Increase in FC caseload

  Full year cost at current rate

  Capital limit increased to £8,000

  Less than 500

  Less than £100,000

  Capital limit abolished

  Approx.1,500

  Around £1 million

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will publish a table showing, for men and women aged 16, 20, 30, and 40 years in April 1988, the
  255
  ages at which it would pay the person concerned to cease contributing to a personal pension or other money purchase scheme, assuming rates of return of 0·5 per cent. and 2·5 per cent. above the annual increase in average earnings and, in other respects, making the same assumptions as were made in calculating the similar figures given in the letter dated 10 October from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table provides the first age at which the projected pension from the invested rebate is less than the corresponding GMP. These estimates are critically dependent on a number of illustrative assumptions which should not be taken as predictions of what future policy might be. These are:

  (i) the contracted-out rebate for illustrative purposes only is assumed to be 5·8 per cent. of earnings between the lower and upper limits for NI contributions, declining to 3·75 per cent. by 2018;

  (ii) the lower and upper earnings limits are assumed to increase in future in line with prices;

  (iii) the contracted-out rebate is boosted by a 2 per cent. incentive addition for personal pensions and newly contracted-out occupational schemes up to 1992–93;

  (iv) men are assumed to take their pension at 65, women at 60.

  First age at which the projected pension from the invested rebate is less than the corresponding GMP

  Personal pension rate of return1

  Money purchase rate of return1

  Age at April 1988

  ½ per cent.

  2½ per cent.

  ½ per cent.

  2½ per cent.

  Male

  16

  31

  49

  36

  54

  20

  34

  50

  36

  54

  30

  35

  50

  40

  53

  40

  45

  48

  45

  50

  Female

  16

  21

  38

  24

  42

  20

  25

  40

  25

  43

  30

  35

  41

  35

  45

  40

  40

  45

  40

  45

  1 Rates of return are in excess of increase in earnings.

  Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  BAT Factory (Liverpool)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated additional cost in benefit payments for the people who will lose their jobs in the British American Tobacco factory, Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No such estimate has been made.

  Benefit Payments (Liverpool and Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of benefit payments to his Department for the unemployed in(a) Liverpool and (b) Merseyside for the latest available date.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No such estimate can be made.

  Attendance and Mobility Allowances
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to unify the application procedure, medical examination and appeals system for attendance allowance and mobility allowance for claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We will announce our proposals to improve the balance and structure of disability benefits within the next few months. Any changes in benefit administration will need to be considered in the light of those proposals.

  Benefits (Residence Conditions)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what changes will be made to the residence conditions for social security benefits in respect of periods spent in other member states of the European Community following the completion of the internal market in 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what changes will be made to the residence conditions for social security benefits in respect of citizens of other member states of the European Community following the completion of the internal market in 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Community citizens who are employed or self-employed may be able to take advantage of the co-ordination arrangements which already cover social security for migrant workers throughout the Community. In the case of those social security benefits where residence conditions apply, there are at present no plans to make any changes as a result of the completion of the internal market in 1992.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons above the age of(a) 60, (b) 65 and (c) 70 years he has appointed to public bodies in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Waddington
  This information is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Magistrates Courts Clerks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve magistrates courts clerk shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the course of 1989, we have authorised the creation of 82 additional court clerk trainee posts; and we have made provision in public expenditure for a further increase next financial year. I have also approved for grant purposes the pay agreement from 1 July 1989 reached in the joint negotiating committee for magistrates courts staff which recognises the recruitment and retention requirements for court clerks. We are additionally seeking to raise the recruitment profile of the service by publishing two new careers booklets and by funding stands at two major careers fairs in collaboration with the Association of Magistrates Courts, whose work in co-ordinating the efforts of magistrates courts committees to recruit court clerks we fully endorse.

  Abortion Clinics (Picketing)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested in the last six months as a result of picketing outside abortion clinics; and how many people have been charged with an offence as a result of these arrests.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available.

  Drugs
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to set up a fund to counter the use and supply of illicit drugs.

  Mr. Mellor
  Subject to detailed scrutiny of estimates and parliamentary approval, we are to set up a new central fund of £1 million in 1990–91 to enable the Government to meet some of the additional costs of international drugs efforts, including investigations by the police and rewards to major informants.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures police forces are taking in conjunction with local education authorities to warn pupils of the dangers of drug taking.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) On 5 December.

  Racing
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library the findings of the Lloyds merchant bank inquiry into the feasibility of privatising the Tote;

  (2) if he will publish the findings of the Lloyds merchant bank inquiry in to the feasibility of privatising the Tote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The advice in the report by Lloyds merchant bank on the feasibility of privatising the Tote will not be made public because it was given in confidence to my right hon. and learned Friend, and contains commercially and managerially sensitive information.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement on the independent inquiry into the feasibility of privatising the Tote.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The advice from Lloyds merchant bank on the feasibility of privatising the Tote is at present still under consideration, and the Government's conclusions will be made known in due course.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the initiation of an inquiry into the financing of horse and greyhound racing.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is considering whether or not to establish such an inquiry.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the 258
  Grand Metropolitan/William Hill merger, published by it on 23 August; and whether the Director of Fair Trading is continuing to keep concerns mentioned in the report under review;

  (2) what steps he has taken in relation to the explicit concerns highlighted within the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of 23 August into the merger of the Grand Metropolitan and William Hill organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 23 August that he had accepted the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the acquistion by Grand Metropolitan plc of William Hill. Action is being taken to implement those recommendations, including action by the Director General of Fair Trading. The Director General will also continue to monitor developments in the betting industry under those parts of the competition legislation for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the current position of Satellite Information Service and (b) the future powers of horse and dog racecourses and stadia to enter into commercial deals.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is continuing to monitor developments in the betting and racing industries in accordance with the provisions of United Kingdom competition legislation. In general we take the view that commercial deals are matters for the parties concerned, subject to the provisions of the competition legislation (the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, and the Competition Act 1980).

  Probation Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the current extent of delays in the probation service in worst and best cases in dealing with(a) conciliation cases and (b) child welfare reports, both in divorce cases.

  Mr. John Patten
  The figures on which such an estimate would have to be based are not collected locally or centrally.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the work of the probation service in conciliation and child welfare reports in civil divorce cases; what studies he has commissioned on this work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no proposals at present to alter the arrangements under which this work is done. Her Majesty's inspectorate of probation, as part of their continuing programme of inquiries into specific themes of probation service work, will shortly be starting on an investigation of the civil work of the probation service.

  Passports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to withdraw passports issued to British subjects or restrict their use; and how many have been withdrawn or restricted in each of the last five years and 1989 to date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Withdrawal of a passport would be considered on the same basis as would refusal of an application, that is in the case of:

  (a) a minor whose journey was known to be contrary to a court order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority to whom a court had awarded custody, care and control or to the provisions of section 25(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended, or section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976;

  (b) a person for whose arrest a warrant had been issued in the United Kingdom or who was wanted by the police on suspicion of a serious crime;

  (c) in very rare cases, a person whose past or proposed activities were so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest;

  (d) a person repatriated at public expense until the debt has been repaid.

  Records of withdrawals are maintained only for category (c). These are extremely rare and there were none in the period specified.

  United Kingdom passports are valid for travel to all countries in the world, and there are no plans to restrict their use.

  Prison Management (Complaints)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes he has made in the application of the prior ventilation rule in respect of writing to a solicitor complaining about a member of prison management; when each change was made; and by what means each change was announced;

  (2) whether the prior ventilation rule in respect of writing to a solicitor complaining about a member of prison management has been abolished.

  Mr. Mellor
  The prior ventilation rule, under which all complaints by prisoners had to be pursued through internal channels before a prisoner could take his complaint outside, was replaced in 1981 by the simultaneous ventilation rule, which required complaints to be raised internally at the same time as they were raised with an outside body. Notice of this change was given to prison establishments in circular instruction 34/1981, which took effect in December 1981.

  In December 1983, the Divisional court ruled in the case of Anderson that the simultaneous ventilation rule should not apply to a complaint made by a prisoner to his legal adviser. The implications of this judgment were explained in a letter from the prison department to all establishments on 22 December 1983. Circular instruction 48/1984 formally confirmed that correspondence with legal advisers which referred to unventilated complaints or allegations against staff should no longer be stopped unless it was clear from the content that the inmate was writing for some purpose other than obtaining legal advice about possible proceedings.

  On 24 January 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), announced in a written reply at
  260
  column 516 that it had been decided to abolish the simultaneous ventilation rule in respect of all correspondence. Details of the change, and of accompanying amendments to the prison rules governing adjudications, were set out in circular instruction 9/1989, which took effect on 1 April 1989.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public money was spent by the Commission for Racial Equality in each year since its conception.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is provided in the following table:

  Financial year

  Expenditure (£)

  1977–78

  3,672,701

  1978–79

  4,903,175

  1979–80

  5,939,083

  1980–81

  6,931,731

  1981–82

  7,526,822

  1982–83

  8,306,586

  1983–84

  8,718,454

  1984–85

  9,280,549

  1985–86

  9,444,957

  1986–87

  10,530,039

  1987–88

  10,946,831

  1988–89

  11,273,825

  Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals for charging fees for(a) indefinite leave to remain, (b) extension of visitors' visas, (c) extension of student visas or (d) extension of business persons' visas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Section 9 of the Immigration Act 1988 makes provision for the charging of fees in connection with applications for, or the grant of, indefinite leave to remain. The Government are considering how and when that provision might be implemented and an announcement will be made at the apropriate time. There are no plans for the introduction of fees in connection with any category of limited leave to remain.

  Police Conduct
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of police officers as agents provocateur.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Guidance has been issued to all chief police officers which states that no member of a police force should counsel, incite or procure the commission of a crime. Furthermore, all police forces are aware of the need for care to avoid plain clothes officers placing themselves in situations where accusations could be made that they have acted as agents provocateur. I understand that briefing is normally given to all police officers taking part in such operations to ensure they avoid behaviour which could be so construed.

  Cabinet (Police Protection)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the Exchequer of police protection for members of the Cabinet for the years 1970 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Safer Cities Campaign
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the objectives of the safer cities campaign; what were the results in 1988; and whether the programme will be continued.

  Mr. John Patten
  The objectives of the safer cities programme are to reduce crime, lessen the fear of crime, and to create safer cities within which economic enterprise and community life can flourish. In 1988, the programme was announced, nine areas agreed to take part and project development began in all of them. Twelve projects are now operational, with four more due to become so shortly. We plan to establish four further projects during 1990.

  Charities
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review the law on charities.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government's proposals for the reform of the law on charities are set out in the White Paper, "Charities: A Framework for the Future" (Cm 694) which was published in May.

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for relatives to visit people held in custody.

  Mr. Mellor
  Convicted adult prisoners and convicted young offenders are entitled to a minimum of one half-hour visit every 28 days and 14 days respectively. More, and longer, visits are allowed wherever practicable.

  Unconvicted prisoners are normally allowed a 5-minute vsit every day excluding Sunday (in some establishments), Christmas day, Boxing day and Good Friday. Longer visits are allowed wherever possible. In the event of particular difficulties at an establishment the regional director may authorise a reduction in the frequency of visits as long as the aggregated entitlement of one and a half hours per week is maintained.

  Relatives on income support or on low incomes are able to claim travelling expenses for one prison visit every 28 days.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the latest request from Nottingham county council on the provision of more police in Nottingham.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 23 November at column 12 that he had approved an increase of 26 police posts for the Nottinghamshire constabulary with effect from 1 April 1990.
  262
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probationary policemen are currently operating in the Metropolitan police force; what percentage of the force they represent; what the situation is in other parts of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on police forces in England and Wales, for which my right hon. and learned Friend has responsibility, is as follows:

  Probationer constables

  Percentage of strength

  Metropolitan Police1

  3,582

  12·7

  Provincial forces2

  9,249

  9·7

  1 As at 27 November 1989.

  2 As at 31 December 1988.

  Shops Act 1950
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to seek to amend the Shops Act 1950 in the light of the recent conclusion of the European Court; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Government have made it clear that they favour reform of the law but that legislation depends on agreement being reached on proposals that would command widespread support. This is not the case at present.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of neighbourhood watch schemes in the Easington constituency in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and what steps he is taking to promote and extend the scheme.

  Mr. John Patten
  There were seven neighbourhood watch schemes in Easington in 1986, 17 schemes in 1987 and 30 schemes in 1988.

  The national crime prevention organisation Crime Concern was set up in 1988, to stimulate local crime prevention activity, including neighbourhood watch: its recent work has included a conference on the management of neighbourhood watch schemes held on 30 November and attended by over 70 representatives of police forces. The launch in October of phase 3 of the Home Office's crime prevention publicity campaign saw the publication of the third edition of the handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime", which contains a wealth of advice on neighbourhood watch.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received regarding inadequate street lighting from(a) women and (b) pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received six representations in the last 18 months from women and pensioners, including one from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbot) and one from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). We have also received representations from members of the Parliament lighting group. We recognise that there is
  263
  considerable public concern about the possible link between street lighting and crime. This is why we are undertaking research, most notably in the London borough of Wandsworth, to examine that link. Interim results from this research should be available during the first half of next year.

  Lighting is only one factor to be considered in preventing crime and reducing the fear of crime. The Government have made available advice on the personal safety of women and the elderly in the publication "Practical Ways to Crack Crime", of which nearly 3 million copies have been distributed.

  Birmingham Six
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his reasons for advising against the decision of the European Parliament to launch an investigation into circumstances surrounding the conviction of the Birmingham Six.

  Mr. John Patten
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said in reply to another question from my hon. Friend on 29 November, we believe that it would be wholly inappropriate for the European Parliament to inquire into the convictions of the Birmingham Six, which are within national competence.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates at present in prisons in England and Wales and serving a life sentence have been in prison for more than(a) 15 years, (b) 20 years, (c) 25 years and (d) 30 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 8.3 of the latest issue, for 1988, Cm 825). The latest available information is given in the table.

  Life sentence prisoners held under their original sentence1 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 September 1989: by time spent under sentence in such establishments

  Years spent under sentence2

  Number of prisoners3

  Up to 15 years

  2,463

  Over 15 up to 20 years

  154

  Over 20 up to 25 years

  45

  Over 25 up to 30 years

  7

  Over 30 years

  4

  Total

  2,673

  1 Excluding 104 prisoners recalled following an earlier release on licence.

  2 Excluding any time spent on remand in custody or in Non-Prison Service establishments.

  3 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Waddington
  Since 1979, four main units of the Home Office have been relocated in part or in whole. The 264
  computing and pay services division (301 posts) was relocated from London to Bootle in 1982–83; the prison service south-east regional office (74 posts) from Tolworth to Woking in 1987; 88 posts were transferred from the London passport office to Glasgow in 1988–89; and 108 posts in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board from London to Glasgow in 1989.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Waddington
  As I said in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 10 November 1989 at column 802, I am considering the possible relocation from the London area of a number of. Home Office functions. No firm indication can be given at present as to the number of staff who would be affected.

  Law of Evidence (Confessions)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will propose legislation to reform the criminal law of England so that evidence as to a confession by an accused person cannot, of itself, be sufficient to found a finding of guilt.

  Mr. John Patten
  We shall consider what changes in law or practice may be needed as regards confession evidence and other matters in the light of the findings of the judicial inquiry which is being conducted by Sir John May into the convictions of the Guildford Four and the Maguire family.

  Prison Meals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prison meals are served on a daily basis; and what percentage are special diet meals;

  (2) what consultation takes place where prisons provide special meals for ethnic minorities, vegetarians and vegans to ensure that such foodstuffs are palatable, nutritious, balanced and that menus are not repetitive and unsustaining;

  (3) what percentage of prisons accommodate special diets for ethnic minorities; and how many meals are served on a daily basis;

  (4) what percentage of prisons provide meals for vegans; and how many such meals are prepared daily;

  (5) what percentage of prisons provide meals for vegetarians; and how many such meals are prepared daily.

  Mr. Mellor
  Details of inmates in minority groups and their location are not recorded centrally. In total about 146,000 meals are served daily to inmates in prison service establishments in England and Wales, of which about 26,000 (18 per cent.) are estimated to be variations from the normal dietary.

  All meals are prepared according to centrally determined dietary scales designed to meet published nutritional standards which accommodate recognised food preferences.

  Each establishment prepares special meals to meet the needs of its current population, and also varies its standard menus to take into account known preferences. The number of meals served to certain minority groups is estimated as follows:

  265

  8,500 for a variety of ethnic minorities.

  1,200 for vegans.

  15,000 for vegetarians.

  1,500 for inmates requiring a modified diet under prescription from a medical officer.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to reduce the incidence of the LD50 test on animals in research laboratories; and if he will make it his policy that no further licences be issued.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We welcome the initiative by British scientists in the European Community and the OECD to reduce the need for this test for the classification of substances. We have no plans to refuse licences where my right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that the work is justified under section 5 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Victim Support Schemes
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many victim support schemes now operate in England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  Three hundred and fifty four.

  Byelaws
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many personnel are assigned to work relating to byelaws; and at what cost.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The equivalent of 5·25 full-time staff work on applications for byelaws. The cost (salaries, accommodation and office services) is £115,000 a year.

  Departmental Archives
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the documents and archives confiscated by the Home Office following raids on the printers Kommunistischer Arbeiter Bildungverein in 1917 or 1918 at their premises in Charlotte street, London W1, and on the International Socialist Club, 28 City road, London EC1 in 1920, are still in the possession of his Department.

  Mr. Waddington
  I have set inquiries in hand to locate any papers relating to these incidents and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

DEFENCE

  Red Arrows
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the figures for 1988–89 for(a) recruits attracted and (b) the cost of the programme (i) per machine or pilot and (ii) per show after displays by the Red Arrows display team.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that the information on recruits is not available. The operating costs of the Red Arrows' flying programme are approximately £13·5 million per annum at 1988–89 prices.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last 15 years the venues at which the 266
  Red Arrows have displayed their skills; and if he will make a statement regarding the preliminary list for consideration in December of next year's programme.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I regret that the list of venues could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort. However, the Red Arrows have given some 1,600 displays since 1975. As regards the 1990 programme, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 3 November at column 379.

  UK-US Liaison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify and date the United States-United Kingdom bilateral agreements made within the framework of United Kingdom-United States wartime host nation support lines of communication arrangement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States-United Kingdom lines of communication arrangement has been in existence since 1973 and permits the United States to establish, operate and maintain lines of communication and ancililary facilties in the United Kingdom for use under emergency conditions as part of their NATO obligations. Joint contingency plans in support of this arrangement have been drawn up. The arrangement and the details of the plans are classified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify the posts, ranks and responsibilities of United Kingdom military personnel designated to liaise with the United States European command logistics co-ordinator in the United Kingdom(a) in peacetime, (b) in crisis and (c) in war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Liaison with the United States European command logistics co-ordination centre is co-ordinated through the Ministry of Defence central staffs. Regular contacts are maintained at Major/Colonel level involving those sections within the central staffs with responsibility for wartime contingency planning.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will identify the United Kingdom civil agencies and Government Departments which liaise with the headquarters United States European command logistics co-ordinator in the United Kingdom(a) in peacetime, (b) in crisis and (c) in war;

  (2) if he will identify the United Kingdom military and civilian bodies and agencies designated to develop and maintain the United States-United Kingdom wartime host nation support/lines of communication programme (a) in peacetime, (b) in crisis and (c) in war;

  (3) if he will identify the United Kingdom military and Government Departments represented on the United States-United Kingdom lines of communication joint planning group.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government Departments which would be involved in the provision of host nation support to United States forces and from civil resources in time of crisis are as follows:

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Ministry of Defence

  Department of Employment

  Department of Energy

  Department of the Environment

  267

  Department of Health

  Home Office

  Department of Transport

  Scottish Office

  Welsh Office

  Each of these Departments is represented on the United States-United Kingdom lines of communication joint planning group or its sub-committees. They also liaise direct with the headquarters, United States European command logistics co-ordination centre in the United Kingdom as necessary, although co-ordination is maintained by the Ministry of Defence central staffs.

  A number of civil agencies are also consulted, as necessary, in drawing up the joint contingency plans. This is invariably managed through, or on their behalf by, the relevant Government Department.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will order a medical study of all surviving British nuclear test veterans to compare results with the statistical mortality study carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As the hon. Member is aware, the Government rely on the independent and expert advice of the National Radiological Protection Board on matters concerning the overall health of the British nuclear test participant group with respect to their involvement in the British nuclear test programme. It is not for the Government to dictate the methodology or conduct of the NRPB studies, but I am advised by the NRPB that it is not practicable to carry out a health study of living test veterans to produce meaningful, unbiased results.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department had discussions with the Australian Government prior to the announcement by their Minister for Primary Industry that compensation for Australian nuclear test veterans was warranted following a recent British Government decision to compensate its veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were no discussions with the Australian Federal Government prior to their announcement. The reference to a recent British Government decision to compensate its veterans is not understood. However, the Government would be ready to pay appropriate compensation wherever the Crown's legal liability was established and where there was firm evidence to show that, on a balance of probabilities, ex-service men had suffered ill health as a result of exposure to radiation during the course of their duties as members of the armed forces.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to investigate the extent to which British nuclear test veterans, who suffered extensive violent skin rashes immediately following nuclear tests, are today suffering from damage to their immune systems associated with radiation contamination.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The procedures and very stringent precautions adopted during the test programme were such that no significant level of surface radioactivity arose, and the consequential radiation doses to surface tissues were negligible. There were no reported, observed 268
  or treated superficial tissue disorders related to radioactivity or radiation exposures at the time of the tests or subsequently.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to compensate Pacific islanders, in line with United States proposals, for conditions arising after British nuclear tests there.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel were present on Christmas Island during the detonation of nuclear materials, at the exact time of each test.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of some 11,000 members of Her Majesty's forces were present during one or more of the British nuclear tests carried out at Malden and Christmas islands in the period 1957 to 1962, and the total resource provided by these members amounts to 16,000 man-trials. Details of the numbers present at the exact time of each test can be obtained from service records only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will undertake a survey of the tropical diseases from which British nuclear test veterans may still be suffering.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no grounds for carrying out a special survey of the tropical diseases being suffered by participants in the British nuclear test programme.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why it was decided that the Medical Research Council should not continue to monitor British nuclear test veterans after their tour of duty associated with nuclear testing.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government remain confident that the precautions taken during the British nuclear test programme were adequate to ensure that participants suffered no harm as a result of their participation. When the United Kingdom undertook the programme, the Medical Research Council did not advise that comprehensive monitoring of United Kingdom test participants should be carried out either during or after the tests, and from the evidence accumulated since there are no grounds for changing that policy.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Neuhert
  It is not possible to provide the detail requested without disproportionate effort and cost. However, the following table sets out some of the larger moves either completed or approved:

  Original location

  Number of posts

  Destination

  London/South East

  1,400

  Glasgow

  London

  54

  Yeovilton

  London

  164

  Bath

  269

  Original location

  Number of posts

  Destination

  London

  50

  Harrogate

  Portsmouth

  60

  Cheadle Hulme

  London

  156

  Bath (1990–91)

  London/Devizes

  240

  Swindon (1990–91)

  Woolwich/Donnington/Portsmouth

  250

  Llangennech (1989–91)

  New Unit

  250

  Sutton Coldfield (1989–91)

  Woolwich/Bromley

  1,500

  Teesside (1993–95)

  Total

  4,124

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what relocations of his Department's staff or agencies relating thereto are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Neubert
  The most significant element of MOD relocation planning involves major groups within the Procurement Executive. The land and air systems controllerates (3,800 posts in London) are evaluating various site options. The sea systems controllerate (3,500 posts in Bath, Portland and Portsdown) are examining the collocation of its organisation. In addition, there are a number of studies in train which may yield further relocation possibilities, provided that the economic and operational aspects of a move are positive.

  Manpower
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the manpower estimates for Her Majesty's armed forces for the years from 1990 to 1992; and what will be the effect of the recent announcement that more categories will be open to women.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Manpower estimates for the armed forces as at 1 April 1990 were published in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989". The manpower estimates for 1 April 1991 will be published in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1990" in due course. It is not our practice to publish manpower estimates for future years as these are produced for our own management purposes only.

  Following recent announcements by the Army and the RAF on the wider employment of women, female recruiting targets have been increased. A recent study offers the prospects of up to 6,000 posts in the Regular Army being made available to women. The RAF's female recruiting targets have been increased by 400 ground air women per annum between 1 April 1989 and 1 April 1994 and by 35 female pilots and navigators per annum from 1989–90.

ENERGY

  Gas Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how much gas was imported during the last year for which he has figures.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  In 1988 the United Kingdom imported 15·5 million tonnes coal-equivalent of natural gas.

  Source: Customs and Excise, overseas trade statistics as published in the Department of Energy, Digest of Energy Statistics.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list, by year for the last 10 years, the tonnages of opencast coal that have been mined.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information requested, which includes production from licensed mines, is as follows:

  Million tonnes

  1979

  12·9

  1980

  15·8

  1981

  14·8

  1982

  15·3

  1983

  14·7

  1984

  14·3

  1985

  15·6

  1986

  14·3

  1987

  15·8

  1988

  17·9

  Source: Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, Table 14.

  Low-energy Light Bulbs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to reduce the cost of low-energy light bulbs to the general public; and what plans he has to make the public more aware of them.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The high cost of low-energy lamps reflects their considerably greater complexity and consequent difficulty of manufacture compared with ordinary tungsten filament lamps. However, their extra initial cost is more than offset by their much longer lifetimes and lower electricity consumption. My energy efficiency office will continue to promote energy efficient lighting along with other energy efficiency measures.

  Mr. Walter Patterson
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if his Department has sought the views of the author Mr. Walter Patterson on energy policies and conservation.

  Mr. John Wakeham
  On various occasions members of my Department have met Mr. Walter Patterson. On no occasion were his views on energy policies and conservation sought.

  Uranium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he collects on the price of internationally traded uranium and on internationally traded reactor fuel grade low-enriched uranium.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department collects no such information but is aware of studies produced by a number of organisations.

  Colliery Costs, North-East
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list, colliery by colliery, costs borne by British Coal north-east area to the North East electricity board for power consumed at Munton, Easington, Vane Tempest, Dawdon, Ellington, Westo and Wearmouth collieries in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988;

  (2) if he will list, colliery by colliery, the costs borne by British Coal north-east area of mining machinery supplies

  271
  to Munton, Easington, Vane Tempest, Dawdon, Ellington, Westo and Wearmouth collieries in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988;

  (3) if he will list, colliery by colliery, the various costings borne by British Coal north-east (a) to British Rail for the transportation of minerals from Munton, Easington, Vane Tempest, Dawdon, Ellington, Westo and Wearmouth collieries in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and (b) to road haulage contractors for the transportation of minerals from the same collieries over the same period.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what percentage of the weight, and what percentage of the volume of waste sent to Drigg, for each of the years 1980–88 inclusive, originated from(a) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., (b) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, (c) the Central Electricity Generating Board and (d) the South of Scotland Electricity Board; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) what was the weight and volume of waste sent to Drigg for each of the years from 1980 to 1988 inclusive; and what are his estimates for 1989 to 1999 inclusive;

  (3) what is the cost of disposal of waste at Drigg per cubic metre; what plans there are for upgrading the disposal practice of low-level waste at Drigg; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the borehole drilling programme at(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Drilling of the first borehole at Sellafield finished on 8 November. Acting on behalf of Nirex, British Nuclear Fuels has now made an application to the local planning authority for permission to drill a second borehole. Also acting on behalf of Nirex, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority submitted an application for permission to drill two boreholes at Dounreay, which was rejected by the local planning authority in July. The authority's appeal against this decision was submitted on 24 August, and is currently with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the expected tonnage which will be deposited in the Nirex deep repository for(a) intermediate waste and (b) low-level waste.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Nirex expects to handle about 1 million cu m of low-level waste and one third of a million cu m of intermediate level waste by 2030.

  Reprocessing
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the future of spent fuel reprocessing within the United Kingdom.
  272
  Mr Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 26 June 1989 at column 356.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the research into the extraction of plutonium from intermediate level waste.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I am advised that the nuclear industry has concluded a programme of research on this topic which indicates that while it is technically possible to remove a proportion of the plutonium from plutonium contaminated material, it is not economic to do so, taking account of dose rates to operatives and the effects of such reductions in terms of storage costs and long-term risks from disposal. The nuclear industry is not proposing further work in this area at present.

  Power Station Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest estimates for the cost per unit per kilowatt hour for generation from the following sources stating maximum and minimum estimates(a) coal-fired power stations, (b) nuclear Magnox stations, (c) nuclear advanced gas-cooled reactor stations, (d) Sizewell B, (e) tidal power, (f) onshore wind generation, (g) offshore wind generation, (h) geothermal power and (i) wave power.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Parts(a) to (d) are a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.

  On parts (e) to (i) I refer the hon. Member to Energy Paper 55 "Renewable Energy in the United Kingdom: The Way Forward" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will indicate the latest estimates for the decommissioning costs of(a) Magnox reactors, (b) advanced gas-cooled reactors and (c) Sizewell B.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Decommissioning costs are a matter for the CEGB. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  British Coal
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to require British Coal to offer outside interests the opportunity to take over the running of pits which British Coal has decided to cease operating.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is for British Coal to determine in each case whether to license the recovery of remnant coal at collieries which it has decided to cease operating. The increase in the statutory limit on underground manpower at licensed mines proposed in the current Coal Industry Bill give British Coal the opportunity to license such operations on a larger scale than at present.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred;

  (2) what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No sections of my Department have been relocated since May 1979. As I told the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 6 November 1989 at column 418, the position will be reviewed in early 1991 when the Department will have had some 18 months' experience of working in its new headquarters building.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he plans to review the level of research and development programmes devoted to nuclear power and sponsored by his Department.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department keeps its nuclear research and development programmes under regular review.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will increase substantially the research and development budget devoted to renewable energy sources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department has published its strategy for research and development of renewable energy sources in energy paper 55. In line with that strategy, expenditure is set to increase steadily over the next three financial years. It remains our policy to ensure that all economic and environmentally acceptable energy sources should be exploited fully.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what percentage of his Department's research and development budget is devoted to(a) gas-fired generation, (b) renewable energy sources and (c) energy conservation and efficiency in 1979 and each succeeding year.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  Technological development in the field of gas-fired power generation has been taken forward by the power generation industry and equipment manufacturers without a need for Government intervention. Hence, in this field my Department has no separate budget for R and D. The other information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of Department's R and D expenditure

  Year

  Renewables

  Energy efficiency

  1979–80

  5·5

  10·6

  1980–81

  6·5

  10·9

  1981–82

  6·4

  1·0

  1982–83

  5·2

  1·8

  1983–84

  5·0

  2·9

  1984–85

  6·4

  2·7

  1985–86

  6·1

  1·5

  1986–87

  7·0

  2·0

  1987–88

  9·1

  2·3

  1988–89

  8·9

  1·7

  274
  Source: Annual Review of Government funded R and D. except 1 where breakdown not shown in source, and Departmental figures used. Figures used for total Departmental expenditure include throughout the period nuclear expenditure by the UKAEA in support of the Department's programmes.

  Coal
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has discussed, or will discuss, with the chairman of British Coal the implementation of measures to protect the reserves of low-sulphur coal in this country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is for British Coal to assess the market demand for particular qualities of coal, including low-sulphur coal, that it can profitably supply. This assessment forms part of its business plan which we review regularly with the chairman of British Coal.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will raise the closure of Betteshanger colliery with the chairman of British Coal as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Colliery closures are the responsibility of British Coal. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the tonnage of workable reserves of low-sulphur coal in the United Kingdom for(a) 1979, (b) 1983 and (c)

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  United Kingdom coal resources are vested in the British Coal Corporation. The amount of those resources which constitute workable reserves can be determined by the corporation only in the light of local mining conditions and market opportunities.

HEALTH

  Child Migrants Trust
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Child Migrants Trust in response to its request for funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been in correspondence with members of the Child Migrants Trust concerning individuals' efforts to trace their roots and the possibility of Government support for the trust. My officials have met and are in contact with representatives of the Child Migrants Trust to discuss how my Department might assist them. However, I am unable to make a decision about the trust's grant application until it provides the extra information we have requested.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects he is funding, including the location and amount spent on each project, into the effects of pesticides on human health.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is not funding any research on this subject but I understand some proposals relating to improved monitoring and investigation of alleged pesticide poisoning are under consideration at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Under the
  275
  Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, applicants seeking approval of pesticide products are required to submit a full breakdown package in support of their application for the approval of pesticides. They are also required to undertake extensive research into, among other things, the potential toxicological effects of pesticides on operators and consumers. This research can often take several years to complete to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities and is carried out at considerable cost to the companies. It makes an important contribution towards increasing knowledge of pesticides and raising contemporary scientific standards.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the ambulancemen's dispute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Representations have been received by the Department from trade unions on the staff side of the ambulance Whitley Councils and from the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel which claims to have within its membership over 20 per cent. of all ambulance personnel but is not represented on the staff side of the Whitley Councils. Representations have come also from members of the public writing direct or through their Members of Parliament.

  Liquid Crystal Thermography
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which locations within the National Health Service liquid crystal thermography is available; and what advice his Department has given to health authorities on the use of this screening procedure.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not keep records of the locations at which liquid crystal thermography is available and have not advised health authorities on its use. I understand that very few hospitals use this technique as a diagnostic tool.

  Evidence has emerged from a long-term trial carried out by the Department at Bath to measure skin temperature patterns that liquid crystal thermography is not suitable for screening, although it may be of use as an adjunct to other diagnostic routines.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the amount of funding allocated by his Department towards the Great Ormond Street project.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  £56,347 in 1987–88, £62,110 in 1988–89 and £56,223 in 1989–90 has been allocated by the Department of Health for the postgraduate training programme in child sexual abuse. The level of funding for the forthcoming financial year has not yet been decided.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to put out to competitive tender the management and operation of non-emergency ambulance services.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) on 30 November at column 411.

  Royal College of Nursing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the main issue discussed at his first meeting with the new General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has had one formal meetitng with the recently appointed general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. It was in June, shortly before she took up her new duties. The establishment and membership of the NHS policy board was the main issue discussed.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the participation of disabled people in the planning of their own community care services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our White Paper "Caring for People" (Cmnd. 849) sets out our detailed proposals for the future organisation of community care, including arrangements designed to widen room for choice by those who require such care and provide more appropriate services closer to their wishes and needs. In particular our proposals for multidisciplinary assessment of need, whether for residential care or support at home (paragraph 3.2) lay particular stress on the need to take account of the wishes of the individual and his or her carer, and as far as possible to include their active participation in the assessment.

  Helicopter Emergency Ambulance Services
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the review being conducted by the regional ambulance officers working party into helicopter emergency ambulance services will be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The review is well advanced but has had to be suspended during the industrial action taking place within the ambulance service.

  Lancashire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the quota system operated by Lancashire ambulance service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received no recent representation regarding the system of quotas introduced in 1986 by the Lancashire health authority for non-urgent patient journeys.

  Contraception
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been undertaken by his Department to encourage safe and effective contraception in the Nottingham area, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Regional health authorities are responsible for allocating funds to individual districts who are in turn responsible for determining the need for and level of local services and providing them in the most efficient way. Family planning services are no exception to this.

  Mental Health Act
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to review the operation of the guardianship provisions of the Mental Health Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no present plans for such a review, but will of course reconsider the need in the light of evidence to suggest that either the provisions, or the way they are put into operation, are inadequate.

  National Assistance Act
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that the provisions of section 47 of the National Assistance Act 1948 are fully understood by practitioners within the medical and social work professions.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present we have no plans to take action, but we are keeping the situation under review.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department of Health was formed in 1988. Between 1979 and 1988 a number of posts in the former DHSS were relocated, but the available information does not distinguish between health and social security posts. We have recently announced that the work of the National Health Service management executive, involving some 1,000 posts, is to be relocated from London to Leeds.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has announced that the work of the whole of the National Health Service management executive, involving some 1,000 posts, is to be relocated from London to Leeds.

  Hospices
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to give financial support to hospices.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Arrangements for financial support for hospices in England have been under careful consideration for some time. We hope to announce proposals shortly.

  Babies (Intensive Care)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of intensive care baby cots available in the Yorkshire regional health authority; and what is the number in each district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is given in the table.
  278

  Neonatal cots, Yorkshire Regional Health Authority, 1988–89

  District Health Authority

  Number of cots

  Hull

  24

  East Yorkshire

  10

  Grimsby

  19

  Scunthorpe

  10

  Northallerton

  24

  York

  10

  Scarborough

  10

  Harrogate

  14

  Bradford

  32

  Airedale

  14

  Calderdale

  18

  Huddersfield

  18

  Dewsbury

  17

  Leeds Western

  36

  Leeds Eastern

  31

  Wakefield

  14

  Pontefract

  15

  Regional total

  316

  1 Average daily available cots not in maternity units.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of intensive care baby cots available in the Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the local provision of services is a matter for the health authority concerned. The hon. Member may like to approach the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority, Sir Bryan Askew.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of community dental clinics operating in Britain for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of operational community dental clinics, both fixed and mobile, in England in each of the years since 1979 is as follows:

  Caldendar/Financial year1

  Number of clinics2

  1979

  1,861

  1980

  1,865

  1981

  1,864

  1982

  1,876

  1983

  1,909

  1984

  1,881

  1985

  1,907

  1986–87

  1,838

  1987–88

  1,810

  1988–89

  1,747

  1 Figures up to 1985 relate to calendar years. Information thereafter is based on financial years.

  2 These figures relate to the total number of clinics available, though some may not have been in use for part or all of the year in question.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the dental attendance figures for the Wakefield district health authority for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available centrally for the period before 1982. From 1982 the figures for Wakefield DHA are shown in the table. The information relates to the community dental service.
  279

  Last day of caldendar/Financial year

  Number of attendances2

  1982

  12,456

  1983

  13,167

  1984

  12,652

  1985

  11,265

  1986–87

  9,881

  1987–88

  10,720

  1988–89

  8,730

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his policy with regard to the future of the community dental service; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans there are to improve the dental care of those children whose parents fail to arrange regular dental checks.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following proposals made in their White Paper "Promoting Better Health", the Government took powers in the Health and Medicines Act 1988 to enable changes to be made to the responsibilities of the community dental service.

  In the Government's view, general dental practitioners should normally provide dental care to schoolchildren.

  Vaccination and immunisation—South Yorkshire—1988–89

  Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)—number immunised by age

  Districts

  Age under 1

  Age 1

  Age 2

  Age 3

  Age 4

  Age 5

  Age 6–7

  Age 8–15

  Age 16–19

  20 or over

  Total all ages

  Barnsley

  5

  1,396

  292

  251

  994

  133

  25

  3

  0

  0

  3,099

  Doncaster

  0

  2,097

  586

  435

  1,392

  724

  546

  250

  0

  0

  6,030

  Rotherham

  10

  1,784

  289

  263

  1,216

  145

  111

  19

  0

  0

  3,837

  Sheffield

  18

  2,406

  593

  357

  1,268

  719

  562

  257

  29

  0

  6,209

  Total ages

  33

  7,683

  1,760

  1,306

  4,870

  1,721

  1,244

  529

  29

  0

  19,175

  Source: Form KC50A.

  Nurses
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what is the number of NHS staff, by grade, who have retired within the last five years under the female nurse provisions of the NHS superannuation regulations, indicating the ages of the staff concerned in year bands.

  Mr. Freeman
  The specific information requested is not available. The NHS superannuation scheme does not maintain either records by grade or statistics relating to retirements under the special class provisions. An attempt to extract even some of the required information from manual and computer records would be a very time-consuming exercise, which would incur disproportionate expense.

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire Health Authority
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the level of funding of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  From 1 April 1990 allocations to regions will be based upon a basis of weighted capitation of residents. Regions will in turn begin the process of allocating to districts next year on the same basis but taking into account additional local factors. This basis will provide a fairer basis of revenue funding to all districts. The details are set out more fully in "Working for Patients".
  280
  Switching the emphasis of the community dental service away from children will enable it to commit a significant proportion of its resources to health education, to the treatment of priority groups such as handicapped adults and the elderly, to identify the dental needs of the population, and generally to act as a safety net for treatment for those whose needs cannot be met by general dental practitioners.

  The community dental service continues to carry out dental screening of schoolchildren, and a patient who is identified as being in need of dental treatment is advised to seek it from a general dental practitioner. The changes will of course be monitored.

  Vaccination
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will itemise the take-up of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccination for children in South Yorkshire.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated number of children receiving the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in South Yorkshire in 1988–89, broken down by age and district health authority are shown in the table. Accurate information about take-up rates is not available.

  General Practitioners (Contract)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received on the provision in the general practitioner's contract for annual contact with pensioner patients by general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of representations on the GPs' new contract which have made some reference to the requirement to offer an annual check-up to patients aged 75 and over. Due to the general nature of the majority of such representations, it is not possible to give a precise figure.

  Waiting List Fund
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be made available to the National Health Service through the waiting list fund in 1990–91; and what are the allocations to regional health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service is treating more patients than ever before, but waiting times in some places and for some specialties are still too long. Next year the waiting list fund will be £33 million. Of this, £20 million will be allocated direct to regional and special health authorities. The allocations to authorities are as follows:
  281

  Region

  Allocation (£ million)

  Northern

  1·45

  Yorkshire

  1·65

  Trent

  2·00

  East Anglian

  0·45

  North West Thames

  1·45

  North East Thames

  1·60

  South East Thames

  1·50

  South West Thames

  0·70

  Wessex

  1·10

  Oxford

  0·60

  South Western

  1·10

  West Midlands

  2·85

  Mersey

  1·45

  North Western

  1·90

  Special Health Authorities for the London Postgraduate Teaching Hospitals

  0·20

  Total

  20·00

  The remainder of the fund is being earmarked for a special targeted attack on the 100 longest specialty waiting lists in the country. Key data for these lists will be examined by inter-authority comparisons and consultancy, a team of management consultants who are currently investigating the causes of long waiting lists in 22 districts. They will advise whether waiting list fund money should be allocated to regions to help districts tackle these 100 long lists, and will visit selected districts to investigate the problems at first hand.

  This £33 million brings the Government's investment in the drive to tackle waiting times to £119 million over four years. In the first three years, the fund has enabled well over 300,000 in-patients and day cases, and over 200,000 out-patients, to be treated.

  Consultants
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be in a position to make an announcement on the proposed allocation of public funds and on management training for consultants.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today announced the allocation of £1 million to the successful regions. The programmes of training are due to commence in April 1990. Residential training courses will be brief (about four weeks) and will teach basic principles of management for consultants who wish to play a part in the management of the NHS.

  There was an extremely enthusiastic response to the invitation to put forward bids for this scheme and the general quality of submissions received was most impressive. Seven regions, in all, will benefit from central funding. A national evaluation process will be an important part of this initiative.

  Health Authority Members
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what he estimates the annual remuneration of non-officer members of health authorities and family practitioner services authorities under the National Health Service and Community Care Bill will be.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is still under consideration.

  Community Health Councils
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual budget allocation for community health councils.

  Mr. Freeman
  The expenses of community health councils are met by and form part of the total expenditure of the health authorities concerned. It is for health authorities to decide on the level of funding that they provide to community health councils. The summarised accounts of regional and district health authorities for 1988–89 record revenue expenditure on community health councils totalling £8,004,257. This is a provisional figure, subject to audit.

  Abortion
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update the following tables of statistics printed in the special report and report of the Select Committee on the Infant Life (Preservation) Bill, H.L. Paper 153 of 1986–87 and H.L. Paper 50 of 1987–88, to cover 1987, 1988 and 1989(a) the number of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967, gestation by completed weeks by statutory grounds and category of premises, residents and non-residents, England and Wales, in the special report on pages 22 to 26 and the report on pages 72 to 73; and (b) the number of notifications of abortions carried out under the Abortion Act 1967, gestation by completed weeks by statutory grounds and mother's age, England and Wales as in the special report on pages 28 to 37 and in the report on pages 74 to 77.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: The information requested has been placed in the Library, and I have sent my hon. Friend a copy.

  AIDS
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will outline the reasons for the closure of the Health Education Authority's AIDS unit;

  (2) what discussions he had with the director of the Health Education Authority about the future of the AIDS unit prior to that unit's closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: The planned internal reorganisation of the Health Education Authority is entirely a matter for the authority, and we played no part in the HEA's decisions on this issue. The HEA's chairman made it clear at the expert symposium on HIV and AIDS organised jointly by the Department and the HEA on 24 November that part of the reorganisation of the HEA's business will involve the management of its AIDS work with that of its six other major health topic programmes. The authority considers that this will increase effectiveness and reflect the AIDS programme's close links with many other aspects of the authority's work. These changes will involve no dilution of the HEA's HIV prevention effort.

  Drug Overdoses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents have been recorded in each of the past 10 years of(a) suicide, (b) parasuicide and (c) accidental death as a result of overdoses of drugs containing paracetemol.
  283
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: The information is not available in the exact form requested. The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths from poisoning by drugs containing paracetamol which were (a) suicides, (b) undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted, and (c) accidenal, in England and Wales, 1977–87

  Deaths

  Year

  (a) Suicide

  (b) Undetermined

  (c) Accident

  1977

  92

  41

  32

  1978

  127

  45

  36

  1979

  126

  33

  30

  1980

  109

  37

  26

  1 1981

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1982

  105

  40

  33

  1983

  117

  40

  27

  1984

  118

  55

  25

  1985

  138

  54

  32

  1986

  138

  68

  31

  1987

  116

  87

  35

  1 Not available due to industrial action by registration officers.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents have been recorded in each of the past 10 years of(a) suicide, (b) parasuicide and (c) accidental death as a result of overdoses of drugs available (i) on prescription and (ii) over the counter to the general public.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: The information is not available in the exact form requested. The available information is shown in the tables.

  Deaths from drug1 poisoning: suicidal, accidental and undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted, England and Wales, 1979–88.

  Table (a) E9502: Suicide and self-inflicted injury by solid or liquid substances.

  Year

  Deaths

  1979

  1,525

  1980

  1,479

  1981

  1,416

  1982

  1,286

  1983

  1,219

  1984

  1,099

  1985

  1,031

  1986

  1,011

  1987

  902

  1988

  913

  E950.0 Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics

  E950.1 Barbiturates

  E950.2 Other sedatives and hypnotics

  E950.3 Tranquillizers and other psychotropic agents

  E950.4 Other specified drugs and medicaments

  E950.5 Other drug or medicament

  Table (b) E850—E8581: Accidental poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biologicals

  Year

  Deaths

  1979

  436

  1980

  427

  1981

  423

  1982

  445

  1983

  376

  1984

  375

  1985

  309

  1986

  319

  1987

  342

  1988

  327

  E850 Accidental poisoning by analgesics, antipyretics, antirheumatics
  284
  E851 Accidental poisoning by barbiturates

  E850 Accidental poisoning by other sedatives and hypnotics

  E853 Accidental poisoning by tranquillizers

  E854 Accidental poisoning by other psychotropic agents

  E855 Accidental poisoning by other drugs acting on central and autonomic nervous systems

  E856 Accidental poisoning by antibiotics

  E858 Accidental poisoning by other drugs

  Table (c) Poisoning by solid or liquid substances, undertermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted E9802

  Year

  Deaths

  1979

  566

  1980

  507

  1981

  435

  1982

  465

  1983

  418

  1984

  441

  1985

  444

  1986

  555

  1987

  564

  1988

  602

  E980.0 Analgesics, antipyretics and antirheumatics.

  E980.1 Barbiturates.

  E980.2 Other sedatives and hypnotics.

  E980.3 Tranquillizers and other pyschotropic agents.

  E980.4 Other specified drugs and medicaments.

  E980.5 Unspecified drug or medicament.

  1 International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision.

  2 All categories (except that relating to barbiturates) include some drugs available only on prescription and others available over the counter to the general public.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the proposals in "Top Up Loans for Students", Cm. 520, with regard to benefit entitlement will have on students pursuing Project 2000 courses of nursing education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: The Government accepted the proposals of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting that Project 2000 students should have student, rather than employee, status and receive bursaries rather than salaries. The Government remain committed to removing entitlement to income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit from students with the exception of single parents and disabled people.

  The basic level of bursary for Project 2000 students under 26 is currently £4,700 per annum in London, and £4,000 per annum elsewhere. These amounts will not be means-tested. Project 2000 students, like other students in full-time education, will pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there has been any change in the role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in recent years.

  Mr. Ridley
  The principal role of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has not changed, but its role has been extended over recent years by certain provisions in the Telecommunications Act, the Airports Act, the Gas Act, the Water Act and the Electricity Act.
  285
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the current referrals before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission with expected dates for receipt and publication of each report.

  Type of reference

  Subject Matter

  Referral

  Due (in date order)

  Extended to

  Monopoly

  Wholesale Petrol Supply

  9 November 1988

  8 November 1989

  20 December 1989

  Merger

  Atlas Copco/Desoutter Brothers

  20 September 1989

  19 December 1989

  Merger

  Colne Valley/Lee Valley/Rickmansworth Water

  7 September 1989

  12 January 1990

  Merger

  Michelin/National Tyre Services

  31 October 1989

  30 January 1990

  Monopoly

  Electrical Contracting at London exhibition halls

  10 May 1989

  9 February 1990

  Merger

  BUPA/HCA

  21 November 1989

  28 February 1990

  Monopoly

  Cinema Advertising

  28 June 1989

  27 March 1990

  Monopoly

  Plasterboard

  28 November 1989

  31 July 1990

  The publication schedule for each report is decided when a report is submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The date of publication remains confidential for reasons of market sensitivity. In all cases we aim to publish a report as soon after it has been submitted as is practicable.

  Data Processing Equipment
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the percentage of the home market for electronic computers supplied by imports.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the percentage of the home market of electronic computers supplied by imports.

  Mr. Mc William
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the percentage of the home market of electronic computers supplied by imports.

  Mr. Forth
  The information sought is not readily available, since imports include imports for re-export while exports include those for re-import. Such entrepot trade is an important feature of international trade in electronic data processing (EDP) equipment. However, information published by the Central Statistics Office in "Business Monitor PQ 3302 Electronic Data processing equipment" (HMSO) shows that in 1988 total imports of EDP equipment were at a level equivalent to 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom's home market, while total exports were at a level equivalent to 76 per cent. of the United Kingdom's home market.

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the deficit in electronic data processing equipment with European Community countries.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the deficit in electronic data processing equipment with European Community countries.

  Electronic Data Processing Equipment

  Year

  Sales

  Exports

  Imports

  Home Market

  Export Sales ratio

  Imports/Home Market ratio

  Exports share of manufactures

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  percent.

  percent.

  percent.

  1979

  980

  834

  1,024

  1,170

  85

  88

  2·7

  1984

  2,519

  2,599

  3,561

  3,481

  103

  102

  5·6

  1985

  3,459

  3,314

  3,919

  4,064

  96

  96

  6·3

  1986

  2,954

  3,094

  3,916

  3,776

  105

  104

  5·7

  1987

  4,282

  3,900

  4,774

  5,156

  91

  93

  6·4

  286
  Mr. Redwood
  The references currently before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are as follows:

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the deficit in electronic data processing equipment with European Community countries.

  Mr. Forth
  Based on data compiled and published by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, in 1988 the United Kingdom had an estimated net surplus of £785 million, not a deficit, with the European Community countries in respect of electronic data processing equipment.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the deficit in electronic data processing equipment with West Germany.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the deficit in electronic data processing equipment with West Germany.

  Mr. Forth
  Based on data compiled by and available from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, in 1988 the United Kingdom had an estimated net surplus of £299 million, not a deficit, with West Germany in respect of electronic data processing equipment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1979 and for each year since 1984 and the current year to date (i) estimated sales of United Kingdom manufactured computers in SITC 752 plus parts in SITC 759.97, together with imports and exports, (ii) the ratio of exports to sales and (iii) the ratio of imports to home demand; and if he will provide an estimate of the import content of industry sales, together with the percentage share of exports to total exports of manufactures to one place of decimals.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest available information is given in the following table. There are no official estimates of the import content of industry sales.
  287

  Year

  Sales

  Exports

  Imports

  Home Market

  Export Sales ratio

  Imports/Home Market ratio

  Exports share of manufactures

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  percent.

  percent.

  percent.

  19881

  5,175

  4,592

  5,473

  6,056

  89

  90

  7·0

  January-June 19891

  2,565

  2,382

  3,191

  3,374

  93

  95

  6·5

  1 = Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. Electronic Data Processing Equipment is defined as 752 plus 759.97 of SITC (Rev. 3). The corresponding classification for sales data is Activity Heading 3302 of the Standard Industrial Classification (Revised 1980). 1979 sales data have been adjusted to correspond to current definitions.

  2. Home Market = Sales less Exports plus Imports.

  3. Imports include imports for re-export while exports incude exports for re-import. Where such entrepot trade is significant import: home market ratios and exports: sales ratios, as normally defined, can approach and even exceed 100 per cent.

  4. Manufactures is defined as Sections 5 to 8 of the SITC.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for 1979 and for each year since 1984 and the current year to date sales of United Kingdom manufactured computers in SITC 752.3, plus imports and exports, together with (i) the ratio of exports to manufactured sales, (ii) the ratio of imports to home demand and (iii) his estimate of the value of imports for (a) re-export, (b) direct sales to the United Kingdom market and (c) the import content of United Kingdom manufactured exports;

  (2) whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the value, volume and average value of imports and exports of computers in SITC 752.3; what assessment he has made of the proportion of exports manufactured outside the United Kingdom and the change in United Kingdom content of those manufactured in the United Kingdom since 1986; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the levels of average value and volume in 1988.

  Mr. Forth
  The classification system used for the collection of sales statistics is different from that used for international trade. Consequently data on sales of computers corresponding to SITC 752.3 are not available. The ratio of exports to manufactured sales and the ratio of imports to home demand cannot, therefore, be calculated. Imports are not broken down into those for re-export or direct sale to the United Kingdom market. There are no official estimates of the import content of United Kingdom-manufactured exports of computers.

  The table gives the available information on imports and exports relating to SITC 752.3. The introduction of a new classification system at the start of 1988 and changes in the reporting of some exports during that year may have affected the consistency and the quality of the detailed figures for computers. Therefore average values, which are in fact unit values for 1988 should be treated with caution.

  United Kingdom Imports and Exports: SITC 752.3

  Imports

  Value £ million

  Volume thousands

  Unit value £ thousands

  1979

  81

  10

  8·4

  1984

  717

  984

  0·7

  1985

  795

  941

  0·8

  1986

  749

  325

  2·3

  1987

  934

  363

  2·6

  1988

  891

  564

  1·6

  1 1989

  829

  816

  1·0

  1 January-September (provisional).

  288

  Exports

  Value £ million

  Volume thousands

  Unit value £ thousands

  1979

  22

  5

  4·4

  1984

  597

  1,702

  0·4

  1985

  600

  1,191

  0·5

  1986

  584

  242

  2·4

  1987

  693

  205

  3·4

  1988

  1,641

  (2,772)

  (0·6)

  1 1989

  1,577

  680

  2·3

  1 January-September (provisional).

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom, HMSO.

  Trade Deficit (West Germany)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the manufacturing trade deficit with West Germany.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the manufacturing trade deficit with West Germany.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the first nine months of 1989 imports of manufactures into the United Kingdom consigned from the Federal Republic of Germany exceeded United Kingdom exports to that country by £7·4 billion.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State far Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in the manufacturing trade deficit with West Germany since 1979.

  Mr. Ridley
  The crude deficit with the Federal Republic of Germany in manufactured goods was £4·0 billion in 1979 and £8·7 billion in 1988, at 1988 constant prices.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in the: manufacturing trade deficit with West Germany since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The crude deficit with the Federal Republic of Germany in manufactured goods was £2·5 billion in 1979 and £8·7 billion in 1988 at current prices, an increase of £6·2 billion.

  EC Consumer Council
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent European Economic Community consumer council meeting.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent EEC Consumer Council meeting.

  Mr. Forth
  A resolution identifying priorities for the relaunch of consumer policy was agreed. The draft directives on package travel and product safety were discussed without substantive conclusions and both dossiers were remitted to COREPER. The Commission outlined its plans for improved representation of consumers at Community level and indicated that new Commission proposals for the European home and leisure accident surveillance system would be forwarded to the Council soon.

  Girobank
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Girobank.

  Mr. Forth
  As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 27 November, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 20 April that the Post Office Board had accepted a conditional offer from the Alliance and Leicester Building Society for Girobank. The Post Office and the Alliance and Leicester are engaged in detailed negotiations with a view to completing the sale as soon as practicable.

  The regulatory authorities will need to be satisfied and my consent will be required before the sale can take place.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Girobank.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Girobank.

  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of Girobank.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Girobank.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Girobank.

  Mr. Forth
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 27 November.

  Financial Services
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

  Mr. Ridley
  I receive a considerable number of representations on a variety of topics relating to the 290
  regulation of financial services. We consider very carefully those which relate to the scope of the framework of the regulatory system, or the powers under the Financial Services Act which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters which are the responsibility of the SIB or another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am satisfied that the Financial Services Act is operating in accordance with its central aim, which is to protect investors.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the operation of legislation affecting the regulation of insurance brokers and other independent financial advisers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Insurance brokers are regulated under the Insurance Brokers Registration Act 1977 (IBRA) and in addition, in respect of their business activities, under the Financial Services Act 1986 (FSA). I have no plans to review the operation of the IBRA. A number of changes to the FSA are included in the new Companies Act which may affect the regulation of independent financial advisers, including insurance brokers in respect of their investment business activities. I have no plans to review further the operation of the FSA.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the regulation of financial services.

  Mr. Redwood
  I receive a considerable number of representations on a variety of topics relating to the regulation of financial services. We consider very carefully those which relate to the scope of the framework of the regulatory system, or the powers under the Financial Services Act which the Government retain. Those which relate to matters which are the responsibility of the SIB or another regulatory authority are passed to the appropriate body.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ensure that the European Economic Community does not erect protectionist trade barriers.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am against protectionism. I will certainly ensure that all proposals for protectionist trade policy action are rigorously opposed by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the measures designed to remove barriers to trade in connection with the creation of a single European market have now been adopted, agreed in principle or had common positions agreed.
  291
  Mr. Redwood
  Of the measures in the European Commission's White Paper, "Completing the Internal Market", 152 have now been adopted, agreed in principle or had common positions agreed.

  Car Production
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cars were built in the United Kingdom in(a) 1978 and (b)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1978 1,222,949 cars were built in the United Kingdom as compared with 1,226,835 in 1988, making last year the best year for car production since 1977.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning the future of the production of cars and allied products in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning the future of the production of cars and allied products in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Car output has increased in recent years and, with the additional investments now being made by a number of companies, looks set to expand significantly in the 1990s.

  Manufacturing Trade Balance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance with(a) West Germany and (b) the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government are committed to free trade as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom. We cannot expect this to produce a trade balance with every partner; nevertheless, the Government recognise the importance of continuing to encourage exports through the activities of the British Overseas Trade Board.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance with(a) West Germany and (b) the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are committed to free trade as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom. We cannot expect this to produce a trade balance with every partner; nevertheless, the Government recognise the importance of continuing to encourage and support exports through inter alia the activities of the British Overseas Trade Board and ECGD.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects British manufacturing trade to be in balance with(a) West Germany and (b) the rest of the European Economic Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are committed to free trade being in the best interests of the United Kingdom. The Government recognise the importance of continuing to encourage exports through the activities of the British Overseas Trade Board, including the recent successful 292
  Focus Germany Campaign. It is also pressing to open the financial services markets throughout the European Community which should help the British financial service sector and increase our invisible exports.

  Manufacturing Trade Deficit
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the manufacturing trade deficit with European Community countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  In the first nine months of 1989, the United Kingdom had a deficit in trade in manufactures with other European Community countries of £11·5 billion.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in the manufacturing trade deficit with the European Community countries since 1979.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in manufacturing trade deficit with European Community countries since 1979.

  Mr. Lambie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in the manufacturing trade deficit with the European Community countries since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The deficit with the European Community in trade in manufactured goods at current prices has risen from £3·1 billion in 1979 to 13·4 billion in 1988, an increase of 10·3 billion.

  EC Industry Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent European Economic Community Council meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Council of Industry Ministers, at which the Minister for Industry and Enterprise represented the United Kingdom, concentrated on discussion of steel issues. It agreed to an Italian request to extend agreed closure deadlines of certain Italian steel plants in exchange for delays in the payment of aid to the Italian steel industry.

  Discussions also took place on textiles, footwear, shipbuilding and high definition television.

  Product Safety
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to meet his counterparts in the European Community to discuss product safety.

  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to meet his counterparts in the European Community to discuss product safety.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to meet his counterparts in the European Community to discuss product safety.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he plans to meet his counterparts in the European Community to discuss product safety.
  293
  Mr. Forth
  I meet my counterparts in other member states regularly. In the past few weeks I have had a number of discussions with them on product safety, including a wide-ranging discussion on the proposed EC general product safety directive at the Consumer Council on 9 November. More recently I have had discussions on product safety with Ministers in Ireland prior to the Irish Presidency in the new year.

  Japanese Companies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Japanese manufacturing companies are now operating in the United Kingdom; and what information he has on the figure for other member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  European Community Member State

  Number of Japanese manufacturers

  United Kingdom

  1114

  France

  85

  West Germany

  67

  Netherlands

  27

  Belgium

  15

  Luxembourg

  8

  Ireland

  219

  Spain

  41

  Italy

  24

  Denmark

  2

  Portugal

  7

  Greece

  4

  1 as at 31 October 1989.

  2 as at 31 January 1989.

  1 For the United Kingdom these figures refer to individual Japanese manufacturing companies with one or more operating plants. For the rest of the European Community the figures refer to the number of plants known to be either currently operating in EC member states or having announced a formal intention to operate.

  2 Figures for EC investment other than United Kingdom obtained from Japan External Trade Organisation (JETRO) figures given are the latest available.

  Toys
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to monitor the safety of children's toys.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to monitor the safety of children's toys.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department is taking to monitor the safety of children's toys.

  Mr. Forth
  Local authority trading standards departments have a statutory duty to enforce the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the toy safety regulations made thereunder. The Act provides the necessary powers for the discharge of this responsibility.

  The new Toys (Safety) Regulations 1989, which implement the EC directive on the safety of toys with effect from 1 January, will provide more comprehensive safety measures to ensure that only safe toys are placed on the market. They will also require enforcement authorities to notify my Department of enforcement action taken under these regulations.

  Trade Deficit (EC)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Community countries with which the United Kingdom has a manufacturing trade deficit.

  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the European Community countries with which the United Kingdom has a manufacturing trade deficit.

  Mr. Redwood
  In the first nine months of 1989 the United Kingdom had a manufacturing trade deficit with the following countries:France, Belgium-Luxembourg, Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Denmark and Portugal.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional help is being given to businesses to help them to take advantage of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional help is being given to businesses to help them to take advantage of the internal market in 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  We provide a comprehensive single market information service through our European Open for Business campaign, which is regularly updated and expanded. The practical assistance available through our Enterprise Initiative is also particularly relevant to firms preparing for the single market.

  In the private sector there is an increasing level of information and advice being provided to help business adapt to the liberalised European trading conditions.

  Imports
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufactured goods from European Community countries since 1979.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufactured goods from European Community countries since 1979.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufactured goods from European Community countries since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Imports of manufactured goods from the European Community have risen, at current prices, from £16·0 billion in 1979 to £45·7 billion in 1988, an increase of £29·7 billion.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufacturing goods from West Germany since 1979.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufacturing goods from West Germany since 1979.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the growth in imports in manufacturing goods from West Germany since 1979.
  295
  Mr. Redwood
  Imports of manufactured goods from West Germany have risen, at current prices, from 5·3 billion in 1979 to £.16·6 billion in 1988, an increase of £11·3 billion.

  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in import penetration of manufactured goods from 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in import penetration of manufactured goods from 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in import penetration of manufactured goods from 1979 until the first quarter of the current year.

  Mr. Redwood
  Import penetration in manufacturing industry rose from 27 per cent. in 1979 to 36 per cent. in the year ending March 1989.

  Competition Policy
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to review his policy on competition.

  Mr. Redwood
  We are in the process of implementing the conclusions of our review of competition policy, which were published last year and have no plans for a further review.

  EC Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to maintain close contact with all my EC counterparts, and a whole range of matters will be discussed.

  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to meet his European Economic Community counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I continue to maintain close contact with all my EC counterparts, to discuss a whole range of matters.

  CBI
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the prospects for British business.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department maintains regular and frequent contacts with the Confederation of British Industry at all levels on a wide range of business matters.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the prospects for British business.
  296
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the prospcts for British business.

  Mr. Ridley
  I maintain regular and frequent contacts with the Confederation of British Industry on a wide range of business matters.

  Labelling
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to change the labelling requirements for consumer goods.

  Mr. Forth
  Additional labelling requirements will come into force over the next year for toys and all-terrain vehicles. The Government have made clear their support for the early introduction of a Community-wide voluntary eco-labelling scheme.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ridley
  I last met Sir Leon Brittan on 23 November at the Internal Market Council. A number of issues were discussed, in particular the draft merger control regulation.

  Subsidies
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much direct subsidy was paid by his Department to British industry in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Department does not distinguish in its accounts between direct subsidies and other expenditure. However, the total expenditure of the Department, including support for nationalised industries, was £2·257 million in 1979–80 and £1·304 million in 1988–89.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to introduce new legislation or regulations on consumer protection.

  Mr. Forth
  We intend to improve the protection given to consumers in a number of ways including the introduction of an order under the Prices Act 1974, as amended, on price indications and unit pricing about which we are currently engaging in public consultation, and changes to other legislation affecting consumers' interests.

  Washing Machines
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the level of imports of washing machines, and give this as a percentage of total United Kingdom sales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Washing machines

  January to June

  1989

  1989

  Imports (£ million)

  157·9

  65·1

  United Kingdom sales (£ million)

  275·5

  122·2

  Imports (Percentage of United Kingdom sales)

  57

  53

  Notes and definitions:

  1. Figures relate to domestic-type electric washing machines only.

  2. United Kingdom sales figures relate to sales by United Kingdom manufacturers with a minimum employment of 100. The possibly incomplete coverage of these figures implies that the percentage figures shown may be overstated.

  Source: Business Monitor PQ3460.

  British Shipbuilders
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of British Shipbuilders; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I met the chairman of British Shipbuilders on 21 November 1989. A number of matters of current interest were discussed, including the disposal of the assets of North East Shipbuilders Ltd.

  Electronic Consumer Goods
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the balance of payments deficit in electronic consumer goods.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the balance of payments deficit in electronic consumer goods.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the balance of payments deficit in electronic consumer goods.

  Mr. Forth
  The deficit, estimated as a crude trade balance on the overseas trade statistics basis, was £950 million in 1988. Corresponding figures available so far for 1989 indicate that the deficit was £700 million in the period January to September.

  Textiles
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to reduce imported textiles into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Redwood
  Imports of a wide range of textiles and clothing products from major low-cost exporting countries have for some time been restricted under bilateral agreements concluded by the Community within the framework of the multi-fibre arrangements and associated agreements. Where a surge in imports of a particular product not currently restricted is causing serious injury to domestic industry I am prepared to consider whether there is a case for action to put to the Community under the 298
  terms of the appropriate agreement. Each case has to be considered on its merits and in the light of the implications for the United Kingdom economy as a whole. It is not as a general rule in our interest to increase barriers to trade; indeed the Community is committed in the Uruguay round to negotiate about phasing out the MFA on acceptable terms.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the current balance of payments deficit can be attributed to the importation of textile and clothing goods from outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 December 1989]: Information on the balance of trade in textiles and clothing is not available on the same basis as the current account of the balance of payments. The following table shows the relationship between these balances and that for total visible trade which is available on both bases.

  United Kingdom Trade, 12 months ending October 1989

  £ billion

  Overseas Trade Statistics basis1

  Balance of Payment basis2

  Balance of trade in:

  Textiles and clothing goods3

  -3·6

  n.a.

  Total visible trade

  -28·9

  -24·2

  Current account balance4

  n.a.

  -20·1

  1 Exports valued free on board (fob); imports valued inclusive of insurance and freight (cif)

  2 Exports and imports both valued exclusive of insurance and freight charges

  3 Standard International Trade Classification, divisions 65 and 84

  4 Includes services, transfers and other invisible transactions n.a. not available

  Sources: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom

  United Kingdom Balances of Payments

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received regarding the multi-fibre arrangement from the textile industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  We have received comments on Professor Silberston's recent report on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement from the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance as well as from particular sectors of the textile and clothing industry. These comments are being taken into account in our consideration of the United Kingdom and EC position as negotiations on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement continue in the GATT Uruguay round.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Silberston report on the multi-fibre arrangement for the textile industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  I announced publication of Professor Silberston's report on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement in my reply to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 19 October at column 176. Comments on the report have been received from a variety of sources, including the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry, the Trades Union Congress and organisations representing consumers and retailers. The report and these responses will be of help to the Government as the Community prepares its position for the final stages of the GATT Uruguay round negotiations on textile trade policy next year.

  British Investment Bank
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to create a British investment bank to invest in British industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The Government's firm view is that British industry will itself make better investment decisions than a state institution using taxpayers' money.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the citizens advice bureaux on the funding requirements in 1990–91 of their comprehensive advice service.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the citizens advice bureaux on the funding requirements in 1990–91 of their comprehensive advice service.

  Mr. Forth
  The funding of individual citizens advice bureaux is a matter for local decision, and my Department is not involved in those discussions. I have however met representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and of Citizens Advice Scotland in recent months and among the topics discussed was their funding requirements.

  Transport Policy (CBI)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the Confederation of British Industry's policy document on transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have seen a copy of the CBI's report, "Trade Routes to the Future", which my right hon. Friend and I are studying. The report will serve to increase our understanding of businesses' transport needs.

  Golden Shares
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies presently have golden shares held by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I hold special shares in six companies. Other colleagues hold special shares also.

  Civil Research and Development
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money was provided for the support of civil research and development by his Department in 1989–90 in the 1989 public expenditure review; and how much he now estimates will be spent.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1989 Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 605) indicated that £243 million would be available through the DTI for civil industrial research and development support during 1989–90. Our latest estimates indicate that the take-up of this funding will be approximately £231 million.

  Note: these figures apply to DTI support for industrial R and D under the innovation, civil aircraft and aeroengine, and space budgets.

  Postal Services
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the quality of the postal services.

  Mr. Forth
  In the last year we have received some 150 representations from right hon. and hon. Members and others about the quality of the postal service, mainly the first-class service. Quality of the postal service is an operational matter for the Post Office: it has set itself a target of an average 3 per cent. improvement this year.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average volume of mail sent by first-class post on a working day during the past year; how many letters, in number and percentage, arrived within the target time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Post Office tells me that the current average number of first-class letters sent each day is 25 million. Statistics on the proportion of letters delivered within the target time are now kept on a district rather than national basis, but I understand that between three quarters and four fifths of first-class letters are delivered on the working day after posting.

  Renaval Programme
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation of the European Economic Community's Renaval programme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the operation of the European Economic Community's Renaval programme in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government have submitted applications for programmes of measures for Plymouth and Gibraltar and put cases for eligibility for Strathclyde and Fife. We are considering what further applications might be made. The European Commission has so far approved only the eligibility of Plymouth.

  Nationalised Industries (European Community)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the level of subsidies to other European Community countries' nationalised industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  From time to time we receive representations from industry about unfair competition from subsidised nationalised industries in other member states. Substantive complaints are pursued vigorously with the European Commission who are responsible for ensuring the proper application of the state aid rules of the European Economic Community treaty. We are concerned about the opportunities which other member states have to provide subsidies to their nationalised industries which may distort competition in the European Community.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards reimbursement of investors who lost money in the Barlow Clowes collapse and the help given by his Department in the process.

  Mr. Ridley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs on 1 November at column 257. The latest information available to me on the progress of the liquidation of Barlow Clowes International Ltd is in my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's letter of 27 November to all members, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received about Barlow Clowes.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have received many representations from right hon. and hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, from the Barlow Clowes Investors Group and from investors themselves. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs' letter of 27 November to all members, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, gives the latest information available on the matters about which most interest has been expressed.

  Finishing Mills
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with British Steel about finishing mill capacity and location; and if his discussions included the effect of Government guarantees to plant in Scotland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no such discussions.

  Machine Tools
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of investment in machine tools over the last three years has been on imported equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Recent United Kingdom investment in the import of machine tools has been estimated as:

  Year

  United Kingdom demand

  Imports

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  1986

  1,011

  500

  49·5

  1987

  875

  425

  48·6

  1988

  1,155

  557

  48·2

  No information is available about the re-export of imported machine tools. The above figures take no account of re-exports. I do not propose to make a statement.

  Companies
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies were registered at Companies house for each of the last five years.
  302
  Mr. Redwood
  Ninety-eight thousand companies were incorporated in Great Britain in 1984. The number of registrations rose to 105,000 in 1985, 117,000 in 1986, 128,000 in 1987 and 129,000 in 1988. Further details can be found in the publication "Companies in 1988–89", a copy of which is in the Library.

  North East Shipbuilders
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his latest intentions concerning the future of North-East Shipbuilders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British Shipbuilders are currently in discussion with a number of parties interested in purchasing the assets of North East Shipbuilders Ltd. I hope these discussions will prove fruitful.

  Bookmakers (Shareholders)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor the shareholders of major bookmakers in Satellite Information Services.

  Mr. Forth
  For the purposes of the Telecommunications Act 1984, the licence for the provision of satellite telecommunication services granted to Satellite Information Services Ltd. on 16 October 1989 requires it to notify the Secretary of State when shares representing more than 20 per cent. of the voting rights in the company are acquired by any person, and subsequently should further acquisitions bring this holding to more than 30 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. No such justification has been received.

  The company is also required to provide information under the Companies Act 1985 in the usual manner.

  Fata Babour
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants for research, development and investment in equipment were made to Fata Babour or related companies from 1984 to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department has not been able to trace any record of this company, nor of any related companies.

  Fibre-optics (Trial)
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to evaluate the results of his decision to grant a special licence to British Telecom to convey integrated voice telephony and entertainment television over a trial optical fibre network at Bishops Stortford, announced on 14 November; and what plans he has to transfer the technology to other parts of the economy.

  Mr. Forth
  It is primarily for British Telecom and the companies involved in the trial to evaluate the results. Similarly, the transfer of technology is a matter for the companies themselves.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the decision to grant a special licence to British Telecom to convey integrated voice telephony
  303
  and entertainment television over a trial optical fibre network at Bishops Stortford, announced on 14 November, will involve any public expenditure.

  Mr. Forth
  No public expenditure will be involved.

  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the decision to grant a special licence to British Telecom to convey integrated voice telephony and entertain television over a trial optical fibre network at Bishop Stortford, announced on 14 November, reflects any change of policy on the creation of a national broadband network based on fibreoptic cable since the publication of the White Paper, "Information Technology," Cm 646.

  Mr. Forth
  No. The trial is consistent with the policy announced in the White Paper on information technology.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the terms of reference of the proposed Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into private hospitals and private health insurance; if he will place the text of the Director General of Fair Trading's recommendations to him in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have arranged for a copy of the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the acquisition by British United Provident Association Limited of HCA United Kingdom Limited to be placed in the Library. It is not our practice to publish the Director-General of Fair Trading's advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In this case my right hon. Friend's decision to refer the acquisition to the Commission was in accordance with the Director-General's advice.

  Relocation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all office relocations of his Department's staff since May 1979, stating in each case the location of origin and the location of transfer, together with the numbers of staff transferred.

  Mr. Forth
  Since 1979 we have relocated the following activities:

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  50 post moved in 1987 from Chapter street London SW1 to the National Physical Laboratory site at Teddington.

  Personnel
  30 post in the Pay Unit were transferred to Cardiff in 1986.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  336 post moved in 1988 from Waterloo to the National Physical Laboratory site at Teddington.

  DTI South-East
  One hundred and fourteen posts in the regional office serving London and the South East have been transferred from Victoria to Cambridge, Reading, Reigate and other parts of the region. Ninety posts were transferred in 1988 and a further 24 in 1989.

  Insolvency Service
  One hundred and thirty four headquarter and other London based posts transferred in 1988–89 to Birmingham and a further 34 posts are planned for relocation to Birmingham and Edinburgh.

  Patent Office
  The relocation of 850 posts to south Wales began in 1988 and will finally be completed in 1991 when the new premises being built to house the office are ready for occupation.
  304
  We have recently announced that the Import Licensing Branch with 53 posts would be transferred to Billingham during 1990.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what relocations of his Department's staff, or agencies relating thereto, are currently being considered; and what are the numbers of staff affected.

  Mr. Forth
  The location of functions currently based in London and the south-east is being considered in a rolling programme of reviews covering altogether the work of approximately 4,000 staff. Reviews currently in hand affect about half this total.

  The location review programme aims to identify those activities which could be relocated without significant loss of operational effectiveness and which would offer a positive cost benefit.

  South Korea (Imports)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in the Official Report the total value of imports into the United Kingdom from South Korea, the main categories represented by these imports and the total deficit in United Kingdom trade with South Korea, for each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 December 1989]: Total values of United Kingdom imports from the Republic of Korea and of the United Kingdom's trade deficit with the Republic of Korea, from 1986 to 1989 and for the first nine months of 1989, are set out in the table. The main categories represented by these imports are articles of apparel and clothing accessories (20 per cent. of 1988 total); office machinery and automatic data processing equipment (13 per cent.); telecommunications, sound recording and reproducing equipment (13 per cent.); and electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances (12 per cent.).

  £million

  United Kingdom imports from Republic of Korea

  United Kingdom trade deficit with Republic of Korea

  1986

  662

  374

  1987

  936

  509

  1988

  1,135

  684

  19891

  892

  550

  1 January to September.

  Source: United Kingdom Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Mortgages
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will consider introducing legislation to render it compulsory for all financial advisors to disclose to prospective clients, whether as part of quotations or otherwise, the total sum received as commission for arrangement of mortgages linked to policies of endowment assurance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 5 December 1989]: An endowment policy, whether offered in conjunction with a mortgage or not, is a form of investment, and under the Financial Services Act 1986 it is the responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board and recognised

  305
  self-regulating organisations and professional bodies to make rules on the disclosure of commissions on investments.

  Regulations made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 require credit brokers who charge a fee to prospective borrowers for arranging mortgages to show the amount in advertisements and quotations; it must also be included in the calculation of the charge for credit. There are no plans under the Consumer Credit Act to require the disclosure to prospective borrowers of commission received by credit brokers or lenders.

  Footwear
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking through the European Community to prevent the French Government from enforcing their own footwear labelling regulations.
  306
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The British Footwear Manufacturers Federation has raised with the DTI its concern about French Government decree 89–292 which introduces new labelling requirements for footwear. My officials are considering with the federation what action should be taken by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding the European Community Commission's report on imports of footwear from Taiwan and Korea.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 5 December 1989]: We will need to be satisfied what restrictions if any are justified. The matter is at present under discussion in Brussels and I will wish to consider the views expressed by the industry and other member states before making a final decision.

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

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Tributes to the late Lord Elwyn-Jones
2.38 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the House will have been much saddened to hear of the death of Lord Elwyn-Jones on Monday evening. Lord Elwyn-Jones came to your Lordships' House as Lord Chancellor in 1974 and I well remember wondering how he would take to the different ways and customs here after a long and distinguished career in another place. But immediately he endeared himself to the whole House: his great charm and wise counsel will be sorely missed not only by his close political friends and colleagues but by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, by members of the legal profession and by all your Lordships.
Elwyn, as we came to know him, held strong views and debated with passion but never with personal rancour. He had a lightness of touch which sometimes made one forget his capacity for sheer hard work. After taking part as prosecutor in the Nuremberg war trials, he served as Member of Parliament for 30 years in another place while building up his legal practice. He was Attorney-General from 1964 to 1970 with a heavy workload and Lord Chancellor from 1974 to 1979. As Lord Chancellor he was skilful in balancing the legitimate interests of the executive and the judiciary. He maintained a steady flow of law reform measures including—and I think that this was very close to his heart—the Children Act of 1975.
His dedication to your Lordships' House was such that until very recently he was one of our most hard working Peers. It is particularly poignant that he died on the day that the House debated war crimes, a subject about which he felt very deeply.
Kind and resolute, a passionate defender of the rights of others and with the most wonderful sense of humour, Lord Elwyn-Jones personified so many of the qualities renowned in the Welsh people. Your Lordships will wish to join with me in offering our
850
deepest sympathy to his widow and his family at this time.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the warm and affectionate tribute that he has paid to our dear colleague, Lord Elwyn-Jones.
Elwyn was one of three outstanding brothers brought up in the great Welsh nonconformist tradition. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has referred to his long and distinguished career in the law and in Parliament. We know that he was devoted to his profession of law and to Gray's Inn as well as to politics, to the House of Commons and to this, our House. In all of these he maintained the highest standards. As a result it is not too much to say that he was loved by his colleagues in the law and in Parliament across the Benches.
I had the privilege of instructing Elwyn when he was a junior barrister on the Welsh circuit. It was always a pleasure to work with him. His advocacy was eloquent and his mastery of the case in law and fact always impressive. Behind it all, however, I knew that Elwyn had worked very hard. The same was true of his parliamentary work. I think the House knows that when he spoke from this Box on Second Reading or in Committee he had spent hours ensuring that he would present the case at its best.
His service as Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor will be long remembered. His place in Welsh history is certainly secure, not least because he was the first Welsh speaking Lord Chancellor for centuries. Even before the war, as a young barrister, his passion for human rights impelled him to travel to Austria and elsewhere where those rights were imperilled. His appointment to prosecute at Nuremberg was, in a sense, a natural sequel to his experiences before and during the war.
The Holocaust, the suffering of Jewish people in Europe, was never far from his mind and in his last days he was still thinking about Monday's debate in this House on war crimes. Those who had the privilege of his friendship will not forget him. His kindness, his compassion and his sense of humour will remain with us. We shall miss that beautiful voice that we came to know so well.
I shall always think of him as a young man, because even at the age of 80 he was young in his attitudes and in his outlook. Age did not wither him and his memory will always remain fresh in our minds. Our sympathies go to Lady Elwyn-Jones and to his son and two daughters.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there are some deaths of major public figures which are a special deprivation because of the sense of a career cut off in midstream with promise unfulfilled. Gaitskell, Macleod and Crosland come immediately to mind. And there are others where a life of rounded achievement has subsided and we perhaps feel more respect and admiration than shock or grief.
Elwyn Jones had some peculiar quality which made him span both categories. His life's work could, I suppose, be said to be complete. His career of public service is the now rare classical example of a great lawyer politician—barrister at 25, MP at 34,

851
QC at 43, Attorney-General at 54, Lord Chancellor at 64, and then ten years of exceptional subsequent devotion to this House in Opposition. His career was fully rounded. Yet there is much of the poignancy of a younger life cut off about his going. I think it was because he was so vividly, so acutely and yet so benignly among us until very recently. Only a few months ago he looked and sounded the model of what many of us, without much confidence, might hope to be at the end of our eighth decade.
I worked closely with him during his two periods of high office. For two years while he was Attorney I was Home Secretary, the Commons Member of the Cabinet whose responsibilities are most closely intermingled with legal processes. For half the time that he sat on the Woolsack I was again Home Secretary. It is well known that the responsibilities of the Home Office and of the Lord Chancellor's Department are entwined with more closeness than logic. But we were mostly able to proceed in perfect amity and your Lordships will readily believe that if there ever was an acerbity the fault was always mine and not Elwyn's.
However, my most vivid and warm memories of him will be those of the past few years in this House. The pleasure of hearing him pick up a point and shape it into an extremely effective question in a tone of voice which combined in almost exactly equal proportions the authority of the state, a liberal sympathy and a most perfect courtesy is something I shall never forget.
We will cherish his memory, and we send our deepest sympathy to his widow and children.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, Elwyn Jones will certainly be mourned on all sides of the House. He was always so kind and courteous, and his extrovert and friendly manner put everyone at their ease. He was a superb raconteur with a very wide range of humorous stories. I remember the long nights and the all-night sittings on the devolution Bills when Elwyn could be relied upon to dispel any tetchiness on the Front Bench in the early hours of the morning with a humourous aside or a whispered anecdote. He will be remembered for his service as a member of the War Crimes Executive and for his handling of the Nuremberg Trials.
He had a distinguished military and legal career. As an MP he served his constituency faithfully and well from 1945 until 1974 when he came to this House and quickly became a very beloved Lord Chancellor.
One can almost say that his interests were world-wide, and he enjoyed travelling to far away places. He had many humorous stories to relate on his overseas visits. He was always willing to extend a friendly hand to political friend and foe alike, to the most humble of his constituents and to the highest in the land. He retained the common touch and we are all the poorer for his passing.
Our sympathy goes out to his widow, herself in hospital at this time. They were a distinguished and devoted couple and her loss will be immense. To her and to his family, from these Benches we send our
852
love and compassion and our thanks for the privilege of sharing Elwyn with them.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, our convener has asked that I should associate the Cross-Bench Peers with the tributes that have been paid. That I most gladly do. Lord Elwyn-Jones was held in the greatest esteem and affection by all noble Lords on these Benches on account of his accessibility, his invariable courtesy and the moderation and elegance with which he expressed his views. To my noble and learned colleages in particular he was valued on account of his warm-hearted humanity and his strongly felt sense of justice.
As Lord Chancellor we valued his unvarying affirmation of the independence of the judiciary and his law reform projects. In later years we came to appreciate his experience and common sense when he came to sit as a judge, an activity which I think he greatly appreciated.
Internationally he had a wide reputation as a caring lawyer always able to express his thoughts in that natural eloquence with which his native country so liberally graces its sons. The legal profession will be the poorer for his absence.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I wonder whether I can intrude by saying a few words of tribute from these Benches. They are inevitably personal ones. I learnt of the death of Lord Elwyn-Jones just two minutes before taking prayers yesterday. I felt instant regret that the traditions of this House did not allow me an opportunity to voice the prayers of those present at the loss of so distinguished a Member. However, 24 hours later I am glad to rectify things.
My words are personal because as a very nervous newcomer to your Lordships' House I stood up here four years ago to make my maiden speech. Not knowing how to begin such things, and aware that in the view of your Lordships most bishops are indistinguishable from each other, I began by saying that before I was Bishop of St. Albans I was Archdeacon of West Ham. "Hear, hear" came the words of a benevolent gentleman on the Front Bench opposite to encourage me on my way, and I instantly guessed who he must be.
His twinkling eyes, his disarming smile, those expressive eyebrows, his rubicund countenance and his avuncular generosity made him for me the very personification of kindliness. And behind it all was the acute legal mind, the penetrating advocacy, demonstrated from the days of his time as president of the Cambridge Union to his time as Lord Chancellor—brilliance clothed in warm humanity.
I believe that I may speak with authority because the people of his constituency in Plaistow and Newham South were the people of my constituency. I know how well they will be mourning him now. Perhaps I may be privileged to voice their gratitude for the way in which—and from the totally different culture of the Welsh Valleys—he identified completely with the aspirations, the needs and the interests of those great East Londoners whom he represented in another place.

853
It is all too easy to say that your Lordships' House will be infinitely the poorer for his passing but in this case it is certainly true, as the former tributes have amply demonstrated. In him the bishops have lost an unfailing friend.
I know that Lord Elwyn-Jones featured in the prayers of many of us here during his illness in the hope that he would be upheld by God and maybe spared. But now he remains in our thoughts as we commend him to God, the loving and merciful Father, before whom he would not dream of pleading his own cause. We pray too for his wife in her frailty and for their family in thanksgiving for the man that he was and the influence and the memory he leaves with us all.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I shall not detain the House but perhaps it will not be thought inappropriate if I say how much I shall miss Elwyn. When in my profession we talk about "my learned friend" it is no mere figure of speech in the forensic encounters of a lifetime, in the anfractuosities of political division. But I shall always owe to him an immense debt of gratitude because of his kindness to me. It was of a particular kind when in 1978 I returned from Australia absolutely shattered by a personal bereavement. My sympathy goes out to his family in proportion to what he did for me then.

Local Authority Staff Numbers
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many staff are now employed by local authorities in England and Wales; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.
Lord Reay: My Lords, local authorities in England employed around 1,883,000 full-time equivalents in June of this year compared with around 1,975,000 in 1979. I understand from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales that local authority employment there fell from 129,000 to 123,000 full-time equivalents over the same period.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that interesting Answer. Can he say whether the downward tendency is continuing?
Lord Reay: My Lords, a large part of the decrease has been due to substantial transfers of staff away from the local authority sector. We like to think that part of the decrease is due to local authorities becoming more efficient. We believe that there is still room for improvement and we hope that the trend will continue.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that, although there may have been gains in efficiency as a result of constant financial pressure on local authorities, there have been great strains and in many cases damage to the
854
communities which they serve, especially in the older industrial areas?
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is up to local authorities to make the best use of their resources within the total amount of money available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether his first Answer was based upon the number of people in posts or upon the establishment of the councils? Is he aware that many local authorities are now having great difficulty in recruiting officers?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am aware that there are shortages in some sectors. For example, the Government acknowledge that there are shortages of teachers in some areas and subjects and that there are different trends within the overall trend, which has been a decline.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the enforcement of government policies on many local authorities has created difficulties for them, and that the net result of the reduction in their staff has meant that they have contributed to the massive unemployment figures which the Government have created?
Lord Reay: My Lords, no, I do not accept that at all. The charge that the Government have created unemployment cannot be maintained.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, in addition to the shortage of teachers, does the Minister accept that there is an acute shortage of qualified planning officers, who have been inundated with applications of one kind or another over the past three or four years? What do the Government have in mind to help local authorities over that problem?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am afraid that I have no information about the shortage of planning officers. I shall make inquiries and let the noble Lord know the result.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister say what effect the introduction of the poll tax has had on those figures?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we accept that the introduction of the community charge has led to an increase in the number of staff employed by local authorities. However, we believe that the additional cost associated with the charge will be far outweighed by the benefits following the greater accountability that it will bring.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, or the Government are taking credit for what they appear to be claiming to be an advance. If it is the case that there has been a reduction in the number of local government officers, can the Minister tell us what has been the increase in the number of pages of local government legislation passed by this Government which must be enforced by local authorities?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have figures on the number of pages of legislation, either for the more recent period or a more distant one.

Council Rent Arrears
3 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they will make to the recent report by the Audit Commission on council house rent arrears.
Lord Reay: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome the Audit Commission's report. It echoes much of the advice given to local housing authorites by the Department of the Environment on rent arrears prevention and recovery. Her Majesty's Government endorse the recommendations in the report.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the arrears mentioned in the report of this year amounted to £450 million, an increase of 30 per cent. compared with last year's figure of over £100 million? That is deemed to be the result of the housing benefit legislation introduced by the Government last year when they were warned by noble Lords on all sides of the House of the effect that it would have.
Is the Minister aware that the new regulations removed one million families from any entitlement whatever to benefit? It is calculated that another five million tenants have had their benefits substantially reduced. Does the Minister not accept that the blame for the increase in rent arrears to so horrendous a figure should be laid at the door of the people who caused it; namely, this Government?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the new housing benefit rates introduced in April 1988 will have initially caused administrative problems for some local authorities. However, as the Audit Commission report states, those councils should by now have adjusted to the new system.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that answer is so ridiculous. We are not talking about administration; we are talking about housing benefit that is completely and utterly necessary to their survival being removed from people at the bottom end of the social scale. Will the Minister answer my question and not manufacture one of his own?
Lord Reay: My Lords, perhaps I may quote from Howard Davies, the Comptroller of the Audit Commission, who writes in the report:
"The 1988 benefit changes undoubtedly caused major problems for local authorities but they should by now have had time to overcome the initial administrative difficulties. It is up to them to put a high priority on bringing arrears quickly under control".
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is understood that the vast majority of council tenants are fairly good and actually pay their rents,
856
which is very commendable? Is it a fact that the report says that those people who are decent and pay their rent will now be expected to pay the arrears of other people?
Lord Reay: My Lords, somebody must pay the arrears.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, why should it be those who are decent?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the responsibility lies with local authorities to collect the rent due to them properly and efficiently for the benefit of all their tenants and taxpayers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has now given two totally inadequate answers to successive questions. Does he not agree that the Audit Commission report refers not only to the administrative costs of the changes in housing benefit but also to the fact that housing benefit has been lost by those who find it most difficult to pay and that, therefore, there will be a continuing rise in rent arrears as a result of the changes in housing benefit which are nothing to do with the administration?
Does he not also agree that through the Local Government and Housing Act the Government ensured, as the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, has reminded us, that the good payers—and only the good payers—will pay the costs of the arrears?
Lord Reay: My Lords, if rents rise, housing benefit is there to cushion the effect for those who cannot otherwise afford to pay the increase. I must repeat that the Government do not accept that an increase in rent arrears is wholly the product of housing benefit reforms. Many other factors are involved including the control of debt by local authorities.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that I agree with him that the change in housing benefit is not the only factor involved although, of course, it is one of the main factors? There have also been changes in the rate rebate system. The poorest tenants now have to pay 20 per cent. of their rates whereas before they paid nothing, being entitled to a 100 per cent. rebate. There have been massive increases in rent because of reductions in subsidies by Her Majesty's Government. Is the Minister aware that rates have also increased as a result of government policies and impositions on local authorities and also that heating charges have increased quite dramatically, again because of new legislation, privatisation Bills and so on? Is he aware too that water charges have increased? I could go on. But those are some of the factors that have pushed up the rent arrears of council tenants.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Stallard: My Lords, extreme difficulty is being experienced in coming to grips with administration. It is not the sort of administration the Minister is thinking of. It is a question of how to adminster inadequate social security benefits.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I take the point which noble Lords opposite are making. I understand that they have very sincerely held views which I shall draw to the attention of my honourable friend. However, I must return to the point that someone must pay the arrears. The debt must be settled. It is up to local authorities to manage the matter.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, why should the tenants who are living up to their obligations and paying on time have to bear the full cost of the defaulters? The Government have never yet answered that question.
Lord Reay: My Lords, we believe that the important matter is to bring to an end the practice of allowing arrears to accumulate unchecked. We believe that we have introduced a disincentive to prevent a practice continuing which only local authorities have the capacity to control.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has again repeated an answer which is straightforwardly wrong. He says that it is up to the local authorities to deal with the cost of the arrears. Is it not the case that the Local Government and Housing Act states that because of ring fencing of the housing revenue account, it is the responsibility of the good payers? Will the noble Lord now take the opportunity to correct a mis-statement which he has twice made?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can only repeat that the discipline of the ring fence round the housing revenue account to which the noble Lord referred will ensure that councils have more incentive in the future to pursue arrears.

Police Rent Allowance
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the ruling by the police pay tribunal that police officers should be reimbursed that portion of their rent allowance attributable to the present rating system, they will reconsider their decision to set aside that ruling and will apply it to the community charge when this is introduced.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, final decisions on the police arbitration tribunal's award on rent allowance have not yet been taken.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he not aware, however, that the Police Federation is extremely concerned about this matter? Does he not agree that police confidence in this Government's obligation to honour recommendations in the Edmund-Davies Report, which was undertaken in 1979, is being seriously undermined? Does he not further agree that the change-over from a domestic rate system to the community charge is being used as an excuse to stand down from that obligation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea. In fact, the Police Negotiating Board gave to the tribunal a problem. The tribunal made a recommendation and referred a number of points back to the Police Negotiating Board. When the Police Negotiating Board reaches a conclusion, those recommendations will be given to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend took the opportunity of making it clear that he had certain reservations over the rent allowance and that it should not be assumed that the Home Secretary would always give effect to all the tribunal's decisions. That is to do with rent allowance and not the community charge.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend this. If an employee—whether policeman, agricultural worker or charitable housing superintendent—has his community charge and the income tax upon it refunded, will 'there then be a further income tax on that income tax and further income tax on that income tax? Does he see any end to this inequitable spiral?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I tried to follow my noble friend in the spiral, but I got lost. I can only tell him that the community charge is based on different principles from rates. It is a personal commitment and it is not a property tax. As such, therefore, it has different effects in different places.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister informing the House that the Home Secretary is keeping an open mind on this matter—the subject matter of the Question—and that it will not only be an open mind but a generous mind in regard to the police force?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has not yet made up his mind as to what should be done. The reason he has not yet made up his mind is that he has not received any recommendations from the Police Negotiating Board.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Moyne as to the number of times income tax will be levied on these refunds and on the refunds on them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the rent allowance is tax free, effectively.
Earl Nelson: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the police accommodation allowance is in fact an allowance which is part of the conditions of service and for years now has been trumpeted in all recruitment advertisements and literature as being such? If the Government are minded to tamper—I use the word advisedly—with the rent allowance, does he not agree that there could in time be a recruiting problem? Equally—if I may continue—does he not agree that it could present local authorities with quite a problem since, if a number of officers who are presently buying their own accommodation were unable to do so because

859
of the scrapping of the rent allowance, they would then have to offer them police accommodation? However, many local authorities have already sold off excess police housing stock.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Government are always conscious of the need to recruit policemen and do not wish to see anything happening which will adversely affect recruitment. My noble friend refers to the scrapping of the rent allowance. This is in fact replacement of the rent allowance with a housing allowance. In 1988-89 that rent allowance alone was worth £340 million. My right honourable friend has said that Her Majesty's Government do not wish to see any officer receiving less by way of housing allowance after 31st March 1990 than he or she was receiving by way of rent allowance and compensatory grant on that date.

Hong Kong Refugees: Repatriation
3.14 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they propose to take in the light of statements by the Vietnamese Government that they will not accept refugees forcibly repatriated from Hong Kong.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, talks with Vietnam are still continuing on the detailed final arrangements for involuntary repatriation. The procedures which will be used are in line with those applied world-wide in removing persons refused permission to remain. I am confident that the Vietnamese authorities will find these unobjectionable.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the British Government do not believe what the Vietnamese Government say? The Vietnamese Government have stated—have they not?—that they will not accept forcibly repatriated refugees from Hong Kong. Have the Government any contingency plans should the Vietnamese Government live up to their word?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the position of the Vietnamese Government has not changed. They have consistently stated their objection to forcible repatriation and therefore there is no change in that situation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the British Government ceased to pay aid to Vietnam in 1979 because of its human rights record? Is the Minister now certain that the record in Vietnam is good enough to merit forcible repatriation? If that is the case, are the Government now prepared to renew bilateral aid?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no question of any boat people being returned to
860
Vietnam without assurances from the Vietnamese that they will not be punished or persecuted and that their conditions on return can be monitored. Those who have voluntarily returned to date have been monitored by the UNHCR and there have been no complaints whatever. On the question of aid, as I said recently we do not rule out reintegration assistance as part of a comprehensive repatriation programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, for the purposes of understanding the reply, will the noble Lord confirm that he and the Government are saying that the Vietnamese human rights record is now better than it was in 1979 and that this justifies forcible repatriation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are certainly concerned—we always have been, because this is a most important aspect of involuntary repatriation—that there should be monitoring of those people who are returned. We are satisfied that the conditions in Vietnam are adequate for their return and that those who have already returned are not being ill-treated. We wish to continue monitoring that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, will the Minister go a little further on the matter of aid? Will he not agree that it is not simply a matter of aid linked to the numbers who are repatriated but also the general economic conditions in Vietnam as a whole? Whatever may be the policies and deficiences of the policies of the present Government there, the fact is that it is basically a very poor country which has been put under great pressure by Western powers, particularly the United States. What do the Government propose to do about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Vietnamese Government may have been put under pressure by some places. They have not done a great deal to improve their own economic circumstances by some of the policies that they have pursued over the years. They do not exactly encourage investment and that is why so many of their citizens have chosen to leave the country.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that one of the contributions that the Government could make is to be more forceful in regard to other nations which are critical of what this Government are doing and to persuade them to make a contribution themselves to alleviate some of the problems that have arisen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the problem is that no other country in the world is prepared to accept any of these people who have not been screened out as regards genuine refugee status. The Geneva Conference in June therefore came to the conclusion that there was no other option for them—other than to stay in Hong Kong, which would be completely unsatisfactory—than to return to their own country.
Lord Parry: My Lords, if the monitoring system that is followed eventually shows that returning Vietnamese people are ill-treated in their country, what could the Government then do about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we should obviously then have to look again at the question of sending any more back. We should have to accept the assurances from the Vietnamese that they were treating properly those who had already returned, and that would be monitored. I have no reason to suppose that they will not be treated properly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, some noble Lords are a little confused about the two answers given by the Minister to my noble friend. He said in the first place that negotiations were continuing with the Vietnamese Government. He then said that the Vietnamese Government had not moved from their position of refusing to accept forcibly repatriated refugees. The second question my noble friend asked was: in that case what contingency plans do the Government have? Can he answer that question now?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer—and I think I covered the point—talks with Vietnam are still continuing on the detailed final arrangements for involuntary repatriation. The views of the Vietnamese have always been clear on the subject of the use of force, but we have no reason to suppose that the normal procedures to which I referred—those which are in line with those applied world-wide in removing persons refused permission to remain—will be found objectionable by the Vietnamese Government.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister say whether plans for monitoring the return of these refugees is being included in the discussions with the Vietnamese?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. The Vietnamese are content that we should monitor the return of the refugees. Our aim is to encourage the UNHCR to do so, but in the first instance our embassy will monitor the returnees. We shall then work on longer-term arrangements.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I ask the Minister to clarify one issue that I believe is worrying the House following on the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. If the Vietnamese Government refuse to accept those who are forcibly repatriated, what is going to happen to them if they are refused entry into Vietnam? Is it the Government's policy that there will be no forcible repatriation to Vietnam if the Vietnamese Government refuse to accept refugees?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, obviously if the Vietnamese consider that the measures that are used to return these people involve the use of force—that is not our intention as I said in my original Answer—we shall use procedures that are in line with those which are applied worldwide in these
862
kinds of cases. It is a matter on which we have to deal with the Vietnamese Government.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, would the Minister explain the mysterious words, "we shall adopt procedures that are in line with"? What are those procedures?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these are standard procedures employed by Western countries to remove persons who are refused permission to remain in the country. They are often used for the return of illegal immigrants around the world.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, what are those procedures?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think I can go any further.
Lord Rea: My Lords, would not a sensible approach to this problem be for the Government to attempt to work out a package with the Vietnamese Government so that they will be able to accept back their citizens in return for economic aid which will help to alleviate the very economic conditions which caused the boat people to leave Vietnam in the first place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already covered the point concerning aid as regards this issue. This question is really concerned with the Vietnamese objection to what can be described as forcible repatriation. The Vietnamese Government have agreed to take back these people provided forcible repatriation is not used.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister go a little further than he did in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Do not these mysterious standard procedures involve the use of force?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, hope that they will not involve the use of force at all. That is the whole point of this argument.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the length of speeches in today's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes to open and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be subject to a strict limit of 10 minutes. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that should the figure "10" appear on the clock, that speech will already have been too long.

National Health Service: Future
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to call attention to present uncertainties about the future of the National Health Service and possible solutions; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for some reason it has been difficult to get a full understanding of the Government's proposals about the health service and their possible significance. It would be argued by many that little evidence has been provided on a number of important matters. Requests for further studies have been consistently refused. At the beginning I believe that the Secretary of State was concerned that medical protests were just a device to get rid of proposals. However that may have been, I feel certain that that is not the situation now.
In the United States the control by the medical staffs over quality assurance and peer review is being challenged by hospital boards and administrators driven by economic pressures. Changes in health care delivery may force the medical staffs to change their style of practice. This battle in the United States continues. In 1982 the state of California adopted a controversial law which allowed payers of health care services to contract with selective groups of hospitals and physicians.
What is happening in the United Kingdom? Here also there are pressures on the financial situation and everyone must accept that resources for the National Health Service are limited. In addition, efficient management is required in such a large, complex organisation. It must also be accepted that managers must have a clear understanding of the special situation which exists in the National Health Service and establish the right relationship with the principal spenders, the doctors.
The White Paper seemed to suggest that this was the British version of the California experiment. What was the reaction of the medical profession? On 15th November 1989, 83 per cent. of the total staff of the Borders General Hospital in Scotland informed Mr. Forsyth, the Minister for Health, as follows:
"We the undersigned, having considered the Government White Paper Working for Patients, are opposed to its proposals believing they would have a detrimental effect on the care of our patients".
Because of the relation between doctors and patients the fact is that much of the expenditure is initiated by them. Attempts by management to control the expenditure, as I have said, have given rise to tremendous problems in the United States. What should happen here in order to avoid the problem, or can it be avoided?
The situation is not helped by the fact that the Secretary of State has seen fit to impose a new general practitioners' contract. That imposition has not led to violent political action by the British Medical Association. Anyone reading Dr. Michael Wilson's statement about the matter will realise that the committee of the British Medical Association, whatever its faults, has decided firmly against any form of action which would be damaging to the patients. It believes that, in order to protect patients'
864
interests, which remain paramount, and to sustain general practice in the National Health Service for the future, it will subject key aspects of the contract to a careful audit. I quote:
"We will continue to impress on department officials the contract's harmful effects on patients".
The outline of the new contract must be known to most noble Lords. The proposals in the White Paper for the reorganisation of general practice are based on the more detailed list of duties and responsibilities for general practitioners contained in that contract. One wonders whether this is the end of the independent contractor status of general practitioners.
Consultants are also concerned. Perhaps I may quote from one of the presidents of a royal college:
"What is proposed is a series of tightly packed contracts where the amount and standard of work is closely spelled out. Such a system is in stark contrast to the ethics in medicine which demand commitments from doctors in and out of hours. Much of their committee work and management duties are in unpaid overtime".
In addition, what is the future commitment for teaching and research? So far we have had only a few reassuring statements.
In some senses it could be argued that management has dictated the duties of doctors similar to the situation existing in the United States which has given rise to so much conflict. Why has that been done? What about the existing contract? Was it satisfactory? Did it recruit high-quality doctors, and were they content with their lot?
To examine this situation further one has to look also at the changing role of family practitioner committees and their successor, the proposed family practitioner services authority. Anyone concerned with the National Health Service in its first 20 years and the steady deterioration of standards which took place in general practice will remember vividly the effects of the general practitioners charter of the mid-1960s. Since that time recruitment has improved and that improvement has been maintained. Some of the best doctors have gone into general practice.
In 1985 the membership and the accountability of family practitioner committees were changed and they were declared to be adminstratively independent of district authorities and directly accountable to the Secretary of State over a whole range of responsibilities. Why was this done? The planning and management of these services have relied upon the professional ethos of independent contractors, and successive governments have boasted as to how succesful they have been. Recently, as part of the Government's proposals, the Family Practitioner Services Authority has had a changed membership resulting in reduced contact with local government. It has become responsible to the regional health authority. This is happening at the time of implementation of the Griffiths Report, the success of which depends so much on the right relationship between the health service and local government social services.
The proposals seem to envisage the doctor in isolation dealing with a whole range of new responsibilities and getting financial benefits from achieving vaccination rates at a certain level. No

865
real picture of the team in general practice has been developed or encouraged. Laying down the detail of doctors' hours and responsibilities may be necessary so that the costing systems can be effective. We are told that the contracts in the first instance will be based on presently available data.
It is suggested that large practices should have their own budgets, and that they should be able to contract with hospitals. From reading this proposal, it is obvious to me that the assumption has been made that general practice in the future will be a blown-up version of the present position, and that the dependence on hospitals will remain substantially the same. There is no real discussion of the enlarged role of the professions allied to medicine in assisting, for example, consideration of public health matters.
All this is very sad. Perhaps I may give a simple example. It is not envisaged that large group practices will have modern technology. One important and urgently needed step is to find out how many patients are needed to justify the use of various types of equipment in, or example, the diagnosis of cancer. Neither is it envisaged that consultants will visit group practices under contract arrangements, and that patients will receive a range of treatments there. That would be a marvellous service. To have imposed such a dull, unimaginative and doctrinaire contract in a successful situation seems to be the essence of folly.
What will the future recruitment of general practitioners be like? Future arrangements in the health service should strengthen the central role of general practice. Will the Government today commit themselves quite unequivocally to this objective? I am saying that, while recognising the need for evolution and change, one must keep the best and most successful parts of the existing system until there is evidence that change is desirable or necessary.
In contrast to this reckless plunging into the unknown by the Government over the general practitioners, the proposals regarding hospitals and independent hospital trusts are ones on which an enormous number of experiments have been done, through boards of governors, and so on, since the beginning of the National Health Service. Though a great deal of work is required to get the technology in place, and a great deal of detail is required on contracts, the basic proposal is one of which we have wide experience. One is glad to see practical proposals about doctors carrying out private practice in hospitals. One is sad not to see the proposal orginally contained in the National Health Service Act for amenity beds. This is more important than private practice in hospitals. The patient should be allowed to pay for special accommodation. He may need privacy in an intimate family situation. The objections to the hospital proposals seem to be largely based on the fear of a two-tier system for hospitals, which was largely demolished by the emergency medical service between 1939 and 1945. It is also based on the possibility of departure from nationally agreed salary scales. I am sure other noble Lords will discuss these matters.
What are the next stages in development? Is it possible to put the National Health Service on to an evolutionary path? The view is widespread among noble Lords that this is vitally important. The Journal of the American College of Physicians has stated:
"They—the top administration—are starting to realise that if you don't care for the people who work in the hospitals (or the NHS) there is no way that physicians and other employees can pass on the caring to patients".
In the past, caring was the prime concern mainly of doctors, nurses and others in contact with patients. It was a personal responsibility. The proposed new management systems require collaboration between management and those concerned with patients. This is welcome, but the Government will have to adopt a very different attitude to that adopted in the past year if a successful policy is to be agreed. Future developments depend not on orders from the Department of Health, but on the feeding of vital information to the management board, and on information derived from research and development studies, including clinical audit. Policy recommendations can then be based on evidence. These recommendations would be concerned not only with the running of the service, but with patient care and management.
The Journal of the American College of Physicians has also stated:
"If the administration sets the priorities first. and then consults the doctors, there is objection. But if they say, you the clinicians, must set the priorities—this is acceptable".
I was glad to hear from the chief medical officer that in Guy's Hospital and Southampton Hospital studies this is the case. The clinicians are actively involved in the decision-making process. But to achieve it, a substantial amount of data will have to be made available to clinicians so that they will fully understand the problems. All this is time-consuming, and on occasion may take clinical experts away from their primary highly specialised role and thereby cause staff shortages. The key sounds simple but is complicated. How does one produce the proper rate of growth of services, and how does one distinguish between the good and the wasteful? That is very simple but also very difficult.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology realised this when it examined medical research with particular reference to the NHS. Clinical audit in a small hospital or group practice is fine for maintaining the standards of clinical care, but a machinery is necessary to feed important findings into the system. This would include findings on medical management. The Department of Health's medical advisory committees is not sufficiently widely based for this. A new communications channel is needed, That is what I believe to be a basis for evolution. Without it there is a danger of going from one crisis to the next and of continuing conflicts when governments change.
The House is awaiting the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and also the report of the steering group chaired by Sir Christopher France, which has been concerned with the sharing of costs between the Departments of Health and of Education in

867
teaching and research centres. In the past few weeks, discussions with the presidents of the royal colleges have proved unsatisfactory because Ministers have felt unable to discuss the points which were worrying the colleges and failed to answer their anxiety satisfactorily. Unfortunately, this means that anxieties have not been relieved. The present fear is that the Government, having imposed the general practitioners' contract, intend now to impose the recommendations of the White Paper.
The Government's handling of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill in this House and in another place could be the next important step. It could mean the difference between success and failure in regard to the healthy development of the NHS and also public confidence in the Government. When one reads of the turbulent happenings on the medical front of recent years proposed by government action after a health service review which was conducted in secrecy, one wonders whether the whole matter is not just a prelude to privatisation; that is the fear.
The Bill which will be before the House of Commons refers to the development of community service following the Griffiths Report. I have previously argued strongly in this Chamber in favour of those proposals. Griffiths said:
"There must be a clear framework within which local and health authorities are working out their own process of co-ordination".
He also said:
"It is a matter of choice whether a person needing long-term care finds himself in a geriatric ward or in a nursing home or a residential home, all with different costs".
The community care proposals are a great challenge to local government, expecially in relation to the co-ordination of services and the close collaboration with voluntary agencies of the National Health Service. Noble Lords may wish to make reference to that aspect during the debate, but the matter is so important that I wonder whether it does not justify a debate of its own at some future time. I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for giving us the opportunity to debate this most important subject this afternoon. I should also like to thank him for his extremely comprehensive introductory speech,. He will of course understand that the limitation of time will prevent me from covering such a wide range of subjects as he has. In fact, I intend primarily to speak about the hospital service upon which the noble Lord commented encouragingly as regards the progress being made.
In the GP service I recognise that there are major unsolved problems which I hope that the Government may yet succeed in solving; but the measure of conflict between Ministers and professionals is quite clearly totally unproductive. As it is now nearly a year since the publication of the White Paper, we now have an opportunity to comment upon the matter and to review what has
868
been done. I think everyone will agree unequivocally that the aim of the White Paper is to ensure a better service for patients and better value for taxpayers.
In my view my noble friend Lady Hooper is entitled to congratulations for what the Government have achieved over the past 10 years. After 40 years of existence it is indeed the time to make a general review. It is a courageous attempt. The ideas in the White Paper are good and valuable. My noble friend can claim that over the past 10 years substantial improvements have been made since the actual expenditure for next year is £28.7 billion which is an increase in real terms of 45 per cent. That is a very large figure. The Government must be given credit for that fact, judged by any standards.
The number of hospital patients has increased from 5.3 million to 6.6 million; the number of nurses has increased by 67,000; and the number of doctors has increased by 14,000. These are substantial increases, and my noble friend is entitled to take credit for them. However, we now need to know—and this is what we hope the new approach will establish—what those figures represent in terms of quality of life for the millions of patients concerned; in other words, the outcome in hospitals.
First, we want to know how much unused capacity exists in the hospitals. We all know that there is the anomaly at the end of the financial year where because some hospitals have overrun their budget—and these are usually the most progressive ones—they have to close down beds; whereas, other less progressive hospitals have unspent funds. Those are ridiculous anomalies and we would like them to be eliminated somehow.
Therefore after 40 years of existence, some of the service is excellent; but much of it is not as good as it might be. As I understand it, the reform is a major attempt to replace the existing system of hospital financial allocation which is on a capitation basis, assisted by the RAWP system on capital allocation, by a system which reflects more nearly the treatment provided for patients and the final outcome; in other words, as my noble friend Lord McColl said a few days ago, "the money to follow the patients".
To that end the health service has developed a new concept known as the resource management initiative, or RMI. That attempts to evaluate the outcome for patients in terms of better prospects of survival, improved quality of life and avoidance of disability. Those are the vital factors. Of course, these are the products of all hospital treatment and care, to be set against the huge inputs of professional services, surgery, drugs, capital, and so on. Part of the objective is to develop a more accurate diagnostic classification.
The six hospitals chosen three years ago for the initial trial have achieved encouraging results. As my noble friend Lord McColl, of Guy's Hospital, has been one of the principal leaders in the project, I hope that he will give us some account of how this has been achieved in practice.
This important experiment has two factors one of which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. It is the fact that clinicians have been involved in the management. That is

869
clearly a vital factor in the matter. However, alongside that is the development of a comprehensive information system for each hospital; that is, RMI or resource management initiative. The Government now plan an extension to 50 more selected hospitals as a halfway house to eventual extension of all the remaining 260 health service hospitals as soon as possible.
I wish to make three points with regard to this new initiative. First, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that it is constructive, it is imaginative and it would bring increasing benefit to patients and to taxpayers alike. Secondly, the Government's presentation of this new initiative in Working for Patients is that self-government for hospitals is the primary objective, and that the resource management initiative is only the stepping stone to the ultimate objective. I believe that noble Lords should see that this is really a mistake. Some hospitals wish to become self-governing, and with appropriate safeguards I accept that that will be achieved; but clearly many are filled with great anxiety at the prospect and they are evidently apprehensive about the discharge of their core activities at this stage of great uncertainty about systems of contracting.
There would be no harm in making the resource management initiative the primary objective and letting the option of self-governing hospitals be available afterwards for those who wish to take it. Thirdly, in my view the development of a comprehensive information service for a hospital is a major undertaking. The excellent report of the Select Committee of another place has made some interesting remarks on the resource management initiative. Members of the Select Committee visited the United States to study the American system of hospital management and finance.
In the United States each hospital is paid by the Federal Government according to the work done. They have a long experience of effective management and accounting. The product is the diagnostic related group which makes the basis of those payments. No doubt the resource management initiative will produce a similar characterisation.
The Select Committee concluded in the light of its study that starting from scratch it would take each hospital four or five years to develop the RMI system. Her Majesty's Government responded to the Select Committee's report in a comprehensive reply, but on that point I find them unconvincing. The Government still conclude that the exercise can be done more quickly. I should add, with all humility, that I have had a little experience of introducing a modern information accounting system into a private religious hospital of which I am chairman. For a number of reasons the problem is much simpler, but even so it took about three years to do.
Innovation of that kind affects every person working in the hospital and great anxieties arise. The full co-operation of the staff at all levels can be won only by much careful information training and cutting corners will be disastrous. The longer timescale is essential. I hope that my noble friend will take that point on board.
870
I welcome the Government's undertaking to provide the extra funds needed to introduce RMI. The total cost will be heavy, and each hospital will need to be fully provided with funds. I shall not go into the detail of all that will be required because time does not allow. That major development in all our hospitals will cost a great deal, but when finished it will ensure better patient care and better value for money than ever before.
I congratulate my noble friends in government on their first-class initiative, but I warn them not to spoil it by excessive haste and by making self-governing hospitals the sole objective. With those words, I give encouragement to my noble friends for something which has been well started.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, we are once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for giving us an opportunity to air our concerns and uncertainties, including today's report that three-quarters of all health authorities are heading for a deficit this year with further cuts in services. Despite the fact that the Bill begins its process in another place, it is important that the House feels itself to be involved in the debates about the Bill. I am sure that we have an importan1 role to play. Although the Bill is in another place the issues are ones upon which we can concentrate today.
I agree with all the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. I should like to follow them up, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, time is short. I believe, and no one will doubt it, that the NHS part of the Bill is ill-conceived and damaging. I want to see some major changes—that is the objective—not to defeat it but to improve it.
In the debates on the gracious Speech I urged the Government to take seriously the grave concern felt by all those, with a minute exception, who work in the NHS, and the public. This morning I was at a conference and I heard a speech by one of the most distinguished presidents of one of the royal colleges, who said:
"The NHS faces disaster if this Bill is implemented. The question is: can Parliament rescue the NHS from this disaster?"
That is the issue that we should keep before us.
When a few days ago the Prime Minister refused to meet a deputation from the medical royal colleges, the BMA, and the royal colleges of nursing and midwives, Mrs. Margaret Bain, president of the Royal College of Midwives said:
"The Bill gives no evidence that any of our concerns have been heard or understood".
Those words came from her heart. All the professions with which I have been in contact feel deeply and have said that they seem not to have been heard, let alone responded to, by the Government.
I know that the Minister's reply will be that the nurses and doctors have it all wrong; for some reason the doctors have been wilfully misleading the public. The Government seem somehow to have convinced themselves that people are moving their way and that eventually the professions will see that the Government were right. I beg the Minister when she

871
replies and in any of her other thinking to recognise the depth of concern and uncertainty which exists throughout the service and throughout those involved in it, including the patients.
I shall come first to what I believe is the most crucial and controversial area of uncertainty, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, is the Government's proposal for self-governing hospitals. The fear is that the plan is unproven by any pilot projects. In three to four years' time we may have learnt from the six hospitals in which there have been experiments, but we do not know at present. The plans would mean a return to the pre-NHS days of a two-tier health service—the well-off versus the poorly funded, the highly skilled versus the run-of-the-mill and high tech versus basic provision.
The Government want to introduce financial competition into the delivery of care. There will inevitably be winners and losers. That is the law of the market place. But that runs contrary to the provision of equal health care for all, which is the basic principle upon which the NHS has been run until now. The separation of the purchasers of the service from the providers of the service and the introduction of competitive contracts are untried and complex. Funding by means of contracts with the commissioning authorities seems bound to lead to a distortion of the priorities within hospitals. It will be costly to administer. We already know that 4,000 extra people will be needed to run the new system and it will be a drain on the resources needed for patient care.
There are many worries about the opt-out proposals. There is not time to go into them all. We clearly know the views of the royal medical colleges, supported by the nurses and nearly every other profession within the NHS. Put shortly, and I steal just one sentence from a document produced by all the royal colleges and others associated with them:
"We conclude that the creation of self-governing hospitals, as proposed in the White Paper"—
one might now say "in the Bill"—
"will be seriously divisive and result in two categories of hospitals, competing for patients within limited funds".
As a former Secretary of State, I have to say that I do not believe that I could have continued to push those proposals through in the NHS in the knowledge that they were opposed by all the leaders of the professions. It cannot be done because we have to have their co-operation to make things work in the health service.
Ten weeks after the submission of the proposals from the conference of colleges, I must ask the Government what their reply has been. That document contained some constructive proposals as well as many sharp criticisms. Will the Secretary of State publish the reply so that we may see the Government's answers during the course of our debates? What influence have their views and the views of other professions had upon the legislative proposals? My impression is that so far they have had none.
Another question that arises is what arrangements will be made to obtain the views of the staff of
872
local hospitals before they go self-governing. What assessment will be made of the views of the public served by those hospitals, or will decisions be taken, as happened in Eastern Europe, by a handful of people?
My next question relates to core services. Working paper No. 1 led us to believe that there would be a list of core services to which all patients would have local access. There is no definition in the Bill. The wording of Clause 5(3) is hopelessly vague. It is left for the Secretary of State to decide. It appears that self-governing hospitals, freed from health authority control, will be able to decide for themselves whether to provide non-profit-making services, such as provision for geriatrics and the mentally ill. If I am wrong, the Minister will no doubt say so in her reply.
One of the Secretary of State's stated objectives in presenting the White Paper was to decentralise decision-making to the lowest reasonable level. I must ask: what has happened to that laudable objective? The Bill before us, in the words of one commentator, is,
"a nightmare, a legal, bureaucratic and ideological shambles".
Whether that is right or not, perhaps I may say that the Bill does not set out with any clarity what the Secretary of State believes to be the most important development in the history of the National Health Service. Instead, it confers upon him colossal—I use the word advisedly—increases in powers to run the National Health Service. It prescribes central controls where none is needed and deregulates where firm national standards are absolutely required. Most of the details of the Government's proposals are not included in the Bill. In clause after clause, issues are resolved by giving more and more power to the centre. Almost everything is left to regulation, to orders, which are not open to amendment in another place and by tradition not even open to vote in your Lordships' House.
To give an example, even the medical practitioner committees which approve the movement of GPs across the country are to be cut down to size. Clause 20(4) says:
"At the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection—The Secretary of State may give directions to the Medical Practices Committee with respect to the exercise of its functions; and it shall be the duty of the Committee to comply with any such directions".
My Lords, now you know. If I had time, I would go through case after case where power is taken away from local people with experience and given to the Secretary of State.
The last point which I have time to raise concerns organisation. There was no question of structural change when the Government proposed their White Paper. Now it seems that the Department of Health has plans for widespread mergers. I saw it even suggested that the present district health authorities be reduced to 90 purchasing authorities, almost like the old area tier, without the districts added. If by subterfuge we are to move back a stage in reorganisation, with all the jockeying for power that that would mean, we should know. I hope that in her reply the Minister will say what action the Government propose to take on this very important structural proposal.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, normally I would wish to say a great deal on this very topical and important Motion so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. However, I put down my name to speak with some reluctance for two reasons. First, as some noble Lords know, I have spent the last few months in and out of hospital learning a very difficult lesson—how to behave like a patient. That is not an easy lesson for a doctor to learn. Also, I have developed a small speech defect and I was anxious not to burden your Lordships with my words until I had fully recovered. I therefore hope that if I am not as distinct as I might wish, I shall be forgiven.
Secondly, I have used my period of enforced silence to listen to speeches from all parts of your Lordships' House. They have been of extraordinarily high quality, and during the debate on the loyal Address in particular displayed very great wisdom and were of a quality that I certainly never heard in many years in another place. Listening to those speeches made me feel proud to be a Member of your Lordships' House but also a little humble about my own somewhat pedestrian contributions.
However, I could not stay silent on a subject of this kind. In the main I shall focus on general practice. I spent many years as a general practitioner in the National Health Service. First, however, I wish to comment more generally.
The Motion refers to the,
"uncertainties about the future of the National Health Service".
Who is uncertain? Clearly, as we know, many patients are uncertain. Their uncertainties are perhaps aggravated by the kind of arguments and debates we have had and by things that they have been told. Doctors are uncertain; nurses are uncertain; other professionals who work in the National Health Service are uncertain. I believe that there is a great deal of uncertainty within the Department of Health itself. It cannot be otherwise. If one decides to make major changes, to reform a structure which has served our nation well for upwards of 40 years, one really must take a great deal of care and proceed with caution.
As my noble friend Lady Seear said some time ago in a debate on this subject, governments very rarely get everything right first time. That is why so many have said, "Why on earth do the Government not carry out pilot studies into some of these schemes so that they find out how they work in practice before they decide to apply them generally?" I say that again. The answer of the Secretary of State has always been, "Well, we are having pilot schemes. No practice is forced to have a budget and those which do decide to opt for budget status will in a sense be pilot studies". He also says that no hospital is forced to opt for self-governing status. Maybe. He says that those which do will be pilot studies.
These are not genuine pilot studies from which one can make real deductions and proper comparisons. We really need to study a whole area, so that we compare like with like and see how the proposals work. I am sorry that the opportunity to do that has not been grasped.
874
I have a few anxieties about research. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, will speak later. He prepared an admirable report on priorities in medical research which has already been debated. My anxieties are prompted once again by a letter which I received and which I am sure many noble Lords have received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of universities. They are extremely anxious about the situation of research. In one part of the letter for example they say:
"Schedule 2 enables and empowers National Health Service Trusts to undertake and commission research' and 'to make facilities and staff available in connection with training'. It does not require them to do either".
The committee rightly says:
"The planning of medical education"—
and presumably research as well—
"cannot be left on such an unsatisfactory and unpredictable basis".
I agree. I am also closely connected with an organisation known as ARMS, the Association of Researchers in Medicine and Science. It is deeply concerned about the difficulties of recruiting people of the necessary calibre to work in medical research. That is in the main because so many are recruited on short term contracts with no security of tenure and no proper career structure. We are not getting the people of the necessary calibre. That point is admirably illustrated by a letter which appeared in The Times recently from the headmaster of Abingdon School. He wrote that,
"two of the very ablest scientific and mathematical boys at present in this school have been recruited into a career as … accountants. The inducements offered included £1,000 per annum in addition to any university bursary, summer vacation employment at £11,000 per annum, a starting salary after university of £20,000 and the prospect of earning £100,000 per annum by the age of 30"
The headmaster goes on:
"Faced with inducements of this sort, is it surprising that our best and brightest scientists … are lured into the sterility of money manipulation?".
It is not surprising. But it is deeply regrettable. I shall leave that subject because I am sure that it will be dealt with by others. However, I hope that research will be left within the National Health Service and not with civil servants in one department or another. It should be in the hands of the doctors who do the work.
Let me move on to general practice. The principal cause of difficulties that have been announced and are talked about constantly by doctors is the move back to a system of payment by capitation. There was time when the doctors' payment was all by capitation. I was working at that time. The incentive there is to build up a bigger list in order to obtain more money.
The answer of the Secretary of State to that has been that it cannot be so. The right honourable Kenneth Clarke says, rightly, that the number of doctors is increasing, and the total number of patients is reducing. Therefore it is impossible that list sizes could increase. I accept that so far as it goes. But what the Secretary of State overlooks is that it inevitably means that a larger number of doctors will be chasing a smaller number of patients.

875
I worked at a time when remuneration was almost wholly by capitation and there clearly was an incentive to keep one's own patients. Doctors hardly ever spoke to any other doctors. There were no local rotas, we did not dare allow another doctor to see our patients in case he took them. With the coming of the charter to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred, we had a big change: pay went much more towards the basic practice allowance and other items. Things changed then. Doctors began working with a new spirit of co-operation. They worked together in establishing rotas and other items. It would be regrettable if we went back to the bad old days, but I say to noble Lords opposite, many of whom believe in competition and who think that competition is clearly valuable, that it was my experience that the doctors who built up the biggest list were rarely those who provided the best medicine. They were often merely the doctors who gave patients exactly what they wanted in terms of certification and other things. I warn that there is a lesson there.
I am also worried about community care. As a former general practitioner, I am conscious of the fact that at the end of the day if community care fails it is the general practitioner who will have to pick up the pieces. It is he who in the end will have to shoulder the burdens. Despite what is stated in the Bill, I fear that local authorities will not have the resources or the ability to discharge the functions now laid upon them. As regards some of those functions, I fear local authorities may feel prevented from giving adequate publicity to the kind of things they are now required to carry out, lest these should be regarded as political and prohibited by recent enactments in Parliament. If community care does not operate satisfactorily, I fear that GPs will be the sufferers in the end. That matter needs to be looked at with great care.
Why do we need a new device for controlling prescribing costs involving indicative prescribing budgets and other such things? There has always been provision for controlling extravagant or wasteful prescribing. That already exists within existing legislation. I have operated under that legislation. Every quarter every GP used to receive an analysis of his own prescribing costs, given as an average of the national average and as an average of the local average so that he could tell whether his prescribing was more costly or less costly than that of other GPs in his own area. If his prescribing was constantly over the mark, he or his partners would consider it and try to reduce it, as would the family practitioner committee or the executive council.
Finally, the regional medical officer would visit the GP and tell him what steps he should take. If that did not work, the GP could be called before a medical services sub-committee to be questioned. I was a member of such a committee. If the GP could not provide satisfactory answers to the committee and improve his performance, he could be fined heavily. The provisions already exist for controlling extravagant prescribing. Why do we need this new machinery which is so complex and difficult to understand?
876
The Government will be judged by the effect of what they are now doing on general practices. Our institution of the family doctor is unique in the world today. No other nation possesses the family doctor system whereby one doctor looks after the whole of a patient, not a whole lot of doctors who each look after different bits of a patient. We have the system whereby one doctor looks after a patient and his family. That system does not exist in the United States, the Soviet Union or anywhere else other than Britain. If it ceases to exist in this country, that would constitute a savage blow to the National Health Service.
I say with all possible respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who is to reply that I personally greatly regret that Lord Trafford cannot reply to the debate, and the circumstances which make that impossible. Many doctors are speaking in this debate who will make professional criticisms of what is now being done and it would have been helpful if a distinguished doctor with a professional understanding of those criticisms could reply to the debate. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to hear the noble Baroness although I thought it was appropriate to make that point.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, I believe there are about 14 Members of your Lordships' House who are on the active list and over 90 years of age. It is hardly surprising that we do not see many of them with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I must say that I enjoy, appreciate and envy the cogent diatribes of the noble Lord. However, nothing in the world would make me try to emulate the noble Lord. I must say, however, that I am myself rapidly approaching the portals of that eminent club, the nonagenarian club. That is quite a mouthful! I hope your Lordships will therefore bear with me if I voice a few thoughts which go wider than the White Paper and its consequent legislation on the NHS which has been so much to the fore in recent months and has been the sole subject of this debate so far.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for the wording of his Motion. I think the words "uncertainties about the future" allow me to consider how they have arisen and do not call for detailed discussion of the said White Paper and its eight somewhat dubious offspring. Having known the NHS since before it was founded, and worked in it for a great many years, I can only look on the White Paper as yet another attempt to achieve the impossible, the full funding of a comprehensive health service.
This is the fourth major reorganisation in 14 years. That fact alone underlines the immense difficulty of the problem. It is a courageous political effort which adds a commercial element to the managerial restructuring of a few years ago and which brings with it a host of yet more expensive employees and their no less expensive facilities and equipment. It was produced with the minimum medical consultation and projected—I use that word advisedly—on to the profession with what can, at the kindest, only be described as unseemly and tactless speed. Hence,

877
despite its "curate's egg" composition, the very wide objections it has raised within the profession as a whole, even within its most senior and highly respected bodies, can be understood.
Doctors are not trained to ingest market trading, internecine competition, cross-border financial deals, commercial budgeting and complicated accounting. Generally speaking, it makes them sick. That is why I think the title of the White Paper is misleading. It should be recognised and appreciated for what it is: another brave attempt to reach the unattainable goal. However, it is only a part of an extremely complicated whole and therefore it is a rather puny effort.
Let us look back for a few minutes as a preface to looking forward. I am sure nobody in this House, or anywhere else for that matter, would query the original ideal of the National Health Service. I do not think anyone would disagree that the National Health Service has done incalculable good for thousands of patients over the time it has existed. Furthermore, we should be grateful to this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, for their generous financial provision to the health service in recent years. Why then is the service still failing to produce the required and expected results?
The National Health Service was founded on a false premise. The "jewel in the crown" of the welfare state was flawed from the start. It was thought that a population when given so-called free medical advice and treatment would steadily become a healthier population and so require less and less expensive medical care. As our American friends say, "No way"! It is against human nature to refuse a free gift, and that is what our patients have been increasingly doing over the years. They have accepted their rights but refused their responsibilities.
To cope with that apparently ever-increasing throng of apparently satisfied patients—or customers as they are now so sadly called—we have in Britain produced a completely new kind of doctor. He is a very good, well trained, hard working and scientifically orientated doctor, but one who has to a large extent given up his rugged individuality and is more inclined to accept unquestioningly multiple rules and regulations. He is essentially materially and commercially motivated, not humanly motivated. I think it is vitally important that we appreciate these changes in both patients and doctors. It may well be that present systems of health care are both adequate and acceptable in today's world. That would surely affect any efforts to reorganise the service.
Two other factors make it ever more difficult to balance the NHS books. I shall call them the D factors. The first is demography, the ever-increasing clientele of older and more demanding patients. The second is a double D—discovery and development. There is no doubt that the advances that have taken place in medicine in the form of new technology, new instrumentation and new drugs over the past two or three decades can only be described as miraculous. However, they are also very expensive. We have now reached the stage at which it is frankly financially impossible to provide the optimum care and treatment for every patient requiring it. So
878
we are perforce practising selective medicine. The tragedy is that selection is carried out by politicians through the vast armies of civil servants, managers, accountants and business employees who have accrued to the NHS over the years. None of them has even a rudimentary training sufficient to make the selections reasonable.
I come back to a statement that I have made more than once in this House. In 40 years we have not yet appreciated the fact that one cannot nationalise a profession: a company, a corporation or an institution, yes; but not a profession.
I feel that the Bill which we shall shortly debate, based on the already much debated White Paper Working for Patients, is nothing like sufficiently radical if we are to reach the goal that we originally set out to achieve—a really comprehensive and financially viable health service. After years of experimentation and trial and error, it may—and I sincerely hope that it will—produce some minor improvements. However, I cannot help feeling that it is a puny effort and will not stem the tide of vast, ever-increasing expenditure.
Lest your Lordships should feel that I have talked of nothing but gloom and doom, perhaps I may make two positive suggestions and fulfil the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, to look to the future. I cannot call them constructive because they would involve the—I hope quiet and orderly—dismantling of the service as we now know it. I believe that in any event the service will be of a quite different nature by the end of the century. Nor will either suggestion be popular, either with the medical profession or with their lords and masters the politicians, especially the party politicians. I hope that, radical as they are, my suggestions may prove worthy of an open-minded and more than superficial consideration.
To my mind one of the most fundamental mistakes made at the inception of the service was the payment of general practitioners on a capitation system. We are the only country in the world—and there are few now which do not have some form of health service—which adopts that system. It de-personalises the patient and turns him or her from an individual into a number. It weakens, if it does not ruin, the doctor-patient relationship which is the essence of good medical practice.
The alternative is some form of fee-for-service reimbursement system, backed by grants and allowances as required for certain classes of patient and covered by an insurance scheme, helped—dare I say it—by a certain degree of privatisation. It would be complicated, perhaps, but many other countries are now doing that successfully. Why should we not try it too? In other words the first suggestion is a straightforward process of "decapitation".
If the Government then wish to continue their philanthropy, which I trust they always will, let them limit their responsibilities to the provision of accommodation and facilities, including equipment, and let a free medical profession run the service, as it has done for hundreds of years. That would at one fell swoop halve the financial outlay and put the

879
responsibility for medical care where it really belongs: with the medical profession. It would ensure a friendly, competitive atmosphere in practice, much healthier than that envisaged in the proposed business methods, stimulate recruitment, widen the scope of research and restore some of the dignity of an ancient and very worthy profession which has been badly battered over the past 40 years. One hopes that such a move would produce a population of happy, satisfied patients—even ageing ones—cared for by happy, satisfied doctors and a healthy health service, both comprehensive and financially viable.
I admit that that is an iconoclastic suggestion. However, after 40 years and four major attempts at reconstruction which have introduced cohorts of non-medical staff and involved gargantuan expenditure without success, are we not in dire need of a completely new approach? Such an approach would wipe the slate clean and introduce a fresh atmosphere and a new emphasis away from business to doctrine, away from commercialism to humanism, away from politics to medicine. I pray for that day.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. Despite his opening remarks I hope that we shall all have the opportunity of hearing him for many more years.
Ever since the start of the National Health Service—or perhaps more specifically, over the past 20 years during which I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships on health matters—I have heard and read many varied critiques of modern medicine. This afternoon will be no exception. They have all had the common theme that the system of Western medicine is in crisis. Hardly a day goes by without some reference to the subject in the newspapers, on radio or on television. But are your Lordships, the politicians and the news reporters really talking about health or something different altogether? Anyone who has paid any attention to the question will have realised that in virtually every instance the uncertainty has nothing to do with health but is instead concerned with the financial crisis in the NHS.
The service has always had financial difficulties. We know that however much money is directed into the service, by whichever administration, it will always have financial problems. I have said many times in this Chamber that the assertion that the health service could function without crisis with unlimited resources is a total fallacy. The solutions which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, seeks will not be financially based.
Despite the high levels of spending on the NHS our standard of health has not improved substantially. Demand for services has increased and the system has evolved as a sickness service with very little to do with health. The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has recently given details of the Pioneer Health service—I think that it was called the Peckham Report—which in 1934 to 1938 reported
880
the fact that 86 per cent. of males and 96 per cent. of females had disorders of some kind. A BUPA survey of 10,400 workers aged between 25 and 44 reported in the Daily Mail on 29th October 1988 showed that now only 83 per cent. of males and 75 per cent. of females were unfit. That is not a statistic that we can be proud of.
Given the unhealthy lifestyles of most people and the extent to which we constantly abuse our bodies with social and clinical drugs and inappropriate diets and the many varied stresses associated with our environment, it is not surprising that many people feel run down or even ill for much of the time. Unfortunately there are few signs that the NHS is doing anything to rectify the situation or even that it is capable of doing so.
The root cause of that inability to change can be found in the dominance of health care services by allopathic medicine, since it sets the tone for all official attitudes towards health and medicine in this country. The emphasis of the basic importance of each individual doing as much as possible to maintain his or her own health, rather than being dependent on the GP or specialist, is the main aim of alternative and complemetary medicine. By looking at causes rather than treating symptoms, and by encouraging individual responsibility rather than dependence on increasingly expensive professional services, it has to be a logical concept for health care in the future.
In her speech at the seventh colloquium on conventional medicine and complementary therapies at the Royal Society of Medicine on 13th June 1986 my noble friend Lady Trumpington, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, said:
"It will come as no surprise to anyone to know that I wholeheartedly support the freedom of the individual to seek the benefits of alternative medicines and therapies. This is a view I share with other health Ministers and has been repeated on a number of occasions".
The White Paper makes no direct comment on the future of alternative and complementary medicine or the role that the therapies might play in a reformed NHS. Most therapists work on a private basis and the increased interchange between the public and the private sectors that is envisaged in the White Paper may well see an increasing number of patients being referred to complementary practitioners by general medical practitioners who will be controlling their own budgets. I am sure I have no need to remind your Lordships that, as a very broad generalisation, alternative and complementary treatments help the body to deal with the disease process itself by eliminating stress and boosting the immune system. This is something that complementary therapists have been promoting for may years.
Ironically, conventional medicine, despite its past attacks on complementary medicine, may finally be coming to the same conclusion. The Sunday Times reported last weekend on a new treatment being developed at the London Hospital which uses the body's own immune responses to attack certain cancer cells. Millions of people in this country suffer unnecessarily simply because they are not being

881
directed towards health promotion nor towards the many alternative therapies and natural medicines which are known to be much safer, more therapeutic and usually much less expensive.
The basic principle of the NHS was that good health care should be available and freely accessible to all who need it, when they need it. This ideal requires a universal service or national insurance system that will cover all the population. An increase in the number of practitioners who work privately decreases the number who are available to the public service. Patient choice becomes limited if some services are only available privately or are unaffordable. There cannot be free and equal patient choice while only one system of healing is included in the NHS. I think that there is a strong argument on grounds of equality for saying that alternative and complementary healers should be available on the National Health Service if patient choice is to be extended. Acceptance within the system would of course have to include arrangements for accountability.
In her speech my noble friend Lady Trumpington referred to the freedom of choice and consumer protection. She continued:
"The trick is to get the balance right: just enough of one so as not to reduce the other to an unacceptable level. The licensing arrangements under the Medicines Act illustrate how we try to ensure that a wide choice of medicines is available which are safe and effective. Yet no such arrangement exists in respect of alternative therapies. Some people argue that it is the Government's responsibility to register alternative therapists. It may come to that one day, but if it does it will be because the alternative community has been unable to put its own house in order".
I am delighted to be able to tell my noble friend the Minister that steps are being taken to do this, and I should be very interested to hear her comments on the Government's attitude to possible links between the different health care systems in the context of the changes foreseen in the White Paper.
I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrier would have wished to speak in this debate today to repeat his long-standing plea that chiropractic and osteopathy be available within the NHS. He is not in the best of health at the moment and has been advised not to travel to your Lordships' House. The chiropractic and osteopathic professions have much to thank him for, and I know that your Lordships will join me in wishing him a full recovery and a speedy return to these Benches after Christmas.
I should also be grateful if the Minister could give me any further information about the proposed drafting of a directive relating to homoeopathic remedies, which has been put off until the end of the year; and here I declare an interest as the president of the Natural Medicine Society. In accordance with EC requirements, the product licences of right for herbal remedies are now being reviewed. Apart from one expert at the medicines control agency on herbal pharmacy, there is no one who is an expert on herbal remedies. It is not surprising therefore that of the licences of right so far reviewed 40 per cent. have either not been submitted or have been refused. This means that over 2,500 remedies have been lost. There are still 1,000 remedies to be reviewed. It is vital that the Government ensure that the directive
882
is appropriate and sufficiently liberal to fulfil the requirements of the UK. In particular, the Government should ensure that all such remedies are included in the European Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, which is being prepared at EC level and which is vital to the practical implementation of the directive which incorporates it.
The licensing system will clearly require assessment of the criteria for all these medicines, and it is important that at both UK. and EC level appropriate experts are appointed who understand these medicines. I hope that the Government will reconsider the answer given to Mr. Peter Rost on 24th November and appoint suitable people at the earliest opportunity, while there is time for them to contribute usefully to the formulation of UK and EC policy.
I have omitted any detailed comments about the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. I look forward to debating that in the near future as there are many points to be made about undergraduate medical and dental teaching, about postgraduate teaching and essential research and development work that the university schools provide for the NHS. I believe here is an urgent need for the Department of Education and Science to work closely with the Department of Health as equal partners to ensure that the contributions of academic medicine and dentistry to the NHS are not reduced.
In conclusion, I must apologise for this is a busy time of year for me and I have a long-standing engagement at the St. John Ball early this evening. I should be most grateful if the Minister would write to me if there are any points in my speech which she feels she can comment on.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the main reason for hospitals being in the state they are in today is underfunding; that is basically the cause of a great deal of the hospitals' trouble. I agree that the Government have given more money to the health service, but it is not enough.
I should like to quote from personal experience. In Bexley Health Authority, a further £443,000 in cuts in services was recently announced and a ban on all routine operations at Queen Mary's Hospital, Sidcup, was also imposed. Queen Mary's is a fine hospital with dedicated staff. At the moment it is overspent by £205,000, mainly clue to the fact that it is too successful and is treating too many patients.
The bills are still mounting. The finance director of the health authority hopes to have £45,000 by freezing appointments of staff, and to delay the payment of bills until mid-February next year. About 20 per cent. of health authorities are carrying out this practice of delaying payment. The bills have to be met and this is simply a desperate measure. The financial stringency at Queen Mary's mainly developed in 1986 and has got steadily worse.
In May 1986 one ward was closed to save money, but in July 1987 it was reopened because of a government grant to ease the waiting lists. In September 1988 it was closed again and so far has not

883
been reopened. No government grant is available. In June 1989 the health authority borrowed a considerable sum from the regional health board to update the telephone system. The money has to be paid back to the region, and I cannot understand that. Why does the region have money to lend and why has it become a moneylender? Is this a new idea? It is certainly new to me.
I could give the House much more detail, but the fact remains that a fine, modern hospital, with dedicated staff and an excellent record, is slowly but surely being reduced in its efforts—not because it is inefficient or badly managed but because the money provided is inadequate. Not one of the changes involved in the Government's proposals will alter that situation.
One of the factors affecting hospital revenue is that pay awards mainly go on hospital costing. Any new pay award can knock the budget for six. Surely a better way can be found. I know that that is a very sore point with many managers in various hospitals.
I make no apologies for bringing forward the acute position of my own hospital, efforts on whose behalf are supported, by the way, by Mr. Edward Heath as well as Mr. Townsend MP and Mr. Evennett MP, the Members for the area concerned. I understand that they saw the Minister yesterday with, I hope, good results. Some changes are needed but the wholesale changes proposed by the Government will worsen the position. More money will be spent on administration. At the moment it is a mere 4·5 per cent. of total expenditure; but it is likely to reach the figure of 21 per cent., as experienced in the United States.
Today the National Health Service is dominated by politics with too much power in the hands of Ministers and no parliamentary scrutiny. Already the Health and Medicines Act gives such power to the Minister. There is too much of party politics in the National Health Service today at all levels and it must be reduced.
The National Health Service has already been blighted by too many changes. The introduction of the area health authorities was costly not only in finance but in the loss of experienced staff. That reorganisation was changed again subsequently to the present system, with further financial loss and the loss of experienced staff. In short, there has been too much tinkering with the service—if you like, change for the sake of change.
Now the situation is much worse and I see no signs of improvement. I fear the effect of further widespread changes. Certainly there will be greater bureaucracy. Most certainly it will not meet the greatest need, which is for more money. Expenditure will increase but not on hospitals.
District hospitals serve their community. They are a part of the community. They belong to the people that they serve. Drastic changes in the development or otherwise of those hospitals should not be made without the full consent not only of medical and nursing staff but above all the people they serve. There has not been adequate consultation and discussion on the wide, sweeping changes. I accept
884
that a fully comprehensive health service has to be paid for. I believe that the public at large are willing to pay the price.
In fact the National Health Service has become a fact of life for the great majority of people. The objective at the beginning was service. It should be freely available to those in need, irrespective of class, colour or creed. That is the great ideal behind the National Health Service. May it be safe in our hands.
4.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, earlier this year in our general synod of the Church of England in York there was a debate. There were a number of speakers who expressed deep anxieties about the present situation in the National Health Service. A consultant surgeon from Doncaster took the opportunity to knock the Church of England. He said: "Many people think that the Church of England has the idea that the NHS is an extension of the Kingdom of God whose constitution is written on tablets of stone and that the eleventh commandment is 'Thou shalt not change the NHS'". I hope that that is not true. I am sure it is not true for those who are critical of the present proposals. We have already heard some very thoughtful and informed speeches in this debate.
The great problems facing the NHS are widely appreciated. A point that has been made more than once is that there is no way in which one can satisfy all the demands which may be made on a comprehensive health service of this kind. There is also appreciation that there must be an attack on waste and inefficiency.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, explained very clearly just why the NHS suffers such exceptional strains: an ageing population, the development of remarkably expensive hi-tech medicine and things of that kind. Any government would have to take seriously all those problems. Those of us who are critical of the present proposals must welcome what has been done in recent years for the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, shared the figures with us towards the start of this debate.
We believe that there is a need for proper resource management. The doubts centre on whether the main ideas behind the White Paper and the Bill that is now presented are correct and will meet the very real problems. There are doubts about the idea of bringing elements of competition into the National Health Service in that way.
I heard a consultant speaking about the proposal for self-governing hospitals. He said: "When I see a patient in those circumstances coming through my doors, I see that that will mean more money for my hospital". But will it indeed mean that such self-governing hospitals will cover the whole range of services that are required especially in local areas? It seems to many of us that competition is not appropriate for a great co-operative enterprise such as the NHS. So when we debate this Bill I hope that thoughtful consideration will be given to the limits that ought to be imposed on competition.
I should like to confine the rest of my remarks to three major issues. It is only possible to mention

885
them very briefly. First there is the question of overall funding. Have we reached the limits for the funding of the NHS from taxation? Secondly, there is the question of low morale in the National Health Service, which is undeniable at the present time. Thirdly, would it not be a little strange if we ended a debate of this kind without mentioning the current dispute in the ambulance service?
There is chronic under-funding. The problem is that it is assumed that we have reached the limits of what people are prepared to pay for a health service by way of taxation. I do not believe that that is so. If it is believed that we have reached the absolute limit, one is tempted to go down the other road and ask what are the alternative sources of funding for the NHS, and in particular one tries to get more money from private sources.
In the Greater Manchester area there is an example of that which is most disturbing at the present time. The plans are not yet formulated but there is a proposal for closing two children's hospitals, one in North Manchester and one in Salford, and for building a new children's hospital in the centre of Manchester. I do not want to go into the technical considerations. I think that a good many paediatricians in that area will be very pleased with the prospect of a new hospital complete with the latest equipment to cope with the special problems of children. What is disturbing is that it is mooted that half the money for building the hospital should come from private sources.
I believe that individuals, firms, companies and others should indeed contribute toward hospitals in such an area. Certainly it should be through taxation because that is the proper way in which it should be done. It seems to me quite mistaken to rely on private funding, if that is the suggestion, for getting new resources into the National Health Service.
There was a very effective intervention by one of our inner city clergy in a debate in my own diocese on the National Health Service which took place earlier in the year. He described his feelings of deep distress at seeing nurses rattling tins in the Salford precinct in support of raising money for the NHS. He made an appropriate comment: "Surely I have a much better suggestion. What we really need to see is people rattling tins in our shopping precincts for Trident and let the NHS be properly funded". That seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate point. Taxation is indeed the right way to fund that great enterprise.
I also find very disturbing the current philosophy which believes that somehow private is better than public over a whole variety of fields. I regret to say that I even heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying in a radio broadcast, "I believe that money is much better left in the pockets of the people where they will use it properly rather than in government hands". That is essentially to undercut much of the valuable work which government should be doing through education, through collective provision, and through our health service. And woe betide us if that philosophy should take a grip on the nation. It has too much of a grip now, though surveys show that the philosophy is not generally applied. However,
886
for the Chancellor of the Exchequeur to make such a statement seems utterly depolorable.
I believe that a little breast beating by the Churches would be appropriate at this point. The Churches did a great deal through their teaching of Ithe Christian Gospel to pave the way for the coming of the NHS. We have not taught a proper theology of taxation and what it means. We need to do much more of that in the years ahead, because good collective provision, properly and democratically decided upon in the community in the various fields of education, health and the social services is of fundamental importance. The Churches ought to have a role to play. We have not done so very well.
Perhaps I may speak on the question of morale. It is not simply a matter of how much people in the NHS, are paid whether at senior level as consultants, or at the level of those who clean or do the cooking—although, let it be noted, some of the lowest paid people in our society are working in the NHS. It is a question of how to encourage a better spirit, better morale, in those working for this great enterprise. I believe that more attention should be paid by government, among others, to ways of improving morale among NHS employees so as to make them feel that they are valued and that they have a job that is really worth doing and worth encouraging. Far too often the noises that come out are negative.
As has already been mentioned, some sections of our society, in the City of London or wherever it may be, are receiving far too great a proportion of the nation's wealth, which is going into private pockets while we are not paying adequately those who perform such great services to our community and especially to those who are ill.
Let me end with a brief comment on the ambulance dispute. I am sure that I speak for all in the Chamber when I say how distressed we are at these continuing problems. The primary concern must always be the proper care of the sick, the elderly, the disabled and those involved in accidents or crises, for whom the emergency services provided by the ambulance crews can literally mean the difference between life and death. I have had personal experience. I know from recent experience what it means to have a skilled ambulance crew calling in the middle of the night to help a member of the family. The police and army deserve to be congratulated upon what they are doing in desperate situations, but they cannot possibly continue to fill in and replace the normal service. Christmas, when the emergency services are stretched, is approaching.
We must all hope and pray for a speedy resolution of this dispute. It is not a dispute where the Government can stand at arm's length and say, "It is up to the employers to settle it", for the Government themselves hold the purse strings. I ask the Minister tonight to make some reference to the matter and to say what new initiatives are planned in order to break this distressing deadlock.
4.54 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, what I had proposed to say this afternoon is no longer relevant.

887
As this is a debate, perhaps I ought to try to reply to some of the comments that have already been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, very kindly mentioned Guy's Hospital and the success that we have had in making a proper use of the resources that we have. The problem started about 10 years ago when two months after the end of the financial year we found that we were £5 million overspent. The adminstrators wished us to cut patient activity by 22 per cent. I thought that that was an interesting figure. They said that they thought that it was about right. When challenged they had no figures to back it up. We had to point out to them that the only way to save £5 million with any certainty was to reduce by 500 the number of people employed. That we did humanely and in an ordered way, and saved the money. We treated the same number of patients and the hospital became cleaner. We thought that that was an important lesson.
I should say that the revolution at Guy's was very much the work of Professor Cyril Chantler, who is a very eminent nephrologist. He managed to do all of his managing work together with his clinical work and enjoyed doing both. The idea that clinicians are too important to be involved in management is just not acceptable. They ought to be involved in management because they are responsible for the spending of so much money.
I should like to deal with the question of there not being enough resources. I do not understand what people mean when they keep talking about the cuts. Ten years ago we had £7 billion in the NHS. Today we have £28 billion and for the life of me I cannot understand how that can be construed as a cut.
I should like to draw attention to what happens in most hospitals in this country when a patient with a stab wound is admitted. We do not know the qualifications of the person who has done the stabbing. We do not know the length of the knife. We therefore are compelled to open the abdomen to have a look inside. That is a major operation. It presents no problems. But if one goes to another hospital in another country they may have 100 stabbings of the abdomen in an evening and there is no way that they can perform 100 major operations. They therefore find a more satisfactory way of dealing with the situation with the same amount of money. It is up to the medical profession to use the money available in order to serve the needs of the community. I think that there is an important lesson there.
My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for whom I have the greatest respect—and he is a perfect gentleman—says that he could not possibly force through legislation against the will of the medical profession. I believe him because I know him to be a gentleman. But perhaps I may remind him that his predecessor tried to force through legislation on phasing out the private pay beds against the total opposition of the medical profession. If we go back a little further, I understand that Aneurin Bevan forced through his legislation with total opposition from the BMA. So such things do happen from time to time.
888
I should like to draw attention to the subject of profitable services. We keep hearing that these self-governing hospitals will make a profit. I understood that a profit was something that was distributed to shareholders. I think that what is meant by a profit is not making a loss, which is rather a different matter.
At the moment I have a budget in my directorate of £3 million. As a Scot I would not dream of overspending. I therefore make sure that we are never overspent. But to do that one must be careful and hardworking. One has to have an accounting system. At the moment the NHS does not have that. There is no commitment accounting in the NHS to speak of. It is slowly being developed. Such accounting is absolutely essential if one is running a business that amounts to £28 billion.
Perhaps I may deal on a local level with some of the problems that we are experiencing. All is not well with the NHS as it is run at present. If one goes down to Kent there is a lovely little cottage hospital called Edenbridge Hospital. The local people are very angry because the local health authority wishes to stop surgeons operating there. I happen to work there for nothing because I enjoy it. We take the students down, and it is a great day out twice a month. The local health authority wishes to stop the operating in order to save money. However, having worked it out it found that it was not saving money by doing so. It left the question for a few years, raised it again, and has recently decided to close the surgery because if says that it is not safe. The reason for telling your Lordships about that is that the local community health council should be protecting the people of Edenbridge and stopping the action of the local health authority. However, it is not tough enough. The proposed district health authorities will be tough enough. They will incorporate the functions of the community health council in their work and protect local people from such closures. That is a most important point to make.
The cottage hospitals up and down the country are wonderful places, with tremendous morale. They carry out many tasks such as looking after the chronic sick, the disabled, those who have had strokes and so forth. However, for two or three days a week they like a bit of excitement in the form of surgery and there is no earthly reason why that cannot be done on a safe basis. We must consider the morale of those who work in the service.
There is another little hospital with which I am associated called the Mildmay Hospital in the East End of London. In 1982 it was closed down because it was surplus to requirements. It was reopened in 1985 with the kind permission of a junior health Minister called Kenneth Clarke as a kind of self-governing hospital. The fascinating aspect was that we then went to the local district health authority and asked, "What would you like us to do?" In other words, the relationship was immediately changed. We had previously been at loggerheads. The upshot is that we look after the chronic young sick and for that we are paid per head.
A year ago we thought that there was a need for a hospice for those dying of AIDS. We went back to

889
the local authority and asked, "What do you think of the idea?" It gave us the go—ahead and again it pays us. The unit was up and working within a year. You cannot do that within the NHS; you can do it in self—governing hospitals.
This afternoon we have heard a great deal of doom and gloom about the White Paper. However, in conclusion I remind your Lordships that there are many parts with which we all agree. For example audit, achieving a balance of proper staffing structure which gives junior hospital doctors a fair deal. Also 100 new consultant posts all fully funded up to £0·5 million each and that is terrific. Patients are to be treated with more respect and not kept waiting for hours in the out—patient clinic. Money will follow patients. All those are good aspects; the controversial aspects are the self—governing hospitals and GPs' budgets. It is perfectly reasonable to try out those new proposals. Lastly, I point out that, although a surgeon should never confuse surgery with prophecy, it is my belief that when the Bill is passed and the whole scheme is up and running the amount of private practice will decrease.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for giving us the opportunity of discussing the National Health Service. The proposals for the reform of the service raise several worries. The most important is the fact that it will create a two—tier service, not only in hospitals but also in general practice.
My noble friend, Lord Ennals, has already dealt with the way in which the opting out will create a two—tier service in hospitals. A similar situation is likely to exist in general practice. The practice which holds its own budget will be free to negotiate with any hospital, whether national health or private, for the treatment of patients, whether in—patients or out—patients. Therefore patients in a budget—holding practice will have the increased choice because the facilities of both the private and public hospitals will be open to them. However, in the case of a patient whose doctor is not in a practice holding its own budget the choice is restricted to hospitals with which the district health authority has a contract. Most patients will have less choice than they have now. At present their doctor can send them to the consultant of his choice in the public hospital of his choice. Thus, in the interest of preserving and perhaps enhancing patient choice, general practitioners will need to find a way of becoming budget holders.
That will have a knock—on effect to the finances of the district health authority and its ability to finance accident and emergency services. It will also affect the hospital services of patients whose doctors are not budget holders because the economy of scale will be a factor.
Then there is the question of the control of the drug bill. The suggestion is that there should be an indicative budget and not a cash limited budget. It is a limitation not unlike rate capping which was used to control local authority expenditure. Of course, it
890
depends on the formula that is used. Your Lordships know that I was most critical of the formula used for rate capping. It resulted in the most deprived boroughs being rate capped. If an unsatisfactory formula is used for rate capping the drug bill, there may be an under—estimate of the amount required and a consequential difficulty for those in need of drugs.
Practitioners with their budget can subsume the excess cost of drugs by making adjustments in other areas of their budgets. Therefore, those who are not budget holders will have to carry the burden themselves and could end up paying for the drug out of their own pocket. Thus, there is another way in which there could be two levels of practice. Those who are budget holders will have more choice of hospitals and consultants. They may also be better able to cope with the indicative drug budget. Those who are not budget holders will be restricted in their choice of hospitals and consultants and will have more difficulty in coping with the indicative drug budget.
However, there is a trap into which the budget holder can fall. The under-funding of the National Health Service has been exacerbated by the habit of all governments—not only this one—of allowing for a lower level of inflation than that which occurs and then refusing to give additional grants to health authorities in order to make up the difference. They have also habitually accepted pay awards and then funded only part of them, leaving the health authority to fund the rest. If government continue to behave in that way—and I do not believe that the leopard ever changes its spots—general practitioners who are budget holders will find themselves in the position in which the district health authorities now find themselves and end up having to meet the cost of having their patients adequately treated.
The Motion calls for some remarks about solutions. Frankly, I believe that the health service proposals are fundamentally flawed and therefore should be abandoned. The market is the wrong vehicle for managing the National Health Service. The market throws up losers as well as winners, as my noble friend Lord Ennals said. Arid the health of the community cannot afford losers.
We require a service-orientated philosophy and not a market orientated one. Let us build on what we have. The National Health Service needs better funding and better resource management. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, what is being done about resource management initiatives through which we shall be able to create a better way of managing resources.
We should also decide upon adequate funding of the service. Although great play is made of how much is spent by this or that government, the fact remains that as a percentage of our GNP we are spending a lower percentage than other governments with which we should be comparing ourselves, namely, France and Germany and also the United States which spends about 50 per cent again more than we do. Let us try and do what is required to remedy the service.
I have information from a registrar friend of mine about the state of his hospital. That will not be

891
helped by the proposals in the White Paper which may be the basis of legislation. The hospital will not opt out of health authority control; it will be one of the district health authority hospitals. In fact, if the doctors in that area take my advice and become budget holders—I believe that if this scheme comes in that is what they will have to do—then that hospital will be worse off because the district health authority will not be able to deal with or fund it properly. Therefore, let us try and look at the service as we should like it to be. Let us see how we can try to achieve the service we want.
5.12 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, shortly before I came into the Chamber this afternoon I misread the annunciator to say, "Prayers for the future of the NHS". For a moment, I thought quite seriously of scrapping my speech in favour of what might have been a more effective solution.
I should like to speak on a topic which does not feature at all in the current proposals for the reform of the National Health Service. I want to speak precisely because it does not feature, and it is arguable that it should feature. A survey published in the Lancet four years ago referred to it as,
"a growing and substantial subsidiary health care system in the UK".
It is a system referred to variously as alternative or complementary medicine, addressed admirably a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn.
Unfortunately, it is still an emotive subject among many in the orthodox medical world. However, the facts which emerge from recent surveys are that one in three people in this country are interested in complementary medicine. I believe that there was a poll the other day, which I have not yet found, which increased that figure to something like three in four people. One in 10 medical consultations are with a complementary practitioner and 50 per cent. of GPs wish to train in or refer their patients to complementary practitioners. That involves a good slice of health care and one which I believe it is appropriate for the Government to take account of in their thinking from now on.
I include my remarks under the heading of "possible solutions" in the Motion of my noble friend Lord Hunter. The solution most urgently needed is how to contain the health service budget while catering for the health needs of the nation. I can offer no magic formula but I can perhaps try to give a few pointers. Complementary therapies are at their most effective in the management of non-specific chronic illness. It can be quite an eye-opener to see what, for example, acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy or osteopathy can do where orthodox methods have failed. Hence the high degree of satisfaction which the public consistently reports with those approaches. The successes, where they occur, are all the more remarkable where the patient has come as a last resort, having been to see the appropriate specialists with a complaint which has become chronic and is thought to be intractable.
The costs are much less. When the survey which I mentioned was carried out, practitioners' fees were
892
roughly half the total cost (including drugs) per consultation in the family practitioner services, and the position has probably not changed much since then. That is where a significant impact could be made. Not only can patients be treated more effectively for a certain range of conditions but it can be done at greatly reduced cost. A more integrated use of many thousands of complementary therapists would have the added advantage of taking some of the overload off hard-worked professionals in the health service. GPs would then have more time for consultation at the surgery and the working hours of hospital doctors could be reduced.
I should also mention one other factor in favour of complementary medicine. It is a good deal safer than its orthodox counterpart. Iatrogenic illness is variously reported as being responsible for between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of all hospital admissions. That is a rather horrifying figure, even without the financial aspects which add several hundreds of millions of pounds to the health service bill. The instances of damage to patients' health from complementary medicine are, by contrast, very few and far between.
A more integrated use of complementary medicine for the benefit of the national health is not a pipedream. It is desired by a large section of society which includes many—and possibly now a majority—of those in primary health care. It has the benefits which I have outlined. Perhaps the greater freedom of GPs to control their own budgets will result in an increase of referrals to acupuncturists, herbalist, osteopaths, and so on. We shall have to wait and see. However, there are difficulties to be overcome which I shall mention quite briefly. I am sure that they can be overcome if there is a will to do so.
One of those difficulties is funding. Complementary medicine is in the private sector perforce, and only those who have the money can benefit from it. If it is to make the contribution to the country's health which it has the potential to do, a way must be found of making it freely available to all. I am aware that homeopathy is an exception to that but I know from experience that the practical difficulties of having that treatment on the NHS are formidable.
Dare I say in this company that there may be an argument for the eventual doing away of the present medical monopoly in terms of state registration so that other systems can co-exist on an equal basis and there can be genuine freedom of choice. It is not unknown as a model of health care in other parts of the world where health is not noticeably worse than ours. I float that as something for the future while not expecting the medical profession to receive the idea with rapture. There are other possible ways round the funding question but I do not believe that this is the time to go into that.
The second issue on which much else depends is that of quality control in the complementary therapies. How do we know that a practitioner has been properly trained? How do we know just what his or her therapy can and cannot achieve? For the former, I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said—that moves are well under way among the major therapies for validation of standards of

893
training; that is, for those who do not already have CNAA validation. That is a long process which will be rigorously undertaken.
For the latter, the key is good research. I speak here as a council member of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. Good research does not come cheaply. Some of your Lordships may have followed the week-long series in The Times last month on complementary medicine and may perhaps have seen the letter from Professor Ginsburg on 20th November when he noted that the situation would be transformed,
"if only as little as one per cent. of the public and charitable money spent on medical research were devoted to complementary medicine".
I commend this thought to the noble Baroness the Minister for her consideration while expressing gratitude to her department for the small but welcome amount of help the council has already received towards its administrative costs.
That is all I wish to say. I believe the ideas I have expressed offer some possible solutions to the problems of an uncertain and overstretched health service. They are long range rather than short range, but none the worse for that. I hope that the Government, who have been silent so far on this aspect of health care, will receive them seriously.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for introducing this debate. It is a valuable opportunity to discuss at this early stage the National Health Service and the proposed reforms.
I should like to start by taking up a point made early in the debate by my noble friend Lord Nugent and congratulate the Government on having the courage to look very deeply at the National Health Service 40 years on. What the Government are doing is the same kind of exercise which is conducted by all governments in industrialised countries today, certainly in our European Community partners. As the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, quite rightly pointed out, we suffer from having to cope with two difficult but quite separate problems. The first is the undoubted problem of ageing populations. The statistics show that the growing elderly population will continue to grow right on into the 21st century. This is a fact that we know and have to meet. It is also true that as people grow older they need more medical care.
The second problem is the very rapid advance of medicine today, very expensive, very successful medical advances from which so many thousands of people have benefited. As a consequence the expectations of people are immensely high. They are perhaps not as high here as in the United States where last week I heard one woman say that it is every American woman's right to have a perfect baby. That may be a complete fantasy, but nevertheless the idea that we should all enjoy perfect health at the expense of a health service provided by somebody is an ideal which everybody has before them. It presents all governments with very real problems with which they have to grapple. It is
894
therefore courageous and right that the Government should look at a lot of these problems and that we should examine fairly the kind of solutions which are being put forward.
In common with all your Lordships I have been deluged with memoranda from a number of very eminent sources, many expressing great concern about these proposals. I have also tried to take some soundings of my own and I am glad to say that there are many consultants and senior medical staff who welcome the proposals and who see much good in them. However, there are many who are also concerned.
What we simply cannot do is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester proposed—just spend more money to deal with these problems. I do not believe that we have reached the limit of expenditure on the health service. It is always dangerous to make predictions in political life, but one prediction I make is that any government will spend more on the health service every year. There have been no cuts in expenditure whatever. Expenditure on the National Health Service since 1979 has risen by 45 per cent. in real terms, so we now spend over £28 billion—an all time high. There can, therefore, be no question of cuts. But we still need more, and many of your Lordships who have spoken have argued for more. I have no doubt that as year succeeds year more will come, but expenses will rise with the elderly population and with ever more medical advances. The problems of the health service are not problems of failure but problems of success.
I therefore welcome what is said in the White Paper. With such large sums of money and so great a demand it is essential that the system should be well managed. It is no use poking fun at management and saying that that is not what is needed. Since leaving the Government I have had quite a lot to do with business. One thing I am certain about is that a really well managed enterprise delivers to customers, to patients or to anybody else a much better service than a badly managed one. It is therefore essential that we ensure that we get the best management of these resources in the interest of the patients. We should address ourselves to the kind of problems that will make that possible.
I am very pleased that attempts are being made to get rid of waste. I am one of the few people taking part in this debate who is not medically qualified, but I give an example of waste, one which has been raised in connection with prescribing. Only last week I saw a small child who was ill happily being made better by the use of antibiotics, but at the end of the course half a bottle of whatever it was was thrown away. If that is repeated throughout the country, that is waste. It is that kind of thing we need to look at. There is no point people saying it is impossible. We must try harder. It is the kind of waste which the ordinary person can recognise and which one can do something about. There are many illustrations of that nature which I will not go into this afternoon.
I say to my noble friend that I support the proposals in principle: the importance of management, attempting to get rid of waste and

895
removing inequalities in the service across the country. It is not true that the service is just the same in every part of the country. It is better in some parts than in others. I speak as someone who is a great supporter of the National Health Service. The life of one of my close relatives was saved during the past year by the National Health Service, and for very sick people there is no service that is better. However, when you are not in that state but need medical care, there are problems. Those of us who have stood with elderly people in the out-patients queue know how long you can wait and feel that the health service could do better.
There are, therefore, many problems which the White Paper addresses and which deserve our fullest support. This is not, however, a Second Reading debate on the National Health Service Bill, which we will have on another occasion. I should therefore like to devote the remaining part of my time allowance to two topics which have not been fully aired this evening but which give me some cause for concern and which I hope my noble friend when she comes to reply will look at.
The first has been touched on by some speakers. It is the question of medical education and teaching hospitals. Universities train doctors and dentists for the health service. They do most of the research which leads to advances in treatment. University clinical staff also look after patients, so the relationships between universities and teaching hospitals are very close. It is most important that this valuable asset—the closeness of the working relationship—is in no way damaged by the proposed reforms, and there are a number or worries. One that has already been raised is that in the Bill there is no requirement for National Health Service hospitals which become self-governing to provide the necessary resources and support for medical and dental teaching. This is a real anxiety. If we cannot have an answer this evening I hope my noble friend will look at this.
If one looks at the matter from the point of view of a teaching hospital—and where I live, in Oxford, there is a large teaching hospital—there is a concern that the additional cost of teaching and research will be funded in such a way that it cannot compete on level terms with non-teaching hospitals. It is important to understand that the more complex mix of patients which is inevitable in a teaching hospital results in higher capital costs as well as higher revenue costs. Hospitals are still quite unclear as to how these resources are to be found and the problems answered.
As regards the universities, I believe there is also concern about the composition of the proposed boards of directors. I am sure that that is a matter that we shall debate at length, particularly concerning the number of university representatives as well as the conditions of service and the consultants' contracts. I shall not go into all these details today but I flag them because they are matters that will need to be looked at.
It is important that medical education is seen to play a fundamental part in the health service. It often falls between two stools; that is to say, it is
896
partly looked after by the Department of Health and partly by the Department of Education and Science. I very much hope that the latter will recognise that it has a very important role to play in ensuring that the standards of medical teaching and research are both defended and promoted and, above all, maintained. Without that recognition the basis of a good health service will fall away.
The other issue I wish to raise is a completely different one. It is what I believe the Government have described as non-conventional capital finance. I believe that rather curious term means that capital which is raised on commercial terms is to be labelled "unconventional". I hope if I have misunderstood that my noble friend will correct me. It raises a very important issue. The National Health Service has benefited enormously by a great deal of private giving. Grateful patients and others often wish to raise money privately which for all the reasons I have given the health service cannot provide at that moment.
As I understand the Bill, one of the Government's aims, which I fully support, is that health authorities should operate efficiently and flexibly in an open market situation. I can understand that when this comes about the Treasury will insist on cash-limiting the free capital it provides the National Health Service. It always has and I imagine it always will. It is right to establish clear criteria for market funding. But it seems illogical to require authorities to meet demanding internal rate of return criteria on market-funded projects and then to claw it all back from the free capital.
It is such an important point that I raise the matter now. It is hard to imagine a more powerful disincentive to the development of a businesslike approach to health care. It demolishes a major potential attraction of self-government. Perhaps for that reason some would support it. We need to be quite clear that, when we are urging and looking for more efficient ways, we encourage self-help and ways of using in a sensible manner the capital that can be raised and not losing it as soon as we have gained it. It is an important point and I hope that my noble friend will look at the matter if not this evening then in the course of the passage of the Bill or perhaps she will write to me about it.
I conclude by saying as I did at the beginning that I welcome the general thrust of these proposals. I agree with what my noble friend Lord McColl said about the health service today. I have no doubt that we shall debate details but I am sure that we are setting out on the right path.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for the opportunity of debating this subject, I must confess to him that I am using his debate to raise one issue only. It may be typical of what is happening in the National Health Service. It is an important issue and, as I have given notice to the noble Baroness of it, I hope that she will be able to give the House some answers to the questions that I shall put to her.

897
I am referring to the position of the National Heart Hospital. I have been a patient at that hospital for 12 years now so I can speak with personal knowledge of its excellence. It is a world-famous hospital. The work that has been done there is incomparable with anywhere else in the world. Sometimes one wonders whether this Government appreciate the excellence of our institutions when they treat them in the way that we have seen them do on numerous occasions.
The National Heart Hospital will be virtually closed at the end of this year in order to move from its present buildings to Brompton as it is part of the Brompton group. I was in the hospital yesterday listening and talking to the people there about what is happening. What concerns me is that during the removal there may be a dislocation over a number of months. That dislocation of the excellent work that is being done in the hospital could damage it in the future. It is almost certain to reduce for a period the cardiac work of the hospital. That may damage it permanently, but I hope not. I ask the noble Baroness what is going to happen after the end of this year.
Already the hospital has been told that the group is overspending—but overspending how? It is overspending by doing too much work and by using too many of the services of the first-class surgeons, nursing staff and cardiac auxiliaries. What is of immediate concern is that even now, in December 1989, that hospital has not been told what resources will be allocated to it from the beginning of the next financial year at the end of March, less than four months hence.
How can it plan what it is going to do in these very disturbed circumstances? The hospital will have to share the buildings, theatres and resources of the hospital in Brompton. The result will be that more work will have to be done when the move takes place in order to maintain the position it has today. That is not going to happen. There will be more intensive use of the theatres available, difficulty in moving staff, difficulty in getting nurses and, above all, difficulty with the services of the cardiac auxiliaries, many of whom are at present working on a locum basis. They have already been told that they are to be given notice at the National Heart Hospital.
There is bound to be extra strain on the resources to be used by that hospital after its move. The in-patient work is certain to be reduced when two hospitals are sharing the facilities now allocated to one. Certainly for the next six months that in-patient work is going to be reduced. It will mean lengthening waiting lists and in particular, some of the younger people on the waiting list for cardiac operations will have to wait 18 instead of 12 months.
As my noble friend Lord Pitt has pointed out, despite the figures that have been given this afternoon, it is the case that the National Health Service has not been fully funded if one takes into account the rate of inflation, the increasing expenditure on research and development and, above all, the increasing expenditure necessary for higher technology. I wish to know from the noble Baroness what are the Government's plans. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who is on the board
898
of the Brompton group, will, I believe, add something on this subject later on. I think I can say that we want to know what resources the Government will provide in this difficult period for an outstanding British hospital.
Even now, under the present conditions in that ramshackle building, the National Heart Hospital in Westmoreland Street, the consultants say that they are not able to carry out the amount of National Health Service work they are prepared to do, not because they will not allocate the time but because there are not the resources to pay for it. Those who divide their time between private practice and National Health Service practice have told us for years—I have raised the matter before in the House—that they would do more work for the National Health Service in that hospital if the resources were available. They are not available, and so a part of the time that could be devoted to National Health Service patients is simply being wasted.
Everything that I have heard over the past few days and weeks about this serious situation leads me and those involved in the administration and conduct of the hospital and in surgery, nursing and cardiac work to consider that the very best they can do over the next six months is to limit the damage that is inevitable. I ask the noble Baroness to address herself to this issue and to let the House and the public know where the Government stand in regard to the provision of resources for what is one of the greatest hospitals in the British Isles.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I too should like most warmly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject today. It is valuable that we should have it in advance of the inevitably more detailed and, I fear, more adversarial discussions on the Bill when it comes before the House.
I fear that the noble Lord may not take much pleasure from the first part of my remarks, but I believe that he may be better pleased by the second part if he finds time to read what I have to say. In my general remarks I want both strongly to support and also strongly to warn the Government. I am not one of those who believe that all the NHS needs is much more funding, even if that were accompanied by some relatively minor evolutionary changes. I believe that radical changes are needed and that the Government's main proposals are very much in the right direction. It is right to give patients more choice. It is right to set up self-governing hospitals. It is right to experiment with budget-holding general practices, which I believe have within them the potential, if liberally and sensitively developed, to do more constructive good for the health service than any other single proposal. It is a proposal with great potential if rightly developed.
I know from my business experience—I am talking not about profitability but about service to customer—that where one strongly decentralises the management of an organisation and makes sure that the organisation is more driven by consumer demand than by producer preference, one gets an

899
immense release of energy and a noticeable improvement in the service that the consumers of that industry receive. I am sure that the same would happen if one applied those principles effectively within the National Health Service. Therefore I most strongly support the thrust of the Government's main proposals. But at the same time I warn most strongly about the dangers and difficulties inherent in putting these proposals into practice. Great skill and sensitivity will be needed from the Government in implementing their policy. I have to say frankly that we have been lacking such skill and sensitivity up to date in the way in which the matter has been presented. It is about this area that I want principally to speak. I want to give the Government two strong general warnings.
My first warning is about the danger of not succeeding more effectively than has so far been the case in gaining the understanding of those who work in the health service. At the moment the degree of understanding is in my view dangerously low. This has to be worked on very hard before the main proposals begin to be implemented. It will be too late after the process has started. It has to be done before. I do not say that if the Government work very hard on this they will succeed in winning prior agreement from all or even most of those involved. But I do say that much more can and must be done to make sure that there is a proper understanding of exactly how these general proposals will work in practice and of exactly how the Government intend to guard against the ill-effects which many people within the service genuinely fear. Lest there be any doubt about it, the fears are genuine; and they have not yet received sufficiently detailed and concrete information about how their fears will be guarded against.
In the time available I want to speak about doctors. I do so because for one reason or another I have always had a good many friends and personal contacts within the medical profession. I happened to marry a doctor's daughter, which strengthened the contact I had. I am dismayed by the doubts, fears and frustrations expressed to me over recent months by so many of my medical friends. I use the word "friends" because I am talking about people who have spoken to me not in a lobbying capacity but on the basis of personal contact and friendship. Their fears are deeply felt and real. They may not be justifed but they are deeply felt and real. They are not phoney and they are not just lobbying attitudes.
I realise that Ministers and their officials have had many meetings and have tried hard. Yet doctors feel strongly and sincerely that their fears and questions have hitherto been met far too much by general statements of belief and by assertions of good intentions, both of which may be welcome, and far too little by specific information and detailed, concrete argument and explanation.
Perhaps I may refer to a few of of the doctors' fears. They fear that pay freedom in independent hospitals may drain off much-needed staff from NHS hospitals and produce a two-tier system of good and significantly inferior hospitals throughout the country. They fear the effects of the proposals
900
on teaching, training and research. There is also the fear that district health authorities, in drawing up their plans for the health of their districts, will get their medical and expert advice from general practitioners and directors of public health and not at all, or scarcely at all, from the specialists in hospitals. They fear that they will be debarred from or will not be invited to make an input.
There is also the fear that GPs who are free to refer their patients to what they believe is the best available hospital in each case will under the new system face undue financial pressure to send their patients to the hospitals with which their district health authorities have contracts. One of the GPs in my home area of Gloucestershire is a most dedicated and skilful young doctor who gives a great deal of attention to this aspect. He is worried about this and cannot so far get adequate and certain answers to his fears.
I am not for one moment saying that there are no satisfactory answers to those fears or to many others which I have not mentioned; nor am I saying that the fault for the failure in communication is all that of the Government. However, I am saying that regardless of where the blame may lie the Government urgently need to establish a real and deep dialogue with the medical profession. I must also utter a warning that unless they do so successfully the successful implementation of their proposals will be seriously jeopardised.
My second general warning concerns the complexity of the managerial task in implementing these proposals. The successful implementation of a decentralised system requires very skilful, professional management. It does not provide such skill on its own; it requires it to make the system work. It also requires very sophisticated but not too voluminous management data. From what I hear, the NHS is seriously short of both those commodities at present.
Further, a successful decentralised organisation requires a firm understanding of and an adherence to two basic principles: first, the decisions and controls which remain centralised must be keep to an absolute minimum, but those which are centralised must be very firmly centralised; and, secondly, as much as possible must be decentralised to the lowest possible level and what is decentralised must be genuinely decentralised. Moreover, those holding decentralised authority should not be constantly interfered with and crawled over by government departments, and so on. What worries me is that both those principles strike me as being absolutely foreign to the culture of British government, regardless of which party is in power. Further, I doubt that this culture will be easily or quickly changed.
The conclusion to my general warnings is quite simple. I say to the Government: yes, pursue your major proposals with determination; but please pursue them gradually with great deliberation and care and on an experimental basis. No company would launch a major new product without the most careful testing and pilot marketing. There is much in the proposals that will be good, but my guess is

901
that there will be some teething troubles. For all that matters to our patients, please do not let us have teething troubles all over the country at the same time.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I hope that some of the suggestions put forward by your Lordships today will be listened to by the Government. I say that because uncertainties are damaging to the morale of any organisation. Good morale is especially essential for the health service if it is to function in a humane and efficient way. An uncertainty hanging over general practitioners who will not hold their own practice budgets and their patients is that of not knowing if the general practitioners will still have freedom of choice to send patients to the consultants they feel are most suitable.
General practitioners in rural areas often have to use specialising services outside their own locality. I shall give your Lordships an example. A schoolboy aged 16 had leukaemia. The family lived in Yorkshire and the boy was sent to hospital in Leeds. He was treated in a ward which had only geriatric patients. The family and the GP were most distressed. However, the GP was able to obtain a bed for the boy at St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London where the stresses of the family were understood. The family felt that they were receiving the very best treatment.
Freedom of choice is very important in a few particular cases. If such choice is taken away, doctors will lose initiative and job satisfaction. Having to send patients to where the district has contracted beds but where the GP considers the consultants not to be the best for the patient and where he knows the results will not be of the highest standard would mean a second-class service. Moreover, if the treatment goes wrong, who takes the blame?
I have raised this important matter previously in the House. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for writing to me. Her letter says:
"GPs will be asked to specify the referral patterns they want to see secured. In turn district health authorities will provide them with the maximum information about the services available".
However, what happens if the doctor and the district authority do not agree? Patients are individuals who sometimes have very complicated complaints. Often they become ill at weekends. How will the doctor contact a district administrator on a Sunday? The Minister's letter continues:
"There will inevitably be occasions when GPs wish to refer patients to hospitals which do not hold contracts. The district health authority will maintain a contingency reserve for such referrals".
I should like to ask the Minister what happens when this contingency plan runs out. Many people work or go on visits a long way from home. They may have accidents or suffer severe illness. Can the Minister give a clear assurance that the National Health Service will still be national and treat emergencies wherever they occur. In other words, will the money follow the patient or will the patient be left to die in the street?
I should like to receive a categoric commitment from the Government that supra-regional specialists
902
will be protected. Many people depend on those specialising facilities. They are their lifeline, and they are cost effective. If patients receive the correct treatment initially much harm and expense is saved in the long run.
I shall give your Lordships an example of one such specialty where the treatment units are all supra-regional. They treat patients from all over the country. I refer to spinal units. They give expert treatment to people with spinal injuries resulting in paralysis. Many people break their backs or necks in sporting mishaps, road traffic accidents, industrial accidents or by falling down the stairs or out of trees. These excellent units attached to general hospitals are at present nationally funded. The system needs to continue at least until the reorganisation settles down and until the transfer of money from districts or regions is a reality.
Patients who have such catastrophic injuries must stay in hospital for several months. The nursing is very specialised and rehabilitation takes time. The prevention of pressure sores is of paramount importance as is the care of the bladder and of the bowels. Can the Government give an undertaking that those services will not diminish and that they will in fact prosper and grow?
Many concerns have been brought to my attention by individuals and by organisations dealing with people who have chronic long-term conditions. I refer to organisations such as the Psoriasis Association, dealing with serious skin conditions, and the Spinal Injuries Association. People in those categories and indeed many others have little choice. The situation could become worse.
Insurance companies dealing in private health will not take such people on their books for anything related to their disability. Therefore these individuals fear that they may experience great difficulty if they want to change their doctor because of capitation. They fear that they will become unpopular because they take time and because their drugs and equipment cost extra money on an ongoing basis. When such people apply to join a practice, it is easy for someone to say, "I am sorry, our books are closed".
There is the greatest concern about the uncertainties in relation to the incontinence service. A Government Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington—she has given me permission to mention this matter in the debaie—made her maiden speech on the subject of incontinence. Two weeks ago I received a letter from a widow living in the Rotherham health district. She is 78 years of age. She writes that she has suffered several strokes and haemorrhages and that she is sometimes doubly incontinent. The nurses have told her that they can no longer supply her with incontinence pads.
I cannot tell your Lordships what anguish and desperation this kind of inhumane decision causes very vulnerable people. They are struggling against many difficulties to remain living in their own homes in the community. I contacted the health authority and that lady's case has been reconsidered. She wrote to me and said, "What about the others?". If that is what efficiency savings are about in some health districts, they seem to be downright stupid and cruel.

903
I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice a great frustration felt by some orthopaedic surgeons. Many of the general rehabilitation services have already closed. Farnham Park closed in 1988; Camden Road is now only for geriatrics; and Garston Manor has changed use. What is now happening is that the acute beds are being blocked. Patients go home unable to cope. They lose confidence instead of having the job satisfactorily finished. The operation is only half the job; the building up of the body afterwards and getting fit to face work or live a normal life in the community is the other half. It would be wise to consult the surgeons and look again at the future needs of general rehabilitation.
At present, because of the forthcoming decisions on the health service and the provision of care in the community, many uncertainties surround the services for those addicted to drugs and alcohol. Such addiction is a major factor in the break-up of family life and the loss of days at work. Those running the services, which often come under mental health provision, feel themselves in a vacuum of uncertainty. Drug and alcohol services come a long way down the list of the many priorities in the NHS. We need healthy young people to do useful jobs. They should not be throwing their lives away on substance abuse.
So serious are the uncertainties that people in the non-statutory sector feel that, if the White Paper is implemented in full, by 1991 most residential and nursing care for those suffering from drug and alcohol problems, other than those who have their own insurance scheme or a sizeable income, will disappear. Perhaps the Government will try to understand that predicament and ring fence the money for those services. If they have to compete with all the other needs those people may end up in our over-crowded prisons and be unable to kick the habit of addiction as the help needed will not be provided.
The great cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the world at present is that of the AIDS virus. A growing number of women and children are falling ill. We have the emotional stress and sadness surrounding the families and friends of those who are dying of AIDS. There is also stress felt by the young doctors and nurses working on the wards. The problems that AIDS is bringing need to be reviewed constantly.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing the debate. He mentioned research and development in the NHS and the report of your Lordships' Select Committee, of which I had the honour of being chairman, which reported on priorities in medical research. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, also referred to that point and so I shall confine my remarks to that aspect of the NHS.
I shall begin by drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that it is now some 20 months since that report was published. We still await the Government's response, but there is a hope on the horizon because my noble friend the Minister told the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in the debate on
904
the loyal Address that we could expect a reply in the new year. We live in hope that it will be the type of reply to which we are looking forward. It has been a long time.
For the convenience of your Lordships I shall take this opportunity to summarise the findings of the committee because many noble Lords will probably have forgotten them. We were impressed by the work of the Medical Research Council and the way it dealt with and administered the funds available to it. Those funds were directed primarily to science-led proposals put forward to it. Your Lordships will remember that the MRC is outside the NHS. It is part of the Department of Education and Science. We were also impressed by the excellent research work done by the medical charities which was directed towards the purposes for which their funds were collected. We were impressed by the work done by the pharmaceutical industry, its work being directed towards the commercial interests of the firms involved.
I shall remind your Lordships of the scale of the research done in those three areas. The figures quoted in the report were for 1985–86, but I do not believe that they have changed much. The MRC was spending £121 million per annum, the pharmaceutical industry £490 million per annum and the medical charities £110 million per annum. All of that work is of course outside the NHS.
In contrast we were disturbed by the position inside the NHS. I shall quote the figure for the NHS for the same period. It was £18 million. There seemed to us to be a complete lack of understanding within the NHS of the role of research which concerned us a great deal. It lead to a number of serious omissions which I shall summarise.
There were inadequate procedures for initiating need-led research as distinct from science-led research coming from the MRC. There was a requirement for need-led research coming up through the NHS which was not being dealt with adequately. There were inadequate procedures for protecting clinical research work to enable research to be brought to a practical conclusion in the interests of patients. That clinical research came under constant funding pressures on the one hand and patient demands on the other. It was not protected, and that was detrimental to patients because the research work did not result in added patient care as quickly as it might. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, inadequate attention was paid to the training and career prospects of research workers in the NHS. That is serious because one cannot attract good young people into the service unless there are good career prospects. That was not happening. There were inadequate procedures to ensure that the results of research work were applied throughout the NHS and so the service was not receiving the full benefit of the research done.
Finally, there was quite inadequate health service research—what I would call operational research. As my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich has told us we are talking about a £23 billion business. It seems inconceivable for a business of this size not to have adequate research work on the operational side to answer such questions as: "Are we doing the

905
right thing?", "Can we do it better?", "Are there other ways of doing it?" and so forth. That seemed to us to be an inadequate, stupid policy. No one in business would think of running a business of that size without having a research arm to guide policy decisions and administrative practices. All these seemed to us to be important issues which required attention.
We hope that those issues will receive attention from the Government in their reorganisation. To bring about those changes within the NHS—not within the department but outside—we saw the need to appoint a senior person who could take responsibility for seeing that those things were done, but as the health service was organised at that time there was no administrative procedure for managing it. We therefore recommended in our report the setting up of a national health research authority. Since then the Government in their wisdom—and I congratulate them on it—have recognised the weakness of the administrative procedures and have appointed a management board and a chief executive. I would say that these are excellent moves which I am sure will be beneficial to the National Health Service.
That enables us therefore to look at a different way of meeting these weaknesses on the research side. Our thinking in that respect is that there is now an obvious role for a research director on the management board. That is a practice which again is carried out by most companies running businesses of any size and certainly of this size.
I wish to make it clear that we saw research as being an essential tool of management and therefore part of the executive function. The research director should be part of the executive team responsible for the running of the National Health Service. I say this because I have heard some suggestions that the weaknesses which we identified could be met by appointing a research adviser. No, my Lords, I do not think that this can be done by a research adviser. He must be part of the executive team, playing a role with the executives in the effective use of research as an essential tool of management, as part of the management of the National Health Service.
To sum up therefore I should say that our conclusion was that within the National Health Service "research" as an essential management tool was inadequately used. While outside the National Health Service medical research was of the highest standard, inside there was considerable room for improvement in its application to the needs of the service. This could be rectified by the appointment of an officer with this responsibility, but it must be somebody of adequate status. He would only be of adequate status if he had the necessary authority to play his part in the management team of the health service.
I hope that when we receive the Government's reply to the committee's recommendations we shall learn that they accept our diagnosis and our solution to the problem. My noble friend the Minister knows our views on this; we have discussed them with her. I am not necessarily suggesting that she should take the matter further this afternoon but we look forward
906
to the Government's reply in due course. We hope that it will be favourable and that the Government will have taken note of what has been said. For the reasons which I have mentioned there is tremendous scope in these fields for the improvement of the National Health Service and its efficiency but most important of all the improvement of patient care, which is the Government's aim. The changes we recommend could play an important part in meeting that objective.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for bringing the debate before us today. The interesting point is that the uncertainties that face the National Health Service are: will it be properly funded? will it be privatised? The only solution to those uncertainties is for the people of this country to elect a Labour Government. That makes for a very short debate so I thought it would be quite useful to develop that a litte.
One of the problems I wish to talk about is the fragmentation of the National Health Service. We have a situation where some hospitals do not provide a full range of services. The hospital services are separate from the community services. The community services themselves are divided between the doctors, the pharmacists, the opticians and the dentists on the one hand and the community nurses, the midwives and health visitors on the other side. If we look at the family doctor service, that itself is fragmented because of the overuse of deputising services in some areas. So at every level the National Health Service is fragmented.
Comprehensive health care depends on the proper integration of a wide range of professional expertise and equipment and facilities. But changing patterns of population, changing patterns of ill-health and changing medical knowledge require changes in the pattern of health care delivery. Unfortunately, the Government's plans do not address these problems. Effectively they seek to fragment the health service even more. We shall have two types of GP provision, two types of hospital provision, with none of the integration that is required.
I wish to pick out two specific elements of the Government's proposals which we need to look at. First, there is the way in which the Government seek to tackle the use of the deputising service. It is recognised that the deputising service which the GPs, the family doctors, make use of is counter-productive. It is quite useful if used in very small amounts, but it is counter-productive when it is overused. The Government plan effectively to increase the cost to the GPS of that deputising service. I suspect that all the other controls will effectively come off. The net result of that will be, yes, some doctors may use the deputising service less, but others unfortunately, I suspect, will use it more.
Another problem is the way in which the Government are approaching clinical audits. I suggest that clinical audits have always been with us. It is the process of doctors discussing their diagnosis,

907
their treatment and the outcome with their fellow professionals. They have always done that; enlightened physicians have always done that. Given the scale and scope of change in medicine over the years, it is probably quite useful for the medical profession to formalise the process of clinical audits. It is probably useful for the administration of the health service to provide support facilities.
Unfortunately, however, the plans of the Government are to use clinical audits as a tool of managing the profession. That, I suggest, will be very damaging indeed, not only to the development of the profession, because the procedure which should be used as a tool to develop the profession and develop medicine will be used for a totally different purpose and therefore the tool will be destroyed.
The other problem with which we are faced is that we shall end up with medical treatment being determined not by the doctors but by the non-medical managers of the health service. One of the essential points about the National Health Service is the provision of high-quality services to local people. In the area I come from we have many problems, as every area has. I should like to highlight two of them, and perhaps I may explain my situation.
I live in one part of south Manchester and I represent on the local council another part of south Manchester. I am also a member of the family practitioner committee which oversees the activities of the local family doctors. One of the unfortunate side effects of the Government's proposals is that a number of older GPs are leaving the profession before they see the problems hitting them. They cannot stomach the proposals of the new contracts or the changes that they see coming into the National Health Service. They are retiring and saying that they want nothing more to do with the system. These doctors have surgeries in their own homes, but they do not even want to continue with that.
We cannot argue against that, but we are left with a problem because the district health authority has the ability to build premises from capital expenditure. The family practitioner committee, on the other hand, has no authority to expend capital and build anything. So the doctors who are left to provide the service have effectively to do it themselves.
This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs because of the unique situation in south Manchester, where the city council owns the whole of Wythenshawe—that is the area I am talking about. So the city council is left to try to pick up the pieces. We are doing what we can, but I suggest that these problems will continue until there is an integration at local level of the operation of the health service.
A further problem I wish to refer to concerns the provision of hospital services. In south Manchester we have two district general hospitals serving two distinct communities, Withington and Wythenshawe. The hospital in Wythenshawe also serves parts of south Trafford, north-east Cheshire and parts of Stockport. Those two hospitals also provide the very important casualty resources required by the emergency plans of Manchester's
908
international airport, Ringway. To save money the district health authority basically wants to close the casualty unit at Wythenshawe. It is interesting to note that it takes half the time to get from Ringway to Wythenshawe Hospital than from Ringway to Withington Hospital. But, nevertheless, the health authority wants to close the Wythenshawe casualty unit. That, incidentally, is totally impartial evidence provided by the local police establishment.
Other proposals seek to concentrate some of the hospital services on one site or the other. The net result is to destroy two district general hospitals. We have heard that there is special financial provision made for hospitals in the vicinity of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. I make a plea this afternoon that south Manchester, and particularly the casualty units at Wythenshawe and Withington, should also receive the special extra funding required by the emergency plans of the international airport situated nearby.
Last week I attended a packed out public meeting in Wythenshawe on these proposals. The chairman and the general manager of the health authority presented their plans to unanimous condemnation. Right at the end of the meeting the district manager said that he believed the public attending the meeting were being parochial. He said that if it had been decided to build the new district general hospital in Wythenshawe and close the one in Withington, the public would have been quite happy with that. The response of the meeting was unanimous and immediate. To cries of, "No, we are not selfish", that suggestion was opposed completely.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, other noble Lords have already mentioned this, but I wish to repeat that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for tabling this debate. It is particularly useful to be able to debate this huge subject calmly, before the Government's forthcoming Bill reaches us. I intend to devote most of my few remarks to a small but I think important area of proposed reform, which is the role of the private sector in health care. At this stage I must declare an interest as I am a partner of the National Health Service. Before any noble Lords dive for cover at the thought of Mancroft wandering around in a white coat attempting to treat any aches and pains that noble Lords may have, please let me explain.
In October this year a company of which I am a director entered into what I believe is the first ever partnership agreement between a limited company and a health authority to provide facilities for both private and national health patients on an equal, first come first served basis. The health authority will purchase bed space at a discount of 20 per cent., which practically speaking means that it will pay for beds at the rate of £100 a day in an area where its own beds cost £125 a day. Without looking any further, that is a good deal. It does, however, cause one to wonder why, with all the economies of scale of health authorities beds are quite so expensive. I have so far been unable to find a satisfactory answer to that.

909
But the deal goes further than that. As a true 50–50 partner, the health authority receives 50 per cent. of the profit of this venture. That profit will go towards providing more beds at a cheaper rate in subsequent years. When our little clinic is full, with maximum income and running at its most economic level, the health authority will reach what is called a zero revenue situation. In our language, that means that revenue will equal expenditure. That is a state most of us have been longing to reach for years. The health authority may further recoup costs by selling beds to other health authorities. The overall income and profits will pay for any expansion that may be required by force of demand. Thus the health authority will only be asked for a capital investment at the start. It will receive that back within two years at the outside.
This facility is being set up to provide treatment for addiction to drugs and alcohol. Those subjects were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It follows a method of treatment called the Minnesota model which is currently only available in the private sector. The National Health Service has no staff qualified to practise this form of treatment. Because of the multidisciplinary nature of the treatment, I am told that it is doubtful that it would ever work within the rigid structure of the health service as it is at present. We are therefore providing an additional desperately needed service that the health service by itself is unable to provide at a cost far lower than the health service could possibly achieve.
At present the patients we plan to accommodate are a serious burden on the health service. General practitioners find them expensive and time consuming. Casualty wards and psychiatric wards are full of them and the old style psychotherapy units simply do not work. Therefore these patients go round and round the system. By stopping this awful cycle we hope to make beds, time and money available for other patients. This is of course a pilot scheme, but when we have shown by independent research how it can work we hope it can be extended all over the country. There is no reason why these partnerships cannot be extended into other areas of medicine, bringing private money and expertise together with national health patients. Instead of the public sector subsidising private beds, which has always been the criticism in the past, private money will subsidise national health patients in national health beds.
It has taken two years to set this project up and we have learnt a great deal during that process. We have received much good will from the Department of Health and from the Ministers in that beleaguered department. They have been farsighted in their approach and I wish to extend my thanks for that to my noble friend the Minister. We have received help well beyond the call of duty from health authority administrators, but much of what we have learnt has quite frankly appalled us. The administrators are clearly massively overworked, partly because the management systems are hopelessly inadequate and partly because their office facilities and administrative back-up are about 25 years out of date. They cannot be expected in those
910
circumstances to produce the service that the nation demands and that we are discussing today.
More importantly, the management is structured in such a way that no one has ultimate responsibility or is accountable. The result is a complete inability to make the simplest of decisions. Because the structure is so overloaded the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing so that if a decision is made it takes for ever and a day for that decision to be implemented.
The day-to-day accounting system is one which my accountants have told me went out of common usage 15 years go. The solicitors retained to advise the health authority that I have dealt with would only act when an unequivocal undertaking was received as previously they had had to resort to law to be paid. The secretary of the authority himself admitted to me that the authority had lost all discounts with local suppliers due to its failure to pay its bills.
The Government's solution to those problems is theoretically the right one. It is, in short, to commercialise the National Health Service. The Opposition hardly waited to hear the details before throwing up their hands in horror. They have howled about privatisation and principles. Noble Lords may have noticed that when people talk about principles they always seem to mean money; in other words, spending cuts. As we all know, there have not been any spending cuts.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford gave us the figures on spending. Those vast increases have only been made possible by the successful wealth-creating policies of this Government. It is extraordinary that the Labour Party with one breath should accuse the Government of frittering away national assets and then with the next criticise the Government for not throwing good money after bad down the drain of the National Health Service. The Government quite righly want to put the plug in that drain before turning on the tap.
What commercialisation means is paying closer attention to the balance sheet, spending efficiently in a cost-effective way, and making sure that one receives value for money. The administrators to whom I have spoken do not believe that that is a bad idea. However, my fear is not theory but practice.
Try as I may, I can see no way in which the present structure will ever be anything but crisis led. I am afraid that the whole system is too far gone for this kind of repair work. The health service cannot work with its old system and I do not see how it will be able to work with a botched up repaired system. However, let us try by all means.
This is not really a political issue. I do not believe that there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who does not want the best for our health service. We have collectively the will to succeed. But this is a very complex issue and needs much deliberation. Like many of your Lordships, I am ready to be sold the Government's idea if they will listen to mine. However, we must go slowly and carefully and it will be counter-productive if the Government try to push through new legislation at

911
their usual breakneck pace. If the Government want your Lordships' help—and I think that they do—they must proceed at your Lordships' pace. More haste, less speed should be the order of the day.
There is much that is good in the Government's proposals but I shall need a little persuading about some of them. I shall try to keep an open mind and I sincerely hope that the Government will too.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, perhaps I may add my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington for initiating this debate. I am very intrigued by the reference on the Order Paper to present uncertainties and possible solutions.
I have listened to the speeches with great interest. I was very touched by the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, on behalf of the National Heart Hospital. I am sure that that will warm the hearts of my colleagues who work there. I was very conscious of the penetrating criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. To keep the balance, I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, said about the importance of research in the NHS. I was delighted too with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, particularly concerning teaching. I bow to my collegue with whom I worked in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and acknowledge his remarks.
One uncertainty concerns whether we should try to improve management and then put in the money or let the money come first and hope that management follows. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will remember that many people working in the National Health Service are very worried that a disproportionate amount of resources will be invested on the management side.
While I am impressed by what I see of the work of young managers in the hospital in which I still work—Addenbrooke's in Cambridge—and in the authorities in East Anglia with which I am concerned, there is no doubt that those young men are working much harder and faster than many of us realise. They have set themselves very exacting standards. I am intrigued by the remarks that we must not go too fast, but I should like the House to know that the managers believe that they can meet the deadlines.
The White Paper produced much controversy and friction. Half a million nurses work in the hospitals and at the beginning their points were recorded very carefully. More recently the general practitioners and currently the consultants in the royal colleges are indicating their uncertainty and stressing the need for reassurance.
When the NHS was first proposed I was a medical student at Johns Hopkins University in America. I was very much in favour of the service. That support led to my being called a very left-wing doctor. I suppose that it is the furring up of my arteries which makes me confess that while in the early stages of the White Paper's life I was very dubious about the proposals for the provision of private insurance for
912
old people like myself by their relatives, about the general practitioner budget (which I thought might distort resources in local hospitals), and about the trust hospitals (which I feared would be outside the NHS), and so on, bit by bit I have been won over on almost all of those points. Like many speakers this evening I see much good in the White Paper. I very much hope that we shall give it a chance.
One concern emerging from conversations with many of my colleagues is that trust hospitals will operate outside the NHS with the risk of a two-tier service. Part of my reply is that there is such a spectrum of hospitals and, within hospitals, such a spectrum of quality of service that the leading hospitals may have to be left to work out their own arrangements. I refer to hospitals such as Guy's and bow to my former colleague there, the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Very important experiments are being worked out by the young men in those hospitals. I believe that there are misunderstandings. The Royal College of Physicians is very worried about the level of salaries that may develop in the leading independent hospitals. My understanding of a telephone conversation yesterday with Professor Chantler, the éminence of the new developments, is that there is no intention, at least in the foreseeable future, to have salary differentials if the consultants at Guy's were to agree to opt for trust status.
On the other side of the argument, while I was vice-chancellor at Nottingham University we presided over variations in salaries for our professors. Therefore, salaries may be used in different circumstances to achieve the desired result.
I am very worried about morale up and down the country. Many of the relationships inside hospitals have been rather soured, often by misunderstandings. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will bear in mind some very useful work carried out by Professor Reg Revans of Manchester University, who invented a phrase in management, "action learning". He was able to show in a study of 12 hospitals in the 1960s and the 1970s that if you got the people on the administrative side, the nursing side and the medical side pulling together and showing willingness to understand other people's views the hospital's performance was improved. I hope that Professor Revans will be able to have his ideas included somewhere, perhaps in the training programme.
As regards research, we await the Government's response. I hope very much that what the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, spoke of will come to be. I had the privilege of working at operational research when I was in the services. I feel that the spirit of that kind of operational research would bring about a great improvement in relations and, I dare to say, an improvement in the management of the service.
I want to talk briefly about diabetics, in whom I am particularly interested. The British Diabetic Association, like many other societies concerned with chronic illness, is worried about the future and about how the district authorities will take care of needs. It was, of course, worried at one time about the possibility that insulin would be unavailable when budgets ran out. However, it has received a letter from the Minister in the other place, Virginia

913
Bottomley. It is rather important that I read this to your Lordships; it may prevent misunderstanding going much further. She wrote to the British Diabetic Association:
"I can give you an unqualified assurance that the new arrangements for indicative prescribing budgets for general practitioners will not interfere with doctors' clinical freedom to prescribe the drugs their patients need".
There may, of course, be escape let-outs in what patients "need", but diabetics know that they need their insulin or their pills. That should be reassuring, and indeed is reassuring, to them.
In the same breath, let me remind your Lordships that every diabetic costs the country between £500 and £1,000 a year. Many might have staved off development of the illness if they had been able to lose weight before the diabetes fully developed. One sometimes wonders whether, if there were to be a saving, it could be shared between the general practitioner and the rather overweight person with relatives who are diabetic. We might get some better slimming in that section of our community, thereby saving us quite a lot of money.
All of us in the health service have been very proud to be part of it. I believe that it should not be beyond the wit of all of us, if we can work together for this great service, to be as proud of it in the future as we were in the late '40s and early '50s.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing this debate and for giving us this opportunity to speak. This is a time for change in the health service, and it is a good thing to have change because the service has gone on for such a long time and has been tinkered with again and again. I think it was in 1974 that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, carried out a reorganisation and brought in the present structure of area health authorities, regions and districts, which now have become districts only; and the hospitals which have survived best since are the ones which retained boards of governors on the postgraduate teaching hospitals. They are now redesignated as special health authorities.
When I have spoken before of overspending in the health service, people have always said to me that it is due to bad management. In the case of some authorities on which I have served, I confirm that that was true—that management was not very impressive, particularly by industrial standards. But as regards the special health authorities, I have been a member of the National Heart and Brompton since 1974 and I do not think that better management than that exists. I have been most impressed.
What is the situation this year? They find themselves with an overspend of more than £1 million. They are not alone in this. All the other special health authorities are in a similar position and the largest element in this overspend is pay inflation. The lowest overspend is the Eastman Dental Hospital with£181,000. The comes Moorfields with £336,000—this is just on pay—the National Heart with £575,000, the Marsden with £712,000. Great Ormond Street with £829,000 and
914
Hammersmith with £1,112,000 overspend. This is simply on the pay element and it is something which concerns me very much.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that he would not dream of overspending, but I can tell him that that authority would not dream of it either. How it has come about is that, having agreed inflation at 5 per cent. and made that allowance, it then found a national pay award of 7.3 per cent. imposed upon it, leaving a shortfall. That missing 2 per cent. takes a great deal of finding. There are many other factors in the non-pay section. The pay section of inflation is the greatest, but there are other inflationary items also on the list. The subject is far too complicated to go into in a short time here. But there are external costs imposed upon these authorities, which are just as efficient in management, just as capable and certainly as conscientious as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would wish them to be.
This is a matter of some concern, because what answer is there? The committee of the authority on which I serve has had three special meetings of a special committee to consider what cart be done and it has come up with some quite ingenious ways of saving. But when it comes down to the bottom line, it will have to cut services after Christmas by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. As one of the doctors at the National Chest said at our meeting the other night, "I have 400 waiting for catheters now. All it will mean is that the waiting list will grow longer". It is a tragedy to have expert, unused resources wasted because no one can afford that small amount of money to keep them in use; and yet we see the waiting lists growing.
There will be a change under the White Paper for these hospitals too, and there will be in future a very small board, much more like an industrial board, with paid non-executive directors, only four in number apart from the chairman and one or two others who have to be there, such as one from the research institute. It is interesting that there will be no MPs and no Peers eligible, so clearly my time has finished. I find it curious in that the board is modelled on industry and we are not ruled out from industry; yet we are apparently to be ruled out from the health service. It is also rather a shame that we are to lose that marvellous voluntary element of people who have worked on the boards for years—in fact since the last century—and have given their services free. It is rather like a local authority. The minute you get to the point where you are paying for everything, you get a different sort of person coming forward. There will be a loss of something there.
I must also mention dentistry, because I am the only elected member of the General Dental Council in this House and it would be wrong if I did not mention it. But before I do that, I should like to mention that there is an institute attached to the National Heart and Brompton and it will be quite happy at the fact that patients will come with their money. However, it is very concerned that it will get only the most complicated cases. In order to carry out full research and have a full picture of the heart and lung, one needs basic simple asthma cases. There is doubt that someone will refer those so-called

915
ordinary cases to a hospital which will be more of a specialist hospital and therefore perhaps more costly, because each hospital will be engaged in competing for those services.
To come to my remarks on dentistry, it is time for change in dentistry. On the whole the profession welcomes the change. Earlier this evening I heard one of the other speakers in the debate say that it was time to remove capitation from doctors. I found that remark interesting as it is made just at the time when capitation or part capitation is to come in for dentists. Perhaps part capitation would be an answer for the doctors.
I welcome the continuing care element, but my noble friend Lady Hooper knows that I am very concerned about the continuation of national health dentistry in high cost areas. I noticed in those special health authority figures that there was a very heavy expense for London weighting. Yet so far as concerns dentistry there is no London weighting or weighting for any high cost area. It sounds very attractive that patients will be able to have guarantees for treatment and that they will be the only people with the right to agree to a mix of private and national health treatment. The dentist will no longer have that right; it will be the decision of the patient. That sounds good and it will be good provided that National Health Service treatment is still available.
I have a colleague who has just set up a one-surgery practice near me. It has cost her £90,000 to set up that practice. She believes that in that part of inner London it will probably be the last practice to be set up because of the cost, including the amount of interest to be paid on the money. She worked for years not far from that place. All her patients were there and she wanted to continue in the area when the other practice closed. However, it is a lot of money.
As dentists, we do not have the benefit of the structures that the doctors have whereby, I understand, they can be assisted through low-cost loans to set up in premises. There is no assistance whatever for dentists. That is often not appreciated. I shall myself be retiring just before this legislation is implemented. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, talk about the number of older doctors who are about to retire. I do not think those doctors retire entirely because of the changes. I believe that it happens either because one is on the point of retiring, like myself, or because one does not want to bother to take on board a whole new structure for just a short time. I do not think that there is as much significance in those retirements as one might imagine.
However, I hope my noble friend will be able to assure me that when the National Health Bill arrives there will be enabling powers within it for the Government to bring in differentiation, whether they be high-cost areas, unattractive areas or areas where there is a tremendous dental need and one cannot get a dentist to go. At the moment we are concerned at the fall-off. We are desperately short of dentists again. Three years ago we did not know what to do with them because there was such a
916
surplus. So it is very difficult to know what is the right mixture and what to do.
If there is a power in the new Bill to offer flexibility within these decisions and loans for certain areas if need be, just as there is a precedent already for seniority payments, I believe that that would be a very good thing.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, is quite right to emphasise in the wording of this Motion that despite publication of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill there are still far too many uncertainties facing the National Health Service. I should like to talk about the distant future and the plans that we should like to implement in the long term, but so great are the worries immediately concerned with the forthcoming legislation that I shall concentrate on a few points within it. First, I want to have a quick look at the GP contract. I shall then speak about fund-holding practices—GP budget holders—and how hospitals opt to become independent trusts. Finally I shall say a few words about medical research within the National Health Service.
I do not deny that the new contract for GPs contains a number of features which are welcome. They are an advance. We discussed that matter at the end of the last Session. However, what bothers many, in fact the great majority, of general practitioners is whether the new system can be called a contract when one side opposes it and it is imposed by the other side. As the noble Baroness knows, there are still doubts in the minds of many general practitioners about the the legality of the unilateral imposition of a contract. In fact there are moves to question the BMA's legal advice on that point. Surely the essence of the term "contract" implies an agreement between two parties.
Be that as it may, I hope that the introduction of the new working arrangements by family practitioner service authorities will be on a gradual and tactful basis. I see signs of that in my own family practitioner committee. We are however very lucky because we have an excellent and sympathetic chief executive. What many GPs feel is the worst feature of the new contract is the detail in which a learned profession is required to conform to central edicts. That is not restricted to the GP contract. The whole operation of the proposed National Health Service upheaval has been done without consulting the professionals who know most about the needs of the National Health Service and its patients because they work within it.
The new management structures greatly reduce representation of the professions concerned in the regional district and family practitioner service authorities as well as greatly diminishing the number of representatives of the local population as well. I was very pleased to hear the clear voice of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who is not at the moment in his seat. He said that the profession should be involved in management. I agree.
It seems to me that this Bill goes in the opposite direction. There are more uncertainties than

917
certainties about the proposed provision for fund-holding practices. I have two main worries in this respect. First, there is the impact on the doctor-patient relationship and the situation of trust that largely prevails today. For example, let us consider the case of a patient with 'flu, which is very topical as I have been finding out over the past two or three weeks. It was confirmed in the news this morning that we are in the midst of an epidemic. For some reason many patients think that an antibiotic is necessary. In fact they are of very limited value in a viral illness and GPs—good ones—are reluctant to use them. By not prescribing antibiotics for 'flu they save quite a lot of money on their drug budgets. But many patients still demand antibiotics, although when the doctor says no they accept that the decision is in their best interests. Will they be so ready to accept that decision if the practice has a budget? They will want to know whether the advice is in their interest or that of saving money.
I am also concerned that the money paid directly to the practice by the regional health authority, as it will be, could quite easily leave the health service altogether if, for example, a local, private hospital were to set up a loss leader and undercut the national health hospitals for certain procedures. Can the noble Baroness tell me whether that may occur? The national health hospitals in the districts that are deprived of funds thereby will be in a less good position to offer a more attractive alternative. I feel that that is one way in which fears of privatisation could well become a reality.
I am also concerned by the methods which the Government are using to attract hospitals to opt for independent hospital trust status. Clearly that is not being done in a democratic way. I have been told of one manager who was offered a £10,000 rise if he succeeded in persuading a hospital to opt out. I can give chapter and verse on that but I shall not do so in this House.
A large group of 3,000 consultants has been granted permission to seek a judicial review on whether the Minister has acted ultra vires in authorising expenditure of moneys voted in this year's Budget towards the implementation of a Bill which has only now started its passage through Parliament. I am not talking of the resource management initiative. That is a useful experiment being properly undertaken on a pilot basis in six hospitals. The Secretary of State announced in another place on 11th May that £82 million had been allocated "for implementing the review".
Finally, as a co-opted member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Medical Research I should very much like to endorse the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Hunter, Lord Winstanley and Lord Nelson, our chairman. The recommendations of that committee for setting up a National Health Service research authority could, if followed, provide a scientific basis for the wholesale improvement in the effectiveness of the National Health Service which the Bill proposes.
Recommendation 9.17 states:
"The National Health Service should be brought into the mainstream of medical research. It should articulate its research needs; it should assist in meeting these needs and it should ensure that the fruits of research are transferred into service".
918
That could best be achieved if a senior scientist is not only present in an advisory role but is a member of the national health executive. The noble Lord, Lord Nelson, made this point clearly. It is very important.
I should also like to emphasise his other point: operational research undertaken by the National Health Service amounts to rather less than 0·01 per cent. of the National Health Service budget. That is surely a minuscule proportion compared with any large industrial organisation which may devote 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or even 15 per cent. of its turnover to research and development.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for not being present at the opening of his speech due to a board meeting which I had a longstanding commitment to attend. I have already apologised to him personally. However, I shall read his speech, as I am sure will all noble Lords, with the very greatest of interest.
I have given the Minister notice of two brief questions that I should like to raise. In view of the time constraints I shall deal with them briefly. The first concerns hospital casualty departments. I have given my noble friend details supplied by the mid-Surrey Health Authority on local hospitals in the area of Surrey in which I live. However, I believe that it is a national problem, in particular at weekends, especially with the recent weather which results in pile-ups on the motorways and traffic jams. Under such conditions there are a number of accidents. Casualty departments are facing enormous problems, in particular where they have to take on extra doctors. At Question Time recently I asked about the funding for the extra staff needed. Will it come from regional health authority funds or will the shortfall be made up by the Government?
The second question concerns the very welcome £2 billion, referred to in the Autumn Statement, which has been injected into the health service. I believe that the Government are to be congratulated. A National Audit Commission is to' e set up under the White Paper. The debate has been very shrewdly timed because the Second Reading of the substantive Bill begins tomorrow in another place. Will the audit commission have powers at least to persuade on ways in which this money may be used? I have some suggestions to make. There are still too many wards in hospitals—even teaching hospitals—that are closed. Hopefully some of the money will be diverted to obtain more staff to reopen some of these wards.
My noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford in his very powerful speech as chairman of the Select Committee on scientific research mentioned medical research, which is vital. I hope that more money will be made available. I should like to join him in the tribute that he paid to the pharmaceutical industry for what it has accomplished. Perhaps I may refer to figures relating to bronchitis. In 1984 there were 417,000 bed days needed, compared with 1,262,000 in 1957. I believe that the pharmaceutical industry can take some credit. As one who suffers from sinus trouble from time to time it makes welcome reading.

919
A matter that I have mentioned in your Lordships' House previously is improvements to nurses' homes in some of these hospitals. Much of this debate is based on morale. One notices that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has quite rightly mentioned possible improvements. I believe that that is one area. Many nurses, in particular those from overseas, do not live at home; they live in nurses' homes. I believe that some improvements could be made.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes mentioned the last reorganisation in 1974. I was then a member of the house committee of a big mental hospital in Surrey. House committees were disbanded and the very large authorities were created. A certain amount has been done to restore the balance, but I believe that something similar to the house committees should be brought back so that there are members who are acquainted with their own hospitals, in particular in areas such as Epsom where there are seven mental hospitals. It would be very useful to have members on the committees who know these hospitals and who can talk to the nurses, the other staff and the patients. I believe that it will help morale.
There is also the very vexed question of nurses' pay. I declare an interest. I have a daughter in the nursing service, as have many noble Lords. The grading system has been very unsatisfactory, in particular for senior nurses nursing part-time who have families. I hope that some of the money available as a result of the Autumn Statement may be used to make up the shortfall.
Another suggestion that is made not only by people of my generation but the young working in the health service is to bring back matron. The district nursing officer and the area nursing officer do marvellous jobs. However, I believe that there are discretionay powers for the reintroduction of matrons. Perhaps I may suggest that it would not be a bad idea in future, since there is reference to solutions in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter to bring back matrons. Everybody in the hospital, both staff and patients, know who matron is. I am amazed by the requests I receive to have the term "matron" brought back. I suggest to my noble friend that that might be achieved during the passage of this legislation.
There is no doubt that 40 years on the National Health Service needs reorganisation. By and large the White Paper contains much merit. However, there will be a need for further discussion. The timetable causes a great deal of concern which is felt by those who work in the health service. I hope, as does the rest of the nation, that as the legislation goes through Parliament that will be taken seriously.
It is not only in this country that there is a problem as regards nurses' pay. Finland, a country that I know well and which has some of the finest medical services in the world—I recently spoke to some Finnish doctors—has the same problem. It would be useful to have an international conference on this vexed subject. I do not believe that it is beyond the remit of this country to do something about that. I believe that the debate today is to be widely welcomed.
7.12 p.m.
Viscount Dunrossil: My Lords, I begin by asking for the indulgence of the House because I must leave indecently promptly after my speech in order to fulfil a formal engagement which I accepted long before the date for the debate was fixed. I have already sent my apologies to the Minister.
The Government's claim is that their proposed reforms of the National Health Service are very much motivated by the interests of the patients, the publication Working for Patients, and so on. But for the layman the merits of the arguments for and against the proposed reforms have too often been obscured by noisy rhetoric and even at times descent into personalities. That is confusing for most of us who from time to time are the patients and the taxpayers. Therefore the debate is useful because we have a real interest in the way in which the National Health Service is to be run in the future and the kind and quality of service that it is likely to give us. Therefore I join those noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for initiating the debate.
I am sure that the House does not need reminding that in the Government's consciously cost-effective set of proposals for reform, complete with their extensive auditing provisions, the final auditors in the broad sense will be ourselves, the patients, whatever the figures. For that reason I hope that somehow a robust and effective degree of public accountability, preferably with strong regional and local knowledge and sensitivities, will continue to be an integral feature of the National Health Service, however tiresome at times that may be for some experts. It would be a tragedy, and an avoidable one, if this fine service was permitted to degenerate into an authoritative, remote and self-defending bureaucracy entrenched in its own procedures and loyalties.
I have referred to the strong regional and local sensibilities. Therefore perhaps I should provide the House with an instance of what that can mean. If we accept the assumption that the service to us as patients is largely dependent on having a high professional morale within a well-resourced NHS we should at the same time be careful that the remedy proposed for present failings is not applied with such a broad brush that proper and necessary distinctions are not drawn between one part of the United Kingdom and another. In other words, having diagnosed particular ailments in the NHS one hopes that due account will be taken of the individual nature of different regional patients when the national medicines are prescribed.
For example, if a theme of the future NHS is to encourage doctors to enlarge the list of patients in their practice it must be remembered that, whereas it is fine, say, in Fulham, in the far Western Isles of Scotland it is not physically possible. The extra people for a doctor to take into his care simply do not exist, though the clinical needs of the present population and the long distances between them on narrow and winding roads remain constant.
In the interest of patients some continuing future flexibility is clearly called for here. One hopes that

921
a more generous approach can be arranged so that if actual expansion of an isolated practice is not possible, and with it the financial incentives and other advantages which ubran practices have an opportunity to enjoy, the resources made available under the new arrangements should at least be seen to improve rather than deteriorate as at present seems to be the risk. One has to observe that the grouping of numerically small practices is not necessarily a practicable solution in the remote islands.
Apart from the actual size of practices there are one or two other aspects of isolated island doctors' practices with which in a debate of this nature it would not be appropriate to trouble your Lordships in detail. However, they need mentioning and if the Minister would like more details about them I shall gladly make them available in writing.
Briefly, it has proved difficult in the past for proper arrangements to be made to provide isolated island doctors with an associate on financial terms that ensure a fair return to all parties. Although a scheme to help with the problem has been announced and welcomed, there are fears that unless the criteria are widened to include an option of one associate to one practice, the truly island isolated doctors and therefore their patients will not be able to benefit. Such associates could easily be a recently retired doctor or a doctor about to retire. I know of a particularly good example in North Uist. But even that arrangement is now endangered by the proposed new regulations.
There are also other aspects where a degree of flexibility is called for when looking at the remote island doctors in relation to their urban or near-urban colleagues. They may seem minor but taken together they go a long way towards ensuring that the islands can obtain and retain adequate medical staff. For example, one would like to see the regulations for night visits, which involve a lot of travel, amended to extend the hours to which they apply and to be based more on the actual time that the doctors spend away from home.
In the Western Isles the premises of the National Health Service are not up to the standard and are not adequate for the staff required. Perhaps a realistic figure could be added to the local budget as some kind of credit to cover that.
Doctors are supposed to keep themselves up to date and to further post-graduate training. However, present proposals do not seem to make any allowance for that to enable rural doctors far from centres of learning to attend. With respect, that should be looked into so that rural doctors can be reimbursed for the costs of attending the sessions required to qualify for the new post-graduate education allowance, without which they are of course less well off and less qualified.
Finally, there is a strong case for allowing rural and particularly isolated doctors to count suturing as one of the allowed minor surgery procedures if for no better reason than that that could save a great deal of public money which otherwise goes on hospital and transport costs. Of course it also means that the patient is treated on the spot and quickly.
922
I should perhaps offer an apology for what may seem a rather narrow focus for much of my remarks. However, rural and isolated doctors are very important figures in the lives of the patients they serve. For them there is often no easy or rapid means of consulting other medical practitioners. Therefore rural doctors feel some of the uncertainties to which this Motion refers. I hope that one of the good features of an improved National Health Service will be that those doctors' crucial role in their communities, thought by some to be second only to the vet's, will be appropriately recognised and supported in future planning and management.
7.21 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in common with all other noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing this debate, not only because it has given us a chance to participate in a discussion at an early stage of the Bill but also because it is something more as well as something less than a Second Reading debate. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, was right when he said that a Second Reading debate would have been a good deal more adversarial than this debate has been, because it has been a remarkable feature of the debate that almost every noble Lord who has participated has in effect made points on both sides of the House. When I look at the points which have stuck in my memory, they are very often points which one would have expected to come from the opposite side of the House to that from which they came.
There are four general themes which have run right through this debate. One is a concern at what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, described as the breakneck pace at which the Government's legislation is being brought in. We could stop to consider the view that it is more important to get it right than to get it in place at once.
The second theme which has run through the whole debate is the realisation that funds available for the treatment of medical questions are not unlimited. There cannot be ultimately, a blank cheque. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, drew attention to that problem, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester in a very powerful speech.
Also, there has been considerable concern running through the debate about the shortage of funds. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Coslany and Lord Hatch of Lusby, both mentioned that. I know that the noble Lords, Lord McColl of Dulwich and Lord Mancroft, have both told us that there have not been any cuts. If so, I believe that they have a problem in explaining why there are so many people to whom it feels remarkably like it, because if there have not been any cuts there must have been a quite extraordinary escalation in the process of costs.
The other theme which has run through the debate and to which the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Carr of Hadley, drew attention is the concern at the amount of misunderstanding and lack of communication between the Government and the profession. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that that was

923
something which must be utterly unprofitable. I believe that that is something with which all sides of the House agree.
We may think, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, reminded us in the debate on the Address recently, about the circumstances in which the review that led to the White Paper was first set up. It was set up because of fairly considerable concern about funding. It was set up because of concern about why the health service was costing so much. You can see that concern in almost every line of the White Paper. It is concerned about what it calls the huge costs of the system.
Here we have a problem which is wider than this decade and this country. We are up against the problem of human inventiveness. People continue to invent new methods of treatment at a much more rapid rate than we gain money to pay for them. Curiously, one of the closest parallels to that is the defence budget, because we invent new ways of killing each other and curing each other with perhaps equal rapidity. In both cases there is a real problem as to the way in which the cost goes on growing and the funds available do not. In both cases it is very tempting to fall back on what is in effect a conspiracy explanation of the problem. As, on the Left, people looking at the defence budget tend to talk about the military industrial complex and think the problem consists of reducing its power, so perhaps on the Right people looking at the cost of the health service tend to utter the words "producers' cartel". They believe that if they can reduce the power of that producers' cartel that will perhaps reduce the cost.
I believe that much of the professional concern about this subject is not necessarily about the contents of the proposals but about the motives which some professionals believe they see behind their introduction. For there is a suspicion that the proposals are being introduced as a deliberate act of hostility and that the sort of hostility which has developed between the Secretary of State and the doctors may not be just a sheer accident but may be a deliberate desire to decrease professional power.
Of course that tends to produce an equal and opposite reaction. In the introduction of a competitive mentality, we have proposals which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, said in a bleak but carefully chosen phrase were in stark contrast to medical ethics. Therefore those two factors—a sense of a conflict of ethics and a sense of hostility—are limiting communications and preventing negotiations where they should be taking place.
There is also a sense that there is a difference between the ideal of competition and maximising income and the ideal of service. The noble Viscount, Lord Dunrossil, in his remarks about island doctors pinpointed extremely neatly the difference between those two ideals. That is the reason one finds a rural post office where one does not find a rural supermarket. The objectives are different. A great many professionals are concerned that that difference may be being lost sight of.
924
In the details of the proposals I shall touch only on the question of academic medicine. I agree entirely with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford. It is time that we had a response to his report, which is also, among much else, the most balanced discussion I have heard of the relationship between publicly funded and sponsored research. We need more consideration of what will happen to the knock-for-knock system of uncosted mutual assistance between universities and teaching hospitals. The point about that system is that it is uncosted. It cannot be unscrambled and split into its component parts because, as academics have been saying for a long time, they cannot divide up their time between teaching and research. In this atmosphere, where everything has to be costed, what is going to happen to the knock-for-knock system?
I have drawn attention to the fact that funds are not unlimited. I have drawn attention to the fact that this is not the way to deal with the problem. Then what is? My noble friend Lord Winstanley, speaking on the White Paper last February, suggested that we ought to be thinking about the cost-effectiveness of treatments. There is of course no upper limit as to how many pounds in theory one could spend to save one life. However, where public funds are concerned one has to think about whether that is always the best use. In the days of Aneurin Bevin—I hope that name will compel a certain amount of thought in all quarters of the House—there were some treatments which were not available on the health service. I wonder whether that is a more effective method of limiting costs than this pursuit of an efficiency which appears to many professionals to be something a good deal less than efficient and indeed on occasion to be opposed to it.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing this most timely debate. It has emphasised the concern we all share to ensure that the National Health Service delivers the services the patient needs in the most effective way possible. It would be fair to say that most speakers have expressed what one can describe as a measured criticism of the proposed reforms.
It will surprise the Minister that I start by congratulating the Government. I believe they have a genuine wish to reform the National Health Service. Their intention is admirable, but I fear the execution is badly flawed. The prime area of concern—this debate underlines it—is the breathless speed of implementation and the lack of consultation.
Speed has been the thread running through the whole business since the Prime Minister's unguarded remark on television nearly two years ago about a review of the National Health Service. It was a remark, I understand, which came as something of a surprise to her colleagues. The National Health Service review was conducted at breakneck speed behind closed doors and seemed to be designed to produce the answer that the Prime Minister wanted.
We then had the White Paper. It was produced in January 1989 and responses were asked for by May.

925
That allowed four months to respond to what we were told was the biggest reform of the National Health Service in 40 years. On the question of consultation, my noble friend Lord Ennals has referred to the fact that the five professional organisations representing nurses and midwives asked to meet the Prime Minister to express their concern over patient care. She refused to meet them. That sits ill with the statement by the Government in their response to the report of the Social Services Committee in another place on the National Health Service:
"The Government is prepared to enter into a dialogue with all the relevant interest groups if those groups are prepared to respond".
It was said that speaker after speaker, from all sides of the House, asked for more time to implement the reforms. And the eighth report of the Social Services Committee of another place—Resourcing the National Health Service: the Government's plans for the future of the National Health Service—in paragraph after paragraph put forward the need for more time. The report stated:
"Our major conclusion is that the Government's plans literally cannot work for the interests of patients until the necessary information is available to cost different treatments accurately—leaving aside the equally important measure which is needed, namely that of outcome. We recognise that this conclusion is politically less exciting than attempting to make a wholesome transformation of the structure and organisation of the National Health Service. To lay the basis for possible future radical changes may not seem so dramatic, but it would demonstrate that the reformers had the interest of the consumers at their heart".
Later, the report says:
"the Government cannot proceed with self-governing hospitals until treatments can be adequately costed and then priced".
The report continues:
"Information is necessary to make the market work.… We do not believe that the major changes proposed in the White Paper can be introduced safely until the right information is available about costs and outcome if the aim is to improve patient care".
There are a number of other quotations on the same lines which I could read from the report. However, in the response of the Government to the report those paragraphs were more or less completely ignored. My noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington put his finger on it (as he so often does) when he produced the phrase: the need for an evolutionary path of reform.
The noble Lords, Lord Carr of Hadley and Lord Mancroft, and others, referred to the need for accurate accounting and costing in this whole exercise. I am sceptical of the ability accurately to cost treatments and patient care. I have in excess of 30 years experience in management accounting. As a number of your Lordships will be aware, accounting depends on a whole raft of conventions and assumptions regarding the allocation of costs, particularly the allocation of overhead costs.
This may be merely a matter of accounting technique when it comes to management accounting in industry. But the care of patients and perhaps their lives will be affected in the National Health Service if the sums or the accounting conventions are wrong. That is not to decry the value of medical audit, resource and management initiatives. I merely urge again that the maximum time be given to work
926
out conclusions and that considerable caution be exercised in interpreting results as the basis for policy.
We are told that money will follow the patient—a phrase I do not entirely understand. Let me give an example: it is one that I know well. It is that of a patient who is referred from the general practitioner to the district hospital, then to the regional hospital. He is sent to Great Ormond Street for a second opinion and ends by being treated in two hospitals in London—for handicaps of hearing and vision—and in another hospital in Bristol for a congenital heart condition. The pattern of treatment is changing the whole time. Is the doctor supposed to be able to cost all this? Is he supposed to be able to track down all these treatments and to follow them around the hospital circuit?
I am sure we will be told that that is a special case and that special arrangements will be needed in order to deal with the problem. However, even to arrange for the special arrangements will require some costing and some figures to see where the level is on the GP's budget. I am not at all convinced that this is a problem with which the Government have even begun to grapple.
What lies behind the divide between the Government and those of us who are critical of the proposed reforms is a fundamental belief on our side of the House that the market place is a peculiarly inappropriate mechanism for allocating social provision and in particular health care. We know that competition has its place in allocating resources over a vast range of economic activity. But it cannot and it must not be relied upon as the basis of a service which is demand-led, is unpredictable and is intensely personal in delivery.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the American experience. It is no secret that some of those who are advising the Government on the reforms have visited America; they have been to the state of Massachusetts to study the Harvard community health plan which is in operation in Boston. They were there in March of this year. Therefore, it is peculiarly appropriate to read from a study in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine of April 1988 which states that there are,
"significant associations between higher mortality rates … and the intensity of competition in the market-place. These findings raise serious concerns about the welfare of patients who are admitted to hospital in relatively competitive markets".
The same warning has been given in this country. Professor Alan Maynard, of the York University Centre for Health Economics, said that,
"unleashing competitive forces in the NHS could, as in the US, increase the number of avoidable deaths and make health care in the UK more of a lottery … where you put strong incentive systems in for people to minimise costs they perform in cheaper ways … we can also see from America that where there are cheaper patterns of care avoidable deaths seem to have increased".
I wish to put a number of questions on this aspect. Can we be assured that competition and the market place will provide that all opted-out hospitals give the full range of services when and where they are needed? That point has been made a number of times. I am sure that the Minister will wish to deal with it when she replies. Can the theories and the

927
competition of the market place accurately reflect the wishes of the community regarding the future of their local hospital? As we know, there is no provision in the National Health Service Bill to ask local people whether they want to have their hospital opted-out.
Can competition and the marketplace ensure that standards of care will at all times be given absolute priority over financial and accounting considerations? The Government quite properly take credit for the increases in funds which have been made available to the National Health Service. I have to say in passing that I have the suspicion that between now and the general election we shall see funds literally thrown at the first opted-out hospitals and general practices which adopt the practice budget.
As regards funding, what has been called (by, I believe, Mr. Enoch Powell in the first place) the revolution of rising expectations, together with the advance of medical technology, is taken to mean an infinite, increasing and unassuageable demand for medical services. Although that argument is correct in theory, it surely makes the best the enemy of the good. I shall give a simple example. Nobody expects the waiting list for hip operations to fall from 18 months to 18 weeks or even 18 days. A reduction to 12 months and then perhaps to six months would bring immense relief to those on the waiting list today.
We have to accept this situation when we consider the level of funding. Those of us who wish to see an improvement in the health service are arguing not for a dramatic overnight change and the wiping out of the waiting list because we know that will not happen. However, to halve the waiting list for hip operations would be a tremendous boon to those on the waiting list. We are told that the Government are spending some £28 billion on the National Health Service. Yet a hospital that I know well—the Royal United Hospital in Bath—could recently afford to staff only seven out of 21 intensive care cots.
A mother in Somerset went into premature labour. She was turned away from the Bath Hospital and two maternity hospitals in Bristol. She was in labour the whole time. She was eventually admitted to a hospital in Newport. That was due to the fact that there were no intensive care cots available in Bath or in the two hospitals in Bristol. Is this due to underfunding or bad management? It is a fact for that mother.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us how the proposed reforms can deal with that situation, particularly as the Royal College of Midwives has expressed concern that maternity services are not clearly identified as a core service. My noble friend Lord Wallace gave some practical examples of what is actually happening in hospitals in his area. Despite the recent increase in spending we are still spending about 6 per cent. of GDP on health care compared with over 8 per cent. of a much larger GDP in France and Germany.
I was struck by a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. He said that the reforms
928
would bring increased benefits to taxpayers and patients. I find it a little hard to understand why we still spend a smaller proportion of GDP on health care than other countries. We shall have reforms that increase the benefits to both the taxpayer and the patient at the same time.
There is another aspect that I would wish to deal with if I had more time. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and it relates to the needs of the disabled. There has been great concern among the disability organisations about the White Paper on the health service and that on community care. We shall certainly wish to return to these matters in some detail when we debate the Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord McColl, referred to cuts. They could not see how there could be cuts if resources have increased in the way that they have.
The local cottage hospital where I live is having the number of beds reduced by 30. We shall be able to carry out only what I believe is called cold surgery. I have already referred to the example at Bath. If it helps noble Lords who find this situation hard to understand, I shall certainly withdraw the word "cuts" and say that a number of patients have seen a marked reduction in services. I ask the Minister and those who support the Government whether the presidents of all the royal colleges have got it wrong?
The Government appear to be genuinely surprised and indeed hurt by the mistrust which undoubtedly exists regarding their plans for the National Health Service. I suggest that they have only themselves to blame. I have mentioned the breakneck speed of the process of reform and the lack of consultation. I must add the belligerent and ill-advised remarks of the Secretary of State for Health.
Why will not the Government listen to the barrage of criticism and agree to give more time, for example, to set up some genuine pilot studies and to show us all that the proposed reforms actually work? What do they have to lose? A glance at the opinion polls show that at the crude and political level they would gain enormously. I believe also that they would gain substantially on the grounds of administrative efficiency.
Let us all see the reforms actually working and then extend them, on the basis of experience, throughout the health service. Until the Government are prepared to show that they are genuinely prepared to listen and respond, they must not be surprised if there continues to be deep concern regarding the outcome of the proposed reforms. Such worries have been expressed most eloquently from all sides of the House in this debate which has shown most accurately the concern expressed by all those who work in the National Health Service and by perhaps the most important people of all, the patients.
7.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, health matters are certainly high on our agenda this week and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for introducing his Motion as he did. Indeed, I am most grateful to all those who have made valuable

929
contributions to the debate and particularly to those who gave me advance warning of specific points which they intended to raise.
On the eve of the Second Reading debate in another place on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, it has been most useful to discuss these topics, which concern us all. At the outset I should like to touch on the reference in the Motion to uncertainties about the future of the National Health Service. We have always stressed that our reforms are intended to build on the successes of the National Health Service to date in order to equip it for the future.
We are all quite justifiably proud of our National Health Service, but we are not so complacent that we do not seek to improve it. The Government's own commitment to the NHS was underlined by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he launched the National Health Service and Community Care Bill two weeks ago. He said:
"The founding principles of the NHS remain intact. The new changes we are introducing will reinforce them to ensure that they provide the bedrock for the NHS into the next century. The Bill should therefore finally give the lie to all the ridiculous talk of privatisation".
Furthermore, we have rarely had such a clear vision for the future of the health service as we have now. The White Paper Working for Patients and the Bill set out a firm agenda for reform. As we discuss our programme with those in the National Health Service whose task it is to implement it, it is an agenda which is becoming increasingly refined and detailed. What we have in the health service today is a combination of three key ingredients for a healthy future—a firm set of objectives, growing resources to match them, and a management and staff who have already begun the task of implementation. To those who ask for what on the face of it sounds a most reasonable request for more time or a pilot scheme—no one has made it sound more reasonable than the noble Lord, Lord Carter—I say that that would only create more uncertainty and furthermore would deny the fact that the impetus for reform is already there and that in many parts of the country the good practices on which we are building are already in place to give us guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, put words into my mouth when he forecast how I would reply to his suggestions that the Government have not responded to the anxieties expressed by representatives of the medical professions. I say to him and indeed to others that more than 100 meetings have taken place. Apart from the many conducted by the late Lord Trafford, I personally have heard at first hand the views of representatives of the Royal colleges, and I certainly responded. But—and I address this perhaps particularly to my noble friend Lord Carr—the listening process must be a two-way one and not exclusively on the Government side. We have made it clear that we are also willing to enter into further constructive discussion about how best to implement our plans. I certainly refute any suggestion that hostility has been deliberately provoked. The Government have already replied to the submission from the conference of medical Royal colleges. We would have no objection to its publication.
930
At this point I want to make it clear that our reforms are not based on the American experience. We are not going down the privatisation road. Our commitment to the National Health Service is absolute.
On funding, the Government's record speaks for itself. The increase in the funds for the National Health Service in the United Kingdom from £8 billion in 1978 to £26 billion in 1989 represents an increase in real terms of 40 per cent. The announcement in the Autumn Statement of an increase of a further £2·6 billion shows that the pattern of real increases in funding is set to continue. But, as has been said, ever increasing resources will not by themselves guarantee the growth and improvements in service provision that the Government wish to see. Increased funding makes sense only where we can be confident that resources will be well spent, bringing the maximum benefits for patient care. We need to move away from a sterile debate about inputs and look rather at outputs, at what is being and can be achieved. Our reforms are designed to create an environment in which this can best be done.
An increased funding system is a cornerstone of our drive towards higher quality care. National Health Service contracts will, for the first time, give an opportunity to specify the quality standards which hospitals will be expected to meet. Careful monitoring of contracts will enable health authorities to check that those standards are being attained. By linking funding more closely to the number of patients a hospital treats, NHS contracts will do away with the disincentive effect of the present system of funding. At present hospitals which provide a high quality and prompt service bear, without an equivalent increase in funding, the cost of their success in the form of ever-increasing numbers of patients. The new contracting system will ensure that in future such hospitals are properly rewarded for their effective service. Our proposals offer a choice of management arrangements, not a two-tier system.
My noble friend Lord Nugent referred to resource management and the Government's initiative. As he said, resource management started as an experiment, and was deliberately developed in different ways at each of the sites. The results have been sufficiently encouraging for the Government to extend resource management to other sites. However, none of the sites has yet achieved full resource management throughout the hospital, and our joint evaluation with the JCC of these six sites is continuing. The Government's response to the House of Commons Select Committee makes it clear that future development of resource management will be from the funds specifically provided for that purpose and not diverted from patient care.
We recognise that decisions on making the best use of resources and developing services are best taken at local level. We need to give managers greater freedom to manage and develop services in the way best suited to local circumstances. So our proposals aim to release providers of NHS services as far as possible from unnecessary central control, while maintaining a comprehensive and truly national health service.

931
I realise that some have found this balance between greater freedom for managers and staff and new powers for the Secretary of State difficult to come to terms with. Perhaps I may reassure them that there is no inconsistency. The greater operational freedoms will need clearly defined limits to ensure that different parts of the health service do not start to pull against each other. It would be a foolish Secretary of State who did not hold reserve powers to enable him in an emergency to prevent new freedoms from being abused. The powers of direction will be used rarely, if ever, but they are proof of our commitment to the continuation of a comprehensive health service.
This greater freedom at grass roots level emerges most clearly in our plans for units to become National Health Service trusts, which I stress will remain fully within the NHS. National Health Service trusts will derive their income principally through NHS contracts to provide services to other health service bodies. They will have wide-ranging powers, including the right to employ staff and negotiate pay and conditions, to own and dispose of assets, subject to the Secretary of State's approval in the case of larger sums, and to borrow money and invest surpluses.
The aim of these freedoms is to enable trusts to make the most of the resources, staff and facilities at their disposal and so to offer a wide range of high quality services. Flourishing hospitals, managed locally and drawing on the support of local people, will lead directly to benefits for patient care, and especially to the quality of care to which so many noble Lords have today attached importance.
The Bill is clear evidence that the new powers we are giving health service bodies are matched by safeguards to ensure that those powers are exercised so as to bring benefits to the NHS as a whole. National Health Service trusts' establishment orders will set out the NHS functions they will be required to fulfil, including the provision of services for particular district health authorities. And the powers of NHS trusts which I mentioned earlier will be complemented by a range of specific reserve powers for the Secretary of State to ensure, if need be, that NHS trusts continue to carry out all their responsbilities as part of the NHS, and particularly within the requirements of their local communities.
While on the subject of National Health Service trusts, perhaps I may turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about core services, a term used only in relation to National Health Service trusts. There has been some misunderstanding. The services under this name will vary from district to district but the services will be designated by the relevant district as being necessary to meet that district's requirements to provide a full and comprehensive service to its local residents.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does that mean, therefore, that the health authority can require of the trust that it provides those services?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. If the authority finds it necessary to provide a certain service, and
932
it is only possible to provide that in the National Health Service trust, it may require it. That is the meaning of core services.
Perhaps I may now turn to the new GP contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said in opening the debate that our proposals for GPs do not help. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and other noble Lords expressed concern about family doctors. The new GP contract is in fact designed to ensure that patients receive better services and better value for money. Therefore good GPs have nothing to fear from this proposal. It will reward GPs who attract patients by providing a good range of services. Fears that FPCs will dictate the duties of GPs are misplaced, but they will certainly have an increased managerial role. Expenditure on general medical services has risen by 68 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. It is only right that FPCs should be able to monitor expenditure to see that it is used to bring improvements in the quality of patients' care where it is most needed.
As for the GP practice funds, larger GP practices will be able to volunteer for their own practice funds covering their drug costs, a range of practice expenses and selected hospital services for their patients. They will be free to tailor the pattern of those services, including the hospitals where they arrange to send patients, to suit the particular needs of those on their lists. They will also be free to invest savings from their funds so as to improve further the range of their services.
We have removed the obstacles to patients changing from one GP to another, if they so wish, and we are now offering GPs the opportunity to respond to patients' preferences in the services they offer. Further, indicative drug budgets will help GPs assess the effectiveness of their prescribing patterns. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that the British Medical Association now accepts that there are not cash limits; indeed, GPs will be able to exceed their budgets where they have good cause to do so and where they can justify this action.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I must point out that I specifically said that it was not cash limited; I said that this was comparable to the rate-capping procedure.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Our opponents see these measures purely and simply as cost-cutting devices, whether they describe them as rate-capping or otherwise. I find it strange that they should have such difficulty with the proposition that careful scrutiny of prescribing activity can and will bring about more effective prescribing overall.
Over-prescribing is not simply wasteful of resources which could be better devoted to other forms of patient care, as my noble friend Lady Young reminded us; it is potentially harmful to patients. We are at one with the medical profession about the importance of responsible prescribing. This proposal will be the means of achieving that aim. If we achieve all this I think that we shall be going a considerable

933
way towards meeting the needs about which the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, so forcefully reminded us in relation to the role of general practitioners.
The need for good management has been emphasised by many speakers in today's debate. Our proposals amount to a new freedom of action for NHS managers, staff and practitioners. It has been suggested that this might bring about fragmentation of the National Health Service. But these new freedoms are to be exercised within the framework of a powerful new role for district health authorities as planners and securers of a comprehensive health service.
As DHAs delegate their operational responsibilities to hospital and community unit level, the decentralisation process advocated by my noble friend Lord Carr, among others, will increasingly concentrate on assessing the health needs of their resident population, planning the best range of services to meet those needs and securing them through NHS contracts. The power to place National Health Service contracts will give districts greater ability to determine the pattern of local service provision and to influence the quality of services.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that DHAs will certainly have a duty to provide accident and emergency services to anyone in need of them. Further, supra-regional services will be maintained and the funding they receive will be better matched with the work they carry out. I can also confirm to my noble friend Lord Auckland that guidance on planning for emergencies is in fact under review.
At regional level RHAs will continue to have an overview of health service provision spanning primary care and the hospital and community health services. Like DHAs they will have a new membership made up of a mix of executive and non-executive members so as to bring the most effective blend of management skills and experience to the task. Nationally it will remain the role of the NHS management executive to set out clear guidelines for the implementation of the NHS policy board's short-term and strategic objectives for the National Health Service and to monitor proper co-ordination and delivery of services through its accountability review system.
Not unexpectedly your Lordships have shown particular interest in the provision of high quality medical education and research in the NHS. The Government share the view that these activities are crucial to the future of the NHS. That is why the White Paper Working for Patients made a firm commitment to maintaining the quality of medical education and research.
I should like to focus upon a number of measures which we are taking to support this commitment. The existing statutory framework for these activities in the National Health Service Act will remain. However, it is supplemented by a reserve power in the Bill to enable my right honourable friend to intervene in the, we believe, highly unlikely event of a National Health Service trust showing that it is neglecting its teaching and research obligations. I should remind your Lordships that this provision is
934
a direct result of the Government responding to comments that have been made to them on the White Paper.
However, I think that all hospitals, including future NHS trusts, will wish to take part in teaching and research in order to gain a reputation as a centre of excellence which will attract both patients and staff. We shall pay close attention to this in applications made for National Health Service trust status. We shall expect applicants to outline their plans including any changes to their present involvement.
The National Health Service and. Community Care Bill also contains provisions for NHS trusts and DHAs with major teaching commitments to include a non-executive director drawn from the relevant university, medical or dental school.
Further, we are backing our commitment to research and education with improved resources. The so-called SIFT mechanism which covers the excess costs of teaching has been increased and extended to the service costs of research. One effect of this should be that no voluntary or public sector research funder will be required to pay for the service costs of research it undertakes in such locations.
My noble friend Lady Young queried the two separate channels for medical school funding. This question has been considered by an inter-departmental steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education. In its interim report the group recommended that the existing separate channels of funding—that is, from the DES to the medical schools and from the Department of Health to teaching hospitals—provided the best means of guaranteeing an adequate level of funding for undergraduate teaching. In the second phase of its work the group has seen no reason to change its mind.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the issue of the knock-for-knock procedure. The Government have made no commitment to dispose of the knock-for-knock arrangements. Indeed, my right honourable friend has acknowledged the strength of the system and has agreed that there could be little benefit to either side if it were to be replaced by complex and expensive counter mechanisms. Having said that, the Government accept that their legislative proposals will inevitably lead to the arrangements being re-examined with a view to the services provided being more explicitly identified and quantified.
More important, however, is the fact that I recognise the concern about the delay in the Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled Priorities in Medical Research. I regret this delay, but we have had to take account of the changes proposed in Working for Patients and take time to develop some of the details of our proposals. However, I can now announce that we intend to publish the Government's response earlier than in the New Year and that we shall in fact do so on 14th December. I think that your Lordships will find it to be a very positive response to the concerns expressed in the report and those expressed today

935
that the National Health Service should do more to identify and meet its research needs.
Perhaps I may cover some of the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, asked about amenity beds. We see them as a valuable extension of choice for patients. The Health and Medicines Act 1988 gave health authorities powers to set their own scale of charges for such beds. That will enable them to generate valuable income which can be ploughed back into improved patient care.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked about the ambulance dispute. Yesterday the management side of the ambulance negotiating body set out the terms of the latest offer following negotiations with the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel. The offer is being extended to all staff, but the proposed new rates will be paid only to those who fully perform their contractural duties. It is hoped that APAP's decision to recommend acceptance of the offer will help bring about a rapid settlement and that the ambulance services will soon be back to normal working across the whole country.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, spoke persuasively about alternative complementary medicine. The medical treatment provided under the NHS must of course be given by a practitioner registered with the GMC. Such practitioners can offer to use any form of treatment, including complementary therapies, if they consider it to be in their patients' interests. All hospitals will, as now, be free to appoint registered medical practitioners who wish to offer complementary therapies to their patients. Those services will no doubt continue.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for reminding us of dentists' needs. We are aware that costs to dentists practising in London might be significantly higher than in other parts of the country. We are seeking further information so as to form a view.
The plight of the National Heart Hospital has been mentioned. The move will enable its work, currently undertaken in old buildings, some of them Victorian, to be carried out in a modern building with no diminution in the standards of care. The National Heart and Chest Hospitals SHA, of which the National Heart Hospital is part, treated about 10 per cent. more patients than during the same period last year. That has led to expenditure above budgeted levels. The early transfer of in-patient services from the National Heart Hospital has been identified as a way of using resources more effectively. There will be no need to make staff redundant.
Other questions were asked, but I realise that I am running out of time so in conclusion—
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness gets into her final straight will she answer my query? Will fund-holding practices be able to buy services from private hospitals with the funds which have been supplied to them through the NHS?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I might write to the noble Lord on that point. I was about to say
936
that in conclusion I acknowledge fully that I do not have a medical background but our proposals have received support from medical experts today. We are proposing a programme of change based firmly on lessons learnt in recent years. The progress of implementation to date indicates that our confidence is not misplaced. We believe that our reforms will produce an NHS that works better, cares better and so can face the future with confidence and without uncertainty.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down will she clarify one point about which I asked her? Is she saying that the overspending by the National Heart Hospital and within the Brompton group is due to extra care for patients? I think she said there had been 10 per cent. extra care over the past year. Is that the kind of overspending for which the group is being criticised?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is the reply I gave to the noble Lord. That is my information.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I know that your Lordships would wish me to thank the Minister warmly for her magnificent effort tonight. She has done a great deal to improve our understanding of and confidence in how the future may evolve and help us to get rid of some of the anxieties, which are very real. I also thank noble Lords from all sides of the House who collaborated in this matter. Perhaps we are beginning to achieve a basis upon which we can go forward. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate for their contribution. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Weights and Measures (Sale of Wine) Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I shall be brief because it is late in the evening and there is another Second Reading to follow. What I propose in the Bill is a small change in weights and measures legislation which I hope is non-controversial. It is designed to allow wine consumers the right to know when purchasing a glass of wine what quantity they will receive and what price they will have to pay. That is the sole objective of the Bill, no more, no less. It is only bringing the sale of wine legislation in line with that on beer and spirits.
In order to secure the approval of your Lordships' House I shall give a brief history of the problem and the need for the changes. In July 1982 the local authorities co-ordinating body on trading standards produced a report showing that house wines were sold by the glass in a confusing variety of prices and quantities. At that time the Government declined to introduce statutory controls. Instead they encouraged the Brewers' Society, the British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers' Association, the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, the Restaurants Association and others to co-operate in producing a

937
voluntary code of practice designed to ensure that customers would know the quantity and the price of a glass of wine.
The code was published in May 1983 and came into full effect in May 1984. The voluntary code was recommended to all the members of the organisations that signed the code. The object of the code was similar to my proposed legislative change: that anyone wanting to purchase a glass of still table wine should know the quantity he would receive and the price that he would pay.
The volume of wine being sold in that way has increased to the point where it has become urgently desirable to find a means whereby that objective can be attained without causing undue expense to the trade, the consumers and the enforcement authorities. The Bill will achieve that objective. The present voluntary code clearly lays down that wherever wines are offered for sale by the glass, an indication will be given of the quantity or quantities of wine offered, together with the price, and that that indication will be clear and easily read by an intending purchaser and in the case of a bar or a self-service restaurant the indication will be where the customer orders his wine. That is all I seek.
LACOTS (the Local Authority Committee on Trading Standards), the Consumers' Association, the Institute of Trading Standards and many local authorities have been monitoring the progress being made by those in the trade in honouring the code. The many surveys carried out by those various watchdog bodies acting in the best interests of consumers have shown that after five and a half years 75 per cent. of those selling wine by the glass are still ignoring the code.
Fair trading is based on acceptable and clearly understood standards. They are essential to protect the consumer and the trader alike. To the consumer the ignoring of the code is not fair trading. That is self-evident. The code has been tried and has almost totally failed. There is now good reason to legislate so that in all places where wine is sold by the glass the measure and the price are exhibited. I do not specify the measure or the price. These will obviously differ from a four star hotel to a public house or wine bar, as they do now with beer and spirits. Therefore I ask: why should wine be an exception? Neither do I specify in the Bill that the measures should be in fluid ounces or millilitres, although one should recognise that metrication is with us and that by 1992 most of what we buy will be metricated.
Because of my age, I am still a fluid ounce and an imperial pint man, but the youth of today are fully versed in millilitres and metrication. However, I am sure that the trade will deal with that accordingly; or it may be necessary for me to move an amendment at the Committee stage, provided the Bill receives its Second Reading, specifically stating the measures. The most popular measures in the code of conduct are mainly 125 millilitres and 175 millilitres, which approximate to four fluid ounces and six fluid ounces.
The Brewers' Society and particularly the secretary, Mr. Tilbury, have been most helpful in providing the right guidance on the size of measures
938
which would help the trade and the consumer. These measures would be their choice. Of course it is always possible that if the Government agree with the main purport of the Bill the Department of Trade and Industry could by order, and no doubt in consultation with the trade, specify what measures shall be exhibited.
I dealt with this subject at length on 17th May this year and I was encouraged by the response I received in all parts of the House. I particularly took note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when winding up the debate on behalf of the Government. He said:
"We remain concerned that more widespread compliance with the code's key quantity and price provisions has taken so long to achieve".—[Official Report, 17/5/89; col. 1274.]
I believe that he meant "is taking so long to achieve". He revealed that even the Government accepted that only 27 per cent. of traders were found to be complying with the code.
More interestingly, he went on to say in col. 1274:
"While the Government would much prefer to see the trade put its own house in order, legislation always remains an option if it is unable or unwilling voluntarily to do so".
The trade has had its chance and more than ample time to put its house in order. Meanwhile, I believe that the wine consumer feels that he is not getting a square deal and it is time that the situation was rectified. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mason of Barnsley.)
8.23 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, in this Second Reading. I had the pleasure of many dealings with him in the past when we were concerned with another important and indeed basic product—coal. On this occasion it is a more liquid product but one might say it is just as basic.
In the briefing which I received from my friends I was reminded that in Magna Carta it was stated that there shall be but one measure of wine throughout the realm. It is now 774 years after Magna Carta and we have still not got there. That suggests that some legislative measures take a bit of time.
The code of practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, referred has had a fair time in which to be tried out. It was introduced in May 1984 and all the inquiries made in Barnsley, Cumbria and elsewhere into its application have shown that it is very patchily applied. In the area where the code had the highest application the proportion was seen to be no more than 27 per cent., as the noble Lord said.
The code is very simple and it has the support of the industry. It could easily be introduced into legislation. Perhaps I may quote from the debate on the noble Lord's Unstarred Question. In his reply, from which the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has already quoted, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
"Wine is not the only alcoholic beverage which is not sold by measure and draught. Only beer, cider and the four major spirits—gin, whisky, rum and vodka—must be sold by the standard measure. All other alcoholic drinks …can be sold in any quantity".—[0fficial Report, 17/5/89; col 1272.]

939
However, wine has now become one of the major beverages in this country. I put a query alongside that because it seemed to me that it was only proper that as these things develop—and after all how many of us in your Lordships' House go into our bar and buy some of the excellent wine?—we have good quality wine here at reasonable prices. I am not absolutely sure whether or not the code is adhered to. I should like to find out. I am quite satisfied with the product, I may say, so I shall not inquire too closely.
In any event, what I am trying to illustrate is that we are becoming increasingly a nation of wine drinkers as well as beer drinkers. Therefore I think that it would be wrong to leave wine out. There is a simple way of rectifying this. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, has drawn attention to it in this admirably short Bill. All the evidence has suggested that while the code of practice is supported in principle it is not supported in practice. Therefore it is time that this was put right.
I urge all your Lordships that, at the approach of the festive season when we shall no doubt indulge in more and more wine—though obviously not combining that with driving—we should recall the need for the situation to be put right once and for all. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will support this simple measure and enable us no longer to have to raise the matter, as it has been raised on a number of occasions in the past by the late Lord Chelwood and others. Had he been alive, I am certain that he would have participated in the debate. In the light of the situation, with all the accumulated evidence, I hope that the Bill will have a successful passage.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I too wish to welcome the Bill and to congratulate my noble friend on introducing it. I do so for two very definite reasons. The first is because of the obvious, and in my view unequivocal, need for legislation to correct the present unsatisfactory position regarding the sale of wine by the glass. The second reason is that it would very directly affect me. Wine is the only alcoholic drink that I ever consume, therefore what happens to the Bill is of great personal interest to me.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, it is also of interest to a growing number of people who find that a glass of wine is preferable to a pint or a half pint of beer or a glass of spirits. I tested the situation in the House to see whether there is rigid regulation here. However, I must admit that if one goes to either bar and asks for a glass of wine and one points out that the last time the glass was a little fuller, one is given a rather equivocal reason—that the staff are asked not to serve glasses too full. I wish to know what "too full" means. We do not have to go further than the Bishops' Bar to realise that there is a need, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra said, for the simple Bill introduced by my noble friend.
There is little doubt that wine consumers are confused when they go to bars and pubs as there is such an enormous variety of glasses. The glasses look
940
quite different and one has no idea how much they contain. That was clear from the Unstarred Question of my noble friend of 17th May, when speakers gave a long list of gruesome personal experiences at the hands of different publicans and bar owners.
Speakers also mentioned quality. I felt here that the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the similarity of wine and coal were rather unfortunate. From my experience of drinking glasses of wine in pubs, they might easily contain a small amount of coal, or even worse. On one occasion when I drank a glass of wine in a pub, I told my daughter that it tasted like vinegar. She told me that I should complain and tell the publican that the wine tasted like vinegar. I replied that he would tell me I knew nothing about wine, to which my daughter responded that I should tell him I knew an awful lot about vinegar.
Of course I was not brave enough to complain. But such incidents point to the necessity for some regulations to control the quality of wine. They could at least stipulate that wine must contain grapes. I believe that, in the case of beer, regulations stipulate that it must consist of beer and must not be watered down. I should have thought that a small regulation about the quality of wine could be introduced one day.
However, the issue before us today concerns quantity and price. Here there can be no doubt that standard measures should be stipulated, with the price clearly listed, as my noble friend has explained. Customers can then make up their own minds and if they consider they are not getting value for money they can go elsewhere.
On our previous debate on this matter, the Minister who replied, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, claimed that customers were intelligent enough to be able to judge for themselves whether they were getting value for money under the present system. That is a rather strange way of looking at this matter. It is certainly not as simple as that when wine is sold in such a bewildering variety of glasses and when prices can range from 65p in one place to £2 in another, irrespective of the quality of the wine. The customer cannot possibly know whether he is being treated fairly. I do not see why such a customer should spend his time wondering whether he is being fleeced when consumers of beer and spirits do not have the same problem.
Another point that the Minister made in reply to the Unstarred Question of my noble friend was that the Government did not wish to interfere in this matter. Again I felt that this was not a very good argument when seen in the context of the Government's policy to privatise water and electricity, among other services, and their claim that they are doing so in order to protect the consumer—not that the consumers seem very keen on that policy! But now the Government refuse to produce a simple measure which quite clearly would protect the consumer of glasses of wine.
We very much welcome from these Benches the Bill of my noble friend Lord Mason of Barnsley. As he has said, all the surveys indicate that the voluntary code of practice has failed. Therefore it must be time

941
to give protection to the consumer and to ensure that he obtains a fair service and value for money in what is often a battle with the powerful licensed trade. I hope this Bill will have the support of the Government.
8.34 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate which has taken place this evening. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mason, on the tenacity with which over the past five years he has pursued the issue of controls on sales of wine by the glass. I understand that during that period he has asked no fewer than 22 Questions both here in your Lordships' House and in another place. We also had the opportunity to debate this issue very fully some six months ago.
It is, of course, a measure of the noble Lord's passionate concern for the issue that he has chosen the highly unusual route of introducing a Private Member's Bill to amend a Statutory Instrument made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have to say at the outset that if the Bill were to become law in its present form it would have the highly undesirable effect of extending the existing legally prescribed range of quantities in which wine must be sold by the carafe to sales of wine by the glass. This would mean that the smallest glass of wine which the consumer could purchase would be one-quarter of a litre or nearly half a pint. That is equivalent to one-third of the contents of a standard 75 centilitre bottle of wine. By contrast, 25 centilitres is the largest quantity which is recommended by the voluntary code of practice to which the noble Lord made reference during his speech as appropriate for serving wine by the glass.
I recognise that many of your Lordships and perhaps especially the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, might indeed be extremely pleased to purchase a glass of wine to such a copious minimum quantity. That delight would almost certainly be shared by the wine producers and by the glass manufacturers, but I wonder whether licensees, who would be faced with replacing virtually all their glassware, and consumers, who would ultimately have to pay the cost of this, would also thank the noble Lord for his efforts.
The order which is being amended by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, defines wine in a way which includes fortified wines. My argument that the minimum size of glass allowed by the Bill would be inappropriately large applies even more strongly to the sale of, for example, sherry and port than to the unfortified wines. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mason, has suggested that amendments can be made to the Bill to specify the smaller quantities.
I also note that it is proposed that the provisions of the Bill should extend to Northern Ireland. I should remind your Lordships that the Province is in fact entirely responsible for its own weights and measures legislation. The Weights and Measures (Intoxicating) Liquor Order 1988, which the Bill that we are considering this evening seeks to amend, applies only in Great Britain.
942
Your Lordships might reply that these are detailed technical points which are capable of being resolved fairly readily. But they do raise the fundamental question of just how much consideration has gone into the preparation of this Bill and whether the consequences have been fully appreciated. However, a more serious point of principle is involved. The 1988 Intoxicating Liquor Order is made under Section 22 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Among other things, Section 22 gives the Secretary of State the power to make orders dealing with subjects such as the quantities in which intoxicating liquors must be sold, specifying them as appears to him to be "expedient". Section 86 of that Act also requires the Secretary of State, before making such an order, to consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by its provisions.
So far, the Secretary of State has not deemed it necessary to propose that controls should be introduced on sales of wine by the glass. If the Bill were to proceed it would therefore override the discretion which Parliament itself has seen fit to give to the Secretary of State on this matter. It would also circumvent the statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with and to consider any representations made to him by organisations which would be affected by such controls.
The arguments for and against legislation to control sales of wine by the glass were debated very fully on 17th May. I do not wish to detain your Lordships by going over all the ground in detail again tonight. The general issue of principle raised by the proposal is whether there should be a further extension of regulation of prescribed measures for the sale of drinks on licensed premises. Measures are prescribed at present for beer, cider and the four major spirits, gin, whisky, rum and vodka, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. But there are many more drinks for which no measure is prescribed: champagne and other sparkling wine, brandy, cola, fruit juices, mineral water and so on. The list is a long one. The logic of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, is that we should prescribe quantities for dispensing all those drinks. Indeed it could even extend to prescribing a standard sized cup of tea or coffee. That would be a major extension of regulations, with all the attendant costs of replacing glasses and of having them inspected and stamped by trading standards officers.
I would simply remind the House that virtually all the calls for statutory controls have come from the local authorities. There is no evidence whatsoever of widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo from individual consumers. Indeed the Department of Trade and Industry has received not one single representation in the last six months for controls to be introduced. That would be of some interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. It is a measure of the lack of public concern over this matter. People are intelligent enough to be able to judge for themselves whether a glass of wine which they are offered represents good value for money.
I put it to your Lordships that the Bill which we are considering tonight would not help the consumer one bit. As I have said, the Bill is technically

943
deficient. It also comprises the very important principle which has been a feature of weights and measures legislation over the years—namely, legislation through consultation and consent. The Government considers that legislation to control sales of wine by the glass is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the light of the fact that, as we all know after four or five years, the code of practice is not being observed, is the noble Viscount going against what his noble friend Lord Strathclyde said on 17th May—namely, that legislation always remains an option? Will the Government continue to allow the code of practice not to be observed and do nothing? Is legislation not an option? Is that what the noble Viscount is saying to us?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. Legislation always remains an option but as there has been no complaint on the matter to the department there is no need for legislation.
I repeat that the Government consider that legislation to control sales of wine by the glass is both unnecessary and inappropriate. I therefore cannot recommend this Bill to your Lordships.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ezra—president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration—for his contribution. He is well known for his work in pioneering just and better trading standards in this country. Therefore, I was very pleased that he found time to be present, to participate in the debate and to support the Bill.
I am also grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench, Baroness Ewart-Biggs, who has for some years taken a keen interest in consumer affairs. I am most appreciative of her support. Her position as Front Bench spokesman brings with it the official support of the Labour Party.
As an indication of all-party backing I received a charming note from an authoritative source—namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, who, as a former publican, offered her wholehearted support.
I agree with the Minister that the measure implied in the Bill was a technical error. However, as I suggested in my speech, appropriate amendments can be moved at Committee stage. Therefore, if there were Government willingness, that should be no obstacle.
I was most disappointed that the noble Viscount recorded his opposition to the Bill on behalf of the Government. He gave a tedious repetition of what has been said over the past five years. I ask why it is in this stage of the parliamentary Session that the Government support everything that is unpopular and in this case unjust as well? Every national body which is concerned about fair trading, trading standards and justice for the consumer has called for this measure. It is obvious to all concerned with sales of wine by the glass that legislation is necessary to give the consumer a square deal.
944
I believe that, in view of the almost total refusal by individuals in the trade to accept the code of conduct, many of the trade organisations are prepared to see the code converted into law. I hope therefore that, if I am granted a Second Reading, before the Committee stage of the Bill, consultations will as the Minister suggested take place between the Department of Trade and Industry and the licensed trade to establish agreement. That would allow us to obtain the licensed trade's blessing to go forward, amend the Bill accordingly and after all this time recognise that the wine consumer deserves fairness and justice so that he can be assured of fair value for his money.
On that note, I ask that this Bill be given a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Trade Union Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
We speak in our ancient privacy because those parrots are now hooded in red flannel and their keepers have gone home, and God bless them.
This Bill passed your Lordships' House to fail with the dissolution of Parliament. It had the support of all sides of your Lordships' House. My noble friends Lord Carr of Hadley and Lord Renton are unable to attend on this occasion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was to have spoken in support of the Bill but also is unable to attend tonight. The House will be sad to be deprived of his contribution. Other noble Lords who were to have spoken do not seem to have appeared on parade but there is always hope that they may do so. That is just one of the exigencies of the service.
On this occasion your Lordships will have the advantage of hearing the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in person rather than hearing an expression of his views at second hand from me. An expression of gratitude is due to Her Majesty's Opposition for ceding their priority in the order of speeches to the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls so as to ensure that in his position of high judicial office he has no taint of political controversy when he adverts, as no doubt he will, to the burdens upon litigants and the judiciary which would be eased if this Bill were to reach the statute book.
The need for this Bill was discussed the first time around on 31st October (at cols. 183 to 202 of Hansard). It does not require repetition, certainly at this hour of the night. The matter is clearly devoid of any party political consideration.
The object in reintroducing the Bill on this occasion is to seek by reasoned argument on the Floor of your Lordships' House to induce the Government to accept the Bill and by meeting each

945
and every objection taken by my noble friend the Minister the first time around in the hope that we shall be able to indulge in a courteous and constructive debate and not be subjected to a mere restatement of objection on the old departmental brief rewritten precooked for this occasion.
Assuredly this is not an attack upon the Government. It is only—and we come back again to "only"—an appeal to reason, an appeal to the open mind, to remedy what the whole House has accepted was an injustice, and an intended injustice, apparently not recognised by the department as such; an injustice arising out of a fixed penalty for a mandatory period of 28 days between ballot and industrial action only when the taking of such action was inhibited by legal proceedings. Resort to the exercise of judicial discretion is proposed not only to afford flexibility but to avoid undue delay.
So let me come, with your Lordships' leave, to the grounds of objection taken by my noble friend the Minister on the last occasion which appear to fall under four heads, and for the purpose of calm and courteous debate—the hallmark of your Lordships' House—may I deploy a reasoned refutation of these objections?
The first head is that the situation which arose in the British Ports v. PLA case was unusually complicated, quite unique and unlikely to occur again because the employment was regulated by some special statutory scheme and that we ought not to amend legislation which has worked well because of events relating to a special case. I am in effect quoting from verbatim passages of the objections of my noble friend the Minister. There are two passages from which I am quoting.
This is a fundamental and most serious misconception. I do not lay it at the door of my noble friend the Minister—he is not a lawyer; he does not operate in the courts, even as a mere Queen's Counsel as I do myself—it is a departmental view. But it is a most serious misconception as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, will no doubt explain with the benefit of long and vast experience and with all the authority which his high judicial office commands.
The second objection is the fear that an undue time between ballot and industrial action would undermine the ballot. Of course it would. The department misses the point. That is why the Bill affords the flexibility of judicial discretion as to whether or not to extend the period to avoid any such undue period arising, as no doubt again the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls will confirm.
The third category of objection—there is only one more and I shall not detain your Lordships for longer—is that absolute judicial discretion is afforded to extend the time limit without guidelines or principles. First, this was acceptable to your Lordships on all sides of the House on the first occasion; and, secondly, this is the form of spurious objection which is absolutely impossible to meet unless the Government were to come clean and table an amendment to fetter the period of extension, to provide guidelines, to provide principles. I cannot
946
in any event understand why any such provision should be requisite. Surely on a matter such as this we should trust the judges to apply common sense to this situation as since debate on the first occasion the TUC has done and does today. Trust the judges to apply common sense to produce a sensible solution.
For the last objection I have to quote from Hansard. Unless I do I cannot make sense of it. It reads:
"The 1984 Act fixed the limit at 28 days from the date of the ballot. If it had become apparent that the wrong limit had been adopted, the Government would certainly be prepared to come forward with proposals to make whatever adjustments were necessary. But it is surely right to reflect on whether there is real and significant evidence that this was an inappropriate approach."—[Official Report, 31/10/88; col. 199.]
It is a wonderful government brief, but nobody has ever said or suggested that 28 days was the wrong limit. The objection misses the whole point. It is totally misconceived. Whoever cooked it up, heaven knows, because it has no relationship to reason, to logic or to the issue which we are considering and it is wide of any relevant argument to the reasoned justification for this Bill.
So the hope is that on the reasoning that I have sought to deploy the objections raised by my noble friend on the last occasion have been met, and fairly met, and disposed of. If they have not—and it is not a question of conceit or hubris—let my noble friend in the course of fair debate explain why I have not met them. If he cannot explain why I have not met them, then perhaps the Government may be persuaded to withdraw these objections and accept this Bill or at all events do the courtesy (and the reason) of introducing amendments if so advised at Committee stage. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
8.58 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on having revived this Bill, if that is the proper term. It has two great merits, as I see it—merits which indeed may be almost unique. First, it is extremely brief. Secondly, it has some importance. Its brevity is self-evident, but I should like to say a word or two about its importance.
It arises in this way. Ever since the last century, Parliament has refrained from giving trade unions and their members any positive right to take industrial action. Instead it has proceeded by the path of giving them immunity from the general law, provided that certain conditions were met. Noble Lords may say that that makes very little practical difference, but I venture to suggest that that is not correct. Citizens who have positive rights under the law come to the courts when they think that their rights have been infringed, and they come to the courts seeking assistance in enforcing their rights. In consequence, they perceive the courts as being on their side.
It is quite different where the immunity approach has been adopted. Trade unions are forced to go it

947
alone, and the law and the courts only come into the picture when the unions are said to have overstepped their immunity. The consequence of that is that by and large trade unions never feature in the courts except as defendants. Little wonder then that many of their members, quite wrongly as it happens, see the law, the courts and the judiciary as their opponents. Little wonder that trade union officials, particularly senior trade union officials, have some difficulty in persuading their members of the advantages of the rule of law. It seems to me that the powers contained in this Bill, if granted by Parliament, would enable the courts to demonstrate that in appropriate cases both they and the law are on the side of the trade unions.
As I understand the matter, the Government maintain that it is important that, if industrial action is to be taken, it should be done within a reasonably short period after the ballot is taken. The Government further maintain that 28 days is the appropriate period. As a serving judge it is not for me to agree or disagree with either of those propositions. But in the docks case, the Transport and General Workers' Union did not have 28 days. Indeed, it did not have any days at all because throughout the period it was either threatened with an injunction or was in fact subject to one. It seems to me that that was the plainest possible injustice.
On that occasion the Government's answer, as the noble Lord said, was that this was an isolated case and was unlikely ever to recur. I am bound to say that that seems to me to be a triumph of hope over all experience. Certainly, my experience both as a practising lawyer and as a judge has been that where there is sufficient money at stake—and there often is in industrial disputes—one or other of the parties will not hesitate to take legal proceedings purely with a view to achieving delay. The merits of their case will be quite irrelevant. The costs will be totally insignificant. All that they will be seeking, win, lose or draw, is to achieve delay.
As judges we are not unaware of the facts of life. As judges we seek to identify those cases and frustrate the achievement of the party's objectives by expediting the cases. But there is a price to be paid and it is a price which is paid not by the parties to that sort of litigation but by the other parties to subsequent litigation waiting in the lists, parties who have real and genuine points for consideration by the courts. It is they who pay the price when their litigation is postponed.
I do not for one moment suggest that the dock employers in the docks case were seeking delay. They had a perfectly genuine point, even if there were some of us who were more than a little surprised when, at an intermediate stage, they succeeded. Nevertheless, it was a perfectly respectable and genuine point. But I have no doubt that from that case a rather different lesson will be learnt by other employers. At the risk of telling them something which they may not have appreciated, perhaps I may suggest that they do not follow that precedent too slavishly.
In the docks case the employers began their proceedings before the ballot was called. Other
948
employers would do much better to wait until the result of the ballot is known or even a little longer and then start their proceedings. I feel sure that with a little ingenuity they will be able to think of some plausible excuse for such a late start. It would have the great merit from their point of view that it would improve their chances of being able to keep the trade union in baulk until the expiry of the 28-day period.
As I said, I and my brother judges will do our very best to frustrate those tactics. But that takes time. One cannot just dismiss a claim without hearing it—and we only have the remains of a fixed 28-day period in which to do it. At best we shall cause delay to other deserving litigants. At worst we shall fail. Given the power contained in the Bill, employers will know that any legal action designed purely to achieve delay and to force the union into a second ballot will fail.
I come to the last point that I want to make. On the last occasion that this Bill was debated, it was suggested that it risked creating a situation in which unions might positively welcome proceedings because they might provide them with an opportunity of extending the relevant limit which otherwise would apply. That seems to me to be a wholly unfounded fear. The unions themselves cannot start proceedings calling in question their own ballot. The need to extend the period can only arise if the employers have taken legal action, and it is most unlikely that the employers would do so if they thought, on the facts of a particular case, that the union would welcome it.
In any event, whether I am right or wrong about that, your Lordships may be confident that the courts, in operating this power if it is granted to them, would be mindful of the parliamentary intention clearly expressed in the main Act of keeping the interval between the ballots and industrial action as short as possible. They would therefore grant the minimum extension of time necessary to preserve the trade union's rights. I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
9.7 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the Master of the Rolls. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in the previous Second Reading debate, explained that he had the authority of the noble and learned Lord in his absence to communicate his views to your Lordships' House.
As I understand it, the essential point is that if a labour injunction case has to go through the whole appellate process, and perhaps even to the Court of Appeal without going to the House of Lords, then the four-week shelf life of the ballot to authorise industrial action may have expired well before the courts have been able to decide finally. The remedy therefore proposed by the Bill is to allow the courts at the end of the legal process a discretion to give the ballot result a longer shelf life as authority for industrial action.
Those who have supported the Bill, including myself, must remind ourselves that our reason for

949
doing so is to save trade unions the needless inconvenience and expense of a further ballot on account of the law's unavoidable delays postponing a final legal decision until after the expiry of the four-week period. On that basis we accept the Bill in good faith and have suppported it.
If noble Lords will forgive a repetition of what I said at col. 193 of the Second Reading debate on 31st October, I stated:
"Sensibly, the Bill says that the solution is to allow the judges, after they have finally had their say, and if they have ruled that the industrial action is lawful, to extend the four-week period beyond the period covered by the law's inevitable delays".
I desire to emphasise "inevitable delays".
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, spoke at col. 185 of the,
"all but intolerable burden [imposed] upon the judiciary at the expense of other litigants whose cases have to be taken out of the list",
of concluding all the appellate stages of a difficult labour injunction case within a mere four weeks.
I desire to make the basis of my support for this Bill very clear. It is not to enable the special expedition that is traditionally accorded by the courts to these important cases to be denied so that they take an ordinary place in the queue of appellants to the Court of Appeal, all of whom naturally believe that their cases require the speediest consideration. Every appellant believes that. My support recognises—I hope in a practical way—that even if the utmost expedition is given to these cases, as it should be, the law's "inevitable delays" may still cause the four weeks to expire before legal finality is secured.
I do not understand that the Opposition, in supporting the Bill, are supporting what could in practice become a cooling-off period, unsanctioned by Parliament, as a result of the law's delays. By that I refer to a situation in which the Court of Appeal would not treat an appeal by a trade union against the grant of an injunction as deserving—as traditionally it has been—of expedition, on the basis that the law's delays could in theory be remedied by the court extending the four-week shelf life of the ballot as authority for industrial action. I hasten to say that nothing that I have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, indicates to me that there is any ground for apprehension in that regard.
However, two things would be wrong with that from the standpoint of the trade union interest. First, the trade union interest is, and must be, always to take action when the iron is hot. When trade unionists vote for industrial action they want to take it there and then. "Phoney wars" run counter to resolute action. Secondly, there is no guarantee under the noble Lord's Bill—and this must be appreciated—that the four-week period will be extended by the court. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will make that plain when he speaks at the conclusion of the debate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the noble Lord does so from his seat. The court in its discretion may
950
decide that lapse of time, or any changes in the situation on the ground drawn to its notice, suggest to it a possible change of mood on the part of those balloted so that there ought to be a fresh ballot. Therefore I simply make this point. I do not apprehend such a position but I draw it to the attention of the House. The Bill could turn out to be a poisoned chalice if what resulted was, first, loss of expedition, and, secondly, no extension of the shelf life of the ballot beyond the four weeks.
That is why I emphasise that my support for the Bill is predicated upon continued expedition for appeals to the Court of Appeal in this class of case accompanied, I hope, by a sensible recognition that even with that expedition the law's inevitable delays make the discretion sought for the judiciary by the Bill desirable.
I continue to support the Bill on that basis. I emphasise that I could not continue to support it if it was to be taken as a parliamentary nod and wink to the judiciary that these important appeals could be treated with less expedition—within a system I recognise as burdensome—than they have been traditionally accorded.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it would not be so taken.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am obliged. I accept the Bill in good faith. I accept what was said by the noble and learned Lord and I support the Bill. I confess to surprise at the position expressed on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that in all circumstances the ballot must have a finite shelf life of 28 days so that Her Majesty's judges may not be trusted with a discretion to extend it in proper circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave the Government's explanation for opposing the Bill. It was that after four weeks,
"the views expressed by voters in the ballot might no longer be an accurate guide to whether they were content for their union to authorise or endorse the action at the time it actually did so".—[Official Report, 31/10/89; col. 199.]
Perhaps at this hour of the evening we can enjoy a little light entertainment. In the light of what he said in that debate, can the noble Lord give the House his assurance that in a year's time the Prime Minister will not claim that a new ballot on her leadership is entirely inappropriate because yesterday's ballot is obviously of continuing application until the next general election? We have it on the authority of none other than Mr. Kenneth Baker, chairman of the Conservative Party, that the ballot has settled the issue of the leadership of the Conservative Party until the next general election. To the best of my information the maximum possible timescale is anticipated until that unavoidable event occurs. So I take the Government's position to be that trade unionists become fickle after four weeks but Tory Members of Parliament remain constant for two years plus. We shall see.
At this late hour I do not desire to repeat at any length what I said on the last occasion. But I wish to say that although I support the Bill it is not the true remedy. That remedy is to change the substance

951
of our labour laws so that these complex labour injunction cases calling for these appeals arise far less frequently than at present.
The appeals arise substantially as a result of the ingenuity of the judges to invent new torts which fall outside the specific immunities for lawful industrial action which Parliament has defined. As far as the next Labour Government are concerned, the judges may get on with developing the common law and inventing new torts to their hearts' content. That is what they are paid to do. We shall encourage them to do so because we are as interested as they in the development of the common law. But in practice we shall get rid of these complicated injunction appeals—not entirely but substantially—which have inspired the Bill by legislating, as I intimated at col. 195 of the previous debate, that,
"The immunities will apply to any civil liability, regardless of the label that the judges put upon it, which otherwise would result from primary industrial action in furtherance of a trade dispute, though obviously not to any breaches of the criminal law or trespass to land or the person".
Contrary to what was said on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcylde—and in this regard I identify myself with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—it is not the case that these difficult labour injuction cases which go to appeal and cause the trouble are so rare. I do not know who was advising the noble Lord when he informed the House, at col. 200:
"With the exception of the docks case, there have been very few proceedings relating to torts other than those covered by the statutory immunities".
There is a long history of such cases. However, I regard the noble Lord's Bill as a temporary palliative to assuage the symptoms of an illness which we shall shortly have the opportunity to cure at source. Meanwhile, I am happy to give it my support.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am on parade and from these Benches I should like to reaffirm my support for the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has now revived.
I hope that it will not be thought unduly repetitous of me to remind the House that on Second Reading of the dock work Bill I felt bound, as a Liberal and a Democrat, to voice my disquiet at the extent to which under current legislation employers were able to obtain injunctions impeding strike action not covered by trade union immunity. As I saw it, people were thus increasingly being denied the right to withdraw their labour within the law. That was what happened during the period leading up to the dock strike, when prior to the reversal of the earlier judgment many registered dock workers in a number of the larger ports felt so frustrated that they were unwilling to await the outcome of what became a protracted legal process before taking unofficial industrial action.
In our earlier debate I said that my concern on this point should not be construed as a criticism of the judiciary. I suggested only that the law which it was the duty of judges to administer might in the
952
light of the differing verdicts of the courts in the case of the docks dispute be in need of a more general review than we were then able to give it.
However, I thought that it was significant that later in that debate—and he has said somewhat the same thing this evening—the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg, himself a distinguished lawyer, said that the dock case illustrated the propensity of judges to invent new torts not covered by immunity which might exist in law and thus afford grounds for granting injunctions. The noble Lord then went so far as to say that most reasonable people who were not lawyers would find that "utterly bizarre"—I believe that was the phrase which he used. His conclusion—and he has reaffirmed this today—was that immunity should apply to any civil liability which would otherwise result from primary industrial action in furtherance of a trade dispute.
I would put it rather differently. My father was a Liberal Member of the Parliament which in 1906 established the system of immunities which has operated in this country ever since. Following what the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls has already said, perhaps I am in a good position to suggest that the time may have come for further consideration to be given to the introduction of legislation corresponding to that already operating elsewhere in Europe under which people would have a positive right to take industrial action following a properly constituted ballot, subject to the safeguarding of national security, the operation of no-strike agreements and, I hope, special provisions for the determination of pay and employment conditions in essential public services.
Frankly, I was not impressed by the reasons earlier given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the Government's opposition to the Bill now before us, relying largely, as he did, on what was called the "unique circumstances" of the dock case proceedings. Surely the validity of legislation should be judged on the basis of its principles rather than the frequency of its application.
On this occasion I shall be particularly interested to hear the outcome of the close study which the Minister said the Government would give to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, when we last debated this matter that they might consider adding at the end of Clause 1 of the Bill such words as "to enable such legal proceedings to be concluded".
My noble friends and I supported much of the Government's earlier trade union legislation, but in my view they should now show a willingness for it to be amended in the light of experience, particularly when, as in this case, they are so advised by members of all parties and by lawyers as eminent as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
In conclusion, I feel bound to say that it is time that the Government began to think less in terms of continuing restrictive legislation in this field and more of positively encouraging greater co-operation between management and employees and their representatives in the interests of improving industrial relations in our country.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, one of my favourite quotations is,
"Ah what a dusty answer gets the soul
When hot for certainties in this our life".
Your Lordships may recall that the last time this Bill was debated there were nine speakers, all hot for certainty in connection with this Bill, before the Minister gave us a dusty answer. When one reflects that those nine consisted of a judge, several barristers and, even more important, some laymen like myself, surely it must be recognised that not all of us were wedded to the TUC. We felt that a mistake had been made which should be rectified.
What is the main issue in this debate—the government check on strikes, or to set up a four-week time lapse? It was well argued. The TUC, I gather, did not like it at the time, but it has been agreed and it is now part of the law of the land.
One must look at what the Minister said:
"The Government—I hope noble Lords will share our concern about this point—would not want to risk creating a situation in which unions might welcome proceedings because they might afford the opportunity to extend the relevant limit that would otherwise apply".—[Official Report, 31/10/89; col. 200.]
I would turn that argument upside down. It is the other way round. If we do not have this amendment, the further proceedings will smack to me of stifling the opposition. For my part I am perfectly happy to let the courts decide.
Perhaps I may broaden the issue. We have been reading recently of how democracy in Eastern Europe has had thousands and thousands of people on the streets protesting about various issues and on the whole winning their way. There are not, as I can see, thousands and thousands here tonight, but we must not forget that when we had our last debate we had 100 per cent. in favour of the Bill until the Minister spoke. What will happen now? I hope not a repetition of the last session.
It may be in the minds of most us here that a couple of days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was forthcoming enough to say that he shared in some mistakes that were made some time ago. I beg the Minister to believe that in so doing he went up in people's estimation, not down. Alexander Pope said a long time ago that a man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong; in other words, that he is a wiser man today than he was yesterday. I commend that saying to the Minister and I hope that he will act on it.
9.29 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in this debate we have rightly thanked the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his expedition in reintroducing this Bill. I particularly want to thank him because the last time we debated this issue I unfortunately had to leave before hearing the reply of the Minister and therefore I have the opportunity—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has this evening—of trying to answer the point that was made.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Minister put forward four points,
954
four arguments and four objections, but I do not believe that they are quite the same objections that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has suggested. First, the Minister said, and I believe also the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the case we were debating was exceptional, peculiar or unique. I refer to the Official Report of 31st October, at col. 199. As I understood it, he said that it was the exceptional, peculiar or unique nature of the case which occasioned the delay. I do not believe that is the case.
Secondly, it seemed to me that the Minister was saying that in any event the case we were debating was settled in favour of the unions. If that is so then what was anyone worrying about? Thirdly, he said that if some case did remain to deal with the legislation as it stood, then the Bill as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has something wrong with it. In particular, it permitted the judiciary an unlimited period of discretion, according to the Minister. He said that the Government could not accept it for that reason.
Finally, the Minister made a point which has been mentioned in this debate; namely, that we must not accept this Bill because the unions could use it to their advantage to prolong the 28-day period. I deal first with the unusual element. I believe the Minister spelt it out in his speech by saying that at the court of first instance the employers were arguing that there was a statutory obligation to work. The Minister appeared to be saying that it took 10 days to settle whether or not that was the case. If that was so then the question was whether the unions could enjoy any immunity.
There are several points that one could make about that. Even if the matter had not taken 10 days but five, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, there might well still be difficulty. Indeed, if the hearing had taken five days the matter would still have been out of time. It was not just the fact that the issue had been debated for 10 days in the court of first instance but it was certain that whoever lost at that stage would take an issue of this kind to the Court of Appeal. Whoever lost at that stage would take the issue to the House of Lords. That is the fundamental reason for the delay.
It is not really an argument to say that there was a statutory obligation to work and it took 10 days to settle the dispute. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has said—and this is the first time I have appreciated the point—in future the employers could be rather more crafty and clever than they were in the docks case. They need not have started the action until the ballot had taken place and it had gone the wrong way from their point of view. I consider that the argument that there was something exceptional, peculiar and unique as the matter was considered at the court of first instance is one that does not run.
We were told by the Minister that the basis of the argument advanced at the court of first instance was the only possible basis and that there was something very exceptional about it. The argument went in favour of the unions. As has been said by previous speakers in this debate, the kinds of arguments that

955
can be advanced in asking for an injunction can be very varied and different. An argument does not have to be as narrow, specific and special as the argument used in this case.
As I understand it, at the Court of Appeal the basis of the argument was changed. There the argument was about the public interest and issues that were not at the forefront at the court of first instance. The argument was changed in this case. We all know that in a request for an injunction all kinds of arguments may be used. It may be said in future cases that there were certain alleged irregularities in the balloting process. It may also be said that there was certain evidence of secondary action. It may be said that there were incidents that took place on the picket line which themselves were unlawful. These and many other circumstances could be alleged, and they could be the basis for an injunction.
All these arguments might fall at the trial because the standard and basis of evidence which is required to get an injunction is significantly different from that which is required at a full trial. That is the problem faced by the unions in the injunction process. Therefore to say, as the Minister says, that this case went in favour of the union does not stand up.
Thirdly, the Minister said at col. 200 of the Official Report for the same day that there was something wrong with the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, dealt with that point. The Minister said that there are no guidelines on how far the courts might wish to extend the 28-day period. He complained that there was no maximum and that there should have been a maximum in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, if that is the Government's primary objection to the Bill they could let the Bill go forward and in Committee propose amendments along those lines. Indeed, I am certain that the noble Lord would accept amendments of that kind if it were the price of gaining the Government's support.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, my Lords, I would.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord says that he would.
Finally, we come to the daftest of the Government's objections. This has been mentioned but I want to say something about it. The Minister said, also at col. 200 of Hansard:
"The Government would not want to risk creating a situation in which unions might welcome proceedings because they might afford the opportunity to extend the relevant limit that would otherwise apply".
There are three points to make. First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, unions do not bring cases. In this process they are arguing that the action which they take is lawful. That is their argument. It is employers who say that the actions complained of are unlawful. Therefore if unions would like employers to bring cases in order to extend the immunity period, it must be because employers are stupid enough to do so. We are talking about an employer's own goal.
956
Secondly, even if this were to be the case, it is extremely unlikely that the unions could possibly gain any net advantage on a 28-day overall period. The courts would be extremely reluctant to give them more than 28 days overall. The chances are that if they went through the process and came to the end of the 28-day shelf life, as my noble friends called it, the courts might say that they needed another seven days. But for most of those 28 days they would have been in court. Therefore the period when they could effectively seek to organise strike action would be much less than 28 days, and thus there would be no net advantage to a union.
Most important of all, for the Government seriously to argue in this way suggests that they have no idea of what is involved in arresting a desire for strike action sanctioned by a strike ballot. Nothing can compensate a trade union and a work group for a forced return to work immediately after an affirmative ballot. This is an abortive landing. It is disastrous for the morale and solidarity of the workforce. The idea that any trade union would seek to engineer a situation in which a series of injunctions could be imposed upon it so that in the long run it could extend the 28 days is extraordinarily unrealistic and in some ways typical of the Government's approach to industrial relations legislation.
Finally, I want the Government to specify the circumstances in which they would be prepared to listen to arguments of the kind that have been advanced in the House tonight. I suspect that we shall hear, though I hope I am wrong, a defence of the status quo from the Government this evening which is in all terms extremely similar if not identical to the argument put forward last time. Therefore my concluding point to the Government is this. If I understand their position correctly, they are grateful for a debate of this kind. Indeed, they are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising the issue in the first place—at least, that is what they said in the Official Report at col. 198.
The Government intended to allow the trade unions 28 days to plan a strike after an affirmative ballot. They said so at col. 199. That was their intention in the first place. Further, in col. 200 they said—or rather, they implied, because I cannot quote them directly—that they would revise or in certain circumstances correct legislation which in terms does not in general allow trade unions 28 days in which to plan a strike. The position is that we have only one example; that is, an exceptional, peculiar and unique example. However, it seems to me they are saying that if there were a sufficient number of cases which showed that unions in general do not receive 28 days to plan strike action they would come forward with amendments or legislation or they would at least be more sympathetic to a measure of this kind.
Therefore my question to the Government is: how many examples will be needed to convince the Government? If not tonight, then when?
9.40 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the luke-warm response of the Government to this Bill when it was introduced in the last Session appears to me to be based upon an assumption that an employer who challenges the validity of a strike is unlikely to appeal a decision against him or, if he does appeal, that the proceedings will certainly be concluded within 28 days.
The 28-day period is adequate if the lawfulness of the strike is not challenged. It is also probably adequate if the challenge does not go further than the High Court. It may be quite inadequate if the challenge is the subject matter of an appeal.
I ask your Lordships to consider this scenario. On day 1 a strike ballot is concluded and is in favour of a strike. The employer thinks that the strike is unlawful and when the result of the ballot is known seeks to restrain the union officers from implementing the ballot. Let us assume that the employer, acting with exemplary speed, issues proceedings, prepares all the necessary papers and serves them on the union by day 3. Pending the conclusion of proceedings, the calling of the strike will normally be restrained by agreement or court order. The employer will have to give the union two clear days' notice of the initial court hearing, which will accordingly take place on day 6. The union will be entitled to time within which to get its evidence in order and five days may easily be needed. That brings us to day 11. The employer is entitled to file evidence in reply and may need to do so. If he needs three days, we are now at day 14.
The case must now go before the judge. I shall assume that that can be arranged for day 15. The argument can easily last a day and the judge may want to consider the judgment overnight. Therefore, we have now reached day 16. The judge decides in favour of the union. On day 17 the employer considers the judgment with his solicitors and counsel and decides to appeal. The papers must be prepared for the Court of Appeal and lodged with the court. That process will take a day. Therefore, we have now reached day 18. It might easily be two days before the Court of Appeal can hear the case. This means that we have now reached day 20. Again, the argument may last a day and that brings us to day 21. The Court of Appeal, I shall assume, gives judgment on day 22.
Six days in hand?—not necessarily. In 28 days there are eight Saturdays and Sundays. Courts do not normally sit on Saturday and Sunday, nor do barristers and solicitors necessarily work every Saturday and Sunday; and so the scenario, which has preceded at exemplary if not breakneck speed, has taken 30 days, two days outside the permitted 28 days. The union if ultimately successful must now inititate a second ballot.
The scenario that I have suggested demonstrates in my opinion how easy it is with the best will in the world for court proceedings to outlast the 28-day period during which the strike, to be lawful, must start, through no fault of the union or anyone else. Surely the court should have the discretion to extend the 28-day period to enable legal proceedings which
958
have been prosecuted with the utmost dilgence to be concluded. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce who is unable to be here this evening has asked me to tell your Lordships that he supports the Bill.
9.46 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the Bill presented to the House for the second time by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. We are all grateful to him for his persistence in bringing the Bill back for your Lordships' attention. I hope that in the intervening period since the last Second Reading debate on 31st October the Government have had time to reflect upon the good sense and fairness represented by the proposed measure.
The aim of the Bill is to rectify an injustice and lack of equity which were not envisaged when the 1984 trade union legislation was introduced. We have had a number of distinguished contributors to the debate and in view of the lateness of the hour I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary with repetitive explanations.
The issue is relatively simple. The Government decided way back in 1984 that trade unions should qualify for immunity from actions in tort only in instances where they are running industrial disputes and have first balloted their members and obtained a majority vote in favour. We are indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for an explanation of the whole question of immunities.
Unions then had 28 days in which to organise and implement that mandate. If the 28 days were exhausted the ballot had to be run all over again. The Government's reasons for laying down that period were given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, during the Second Reading debate on 31st October. What he said has already been quoted by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, but it is important and I should like to quote it again. He said:
"It follows that to allow an unlimited or unduly lengthy period of time between such a ballot and the union's authorisation or endorsement of the action would be inappropriate in any circumstances. If this could happen, the views expressed by voters in the ballot might no longer be an accurate guide to whether they were content for their union to authorise or endorse the action at the time it actually did so. Where there has been such a delay, a union should re-ballot".—[Ofcial Report, 31/10/89; col. 199.]
Similar reasons were given by the Minister's right honourable friend for refusing to accept the Opposition's proposition that the time limit was too short and should be extended when the original 1984 legislation was before Parliament; nevertheless, it is not usually in the interests of the union to delay once there is a majority vote in favour of dispute action. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords. I should like to add my comments because I have had some experience in such matters as a former trade union official.
Normally all possibilities of settlement by negotiation will have been exhausted before the dispute starts. The Government seem to be under the misapprehension that unions use the strike weapon as the first rather than the last resort. Let me tell the Minister that that is not so. I speak from

959
my experience not just as as a senior official of my union for many years but as a member of the TUC General Council for over eight years. Negotiated settlements very rarely make the headlines but they happen all the time. Negotations are what union officials are employed to do. Union officials know only too well that disputes are costly not only to the union but also the individual members, many of whom suffer hardship in the process.
However there are situations where there seems no alternative. If that is so, it is absolutely vital for the union, which of course wants to win the dispute as quickly as possible, to strike while the iron is hot, as my noble friend Lord Irvine said earlier in the debate. The union's members, having voted for the dispute, will be keyed up waiting for the next move. It is important for the union's leadership that this impetus is not lost. But those who drafted the legislation in 1984 did not, I think, envisage a situation in which the 28 days would be absorbed entirely by legal actions initiated by the employers.
This is no longer a hypothetical matter, as everyone knows. It happened in the docks dispute earlier this year. I shall not go over the history in detail; it is well enough known. Suffice it to say that here we had a union led by a general secretary who was determined that his union would stay within the limits laid down by legislation. He was not going to risk his union's future by crossing over those limits. So the dispute which followed the abolition of the statutory dock labour scheme was run strictly in line with legal requirements. There was a ballot; there was a substantial majority in favour. But before action could commence the employers issued writs in the Chancery Division claiming injuctions and damages against the union.
The motions came before Mr Justice Millett on 18th May and the hearing extended over eight days. The employers lost and went to appeal. The Appeal Court found in substance against the union. The union appealed and this time won in the House of Lords.
I must emphasise that the courts acted very speedily—much more quickly than they normally do. I do not know how many other litigants had their actions postponed in order to accommodate all this. I am sure there were some and I do not doubt that they were not very pleased. Nevertheless, the whole of the 28 days was absorbed and the union found itself out of time. So it had to ballot again. From the union's point of view valuable time had been lost. Although it had won the legal argument, the real gain was all the employer's.
The Minister said at the last debate on 31st October that this was an extraordinary state of affairs that was most unlikely to recur. The dock labour
960
scheme was an extraordinary scheme the like of which did not exist elsewhere. It had now disappeared; therefore the same set of circumstances was unlikely to be repeated.
I must say that I cannot agree. Lawyers always seem to me to be able to find arguments if they are employed to do so. Sometimes the issues have not been raised before. Who would have thought, for example, that such a politically charged concept as the "public interest" would have weighed as heavily with the Appeal Court judges as it did in the dock work case? As was pointed out by the Guardian at the time, even in the highly restrictive framework established in the last decade there was no provision directing the court to consider such a notion. Yet in this case the Appeal Court did. The unexpected can and does happen.
The access of unions to immunity depends on a number of issues, chief of which is a ballot of members in favour. But organising ballots is often difficult. This is particularly true where the workforce is widespread, possibly changing and peripatetic. A challenge could be made to the ballot, perhaps a challenge instigated by an employer and there could be a series of actions in the court. Even if the union won at every stage it could still find itself at the end, as the Transport and General Workers did, out of time.
The Government have recently been fulminating against unofficial strikes. I have to say, contrary to what appears to be the government view, that union leaderships do not like unofficial disputes either. They do not like them because it means that they then lose control of the situation. They do not like that to happen. Nevertheless, if there is frustration and if members think that it will be impossible to run a dispute and keep within the law there will be many more such disputes. There is a widespread view already that the Government have made things too difficult and have erected too many hurdles in the way of employees who wish to voice discontent and that the Government's real view is that employees should put up and shut up. I have to tell the Government that that will not wash and it cannot last.
It really would be sensible for the Government to heed the comments of the distinguished contributors to the debate this evening and take the opportunity presented by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The proposed Bill does not suggest that unions should have unlimited time, simply that the courts should have discretion, or at least that unions really are allowed 28 days because, as things stand at the moment and as has been pointed out, in the dock dispute the unions did not have 28 days. The Bill is aimed at greater equity and I hope that the Government this time round will give it support.
9.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, once again this debate has illustrated the experience and indeed expertise of all those who have spoken tonight. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made a most gracious introduction to this debate. In that introduction my noble friend appealed for reason and for a calm and courteous debate. I believe that so far we have had such a debate. Furthermore, I hope that we shall be able to continue in that manner. I shall try to explain why the Government are not entirely convinced by the arguments of my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken.
Following the Second Reading debate on this Bill last Session, we have carefully studied what was then said, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, has corresponded with the Secretary of State about matters of concern to him. I shall respond briefly to the noble and learned Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as regards the burdens imposed on the court system. The Government appreciate that ensuring expeditious hearing of priority cases inevitably causes some disruption to judges, listing officers and parties involved in less urgent cases. However, it is much to the credit of both judges and listing officers that priority cases are dealt with so expeditiously and with minimum delay to other business.
I have to say that, despite all that has been said during the course of this debate, there remains a fundamental difficulty about the proposition that the courts should have discretion to extend the 28-day period. To allow an unlimited—or unduly lengthy—period of time between such a ballot and the union's first authorisation or endorsement risks creating a situation in which the ballot result no longer accurately represents the views of union members. Voters in an industrial action ballot are indicating whether they want their union to call for industrial action. If the vote goes in favour but an undue amount of time elapses before the union calls for the action, the union's mandate to call for the action would or could no longer be valid. Where there has been such a delay, for whatever reason, it is right that the union should be required to re-ballot its members to make sure they are still content for it to call on them to take industrial action.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, sought to make an amusing comparison between trade union members and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I understand that the Prime Minister allows for the possibility of a ballot every year, if the party so wishes. But the principle that members should have a proper ballot before their union proceeds to call on them to take industrial action has been welcomed by employers, the public and union members alike. We must not risk undermining the principal purpose of such ballots by allowing too long a period to elapse between a ballot and the union calling for industrial action.
During the debate last October, as many noble Lords have mentioned, I described the unique and
962
unusually complicated features of the legal issues raised by the prospect of industrial action among dock workers. I apologise to noble Lords for having to use those words again. Those proceedings were of course the one instance in the last five years when the 28-day limit assumed particular significance.
At that time I did not, however, mention one particular feature which may be of relevance to the question of how likely it is that a similar sequence of events could recur in the future. Following the ballot of dockers the TGWU decided—freely and of its own volition, and for reasons which are entirely its own affair and on which I would not wish to speculate—not to authorise or endorse industrial action until the result of High Court proceedings was known. In that instance the port employers had given early notice of their intention to seek an injunction.
Had the union followed a different course and authorised the action before it was subject to an injunction it would then have satisfied the requirements of Section 10(3)(c) of the 1984 Act. Even if it had subsequently withdrawn its authorisation when an injunction was awarded, the union would have been able to organise the action without the need for a further ballot once the injunction had been lifted, and presumably we should not be discussing the Bill.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord, he said that that would be the case if the whole period did not exceed 28 days. Nevertheless, for the whole of the period during which the injunction applied the union would not have been able to proceed with the organisation of a strike. Therefore, although it would not have had to conduct another ballot it would not have had 28 days in which to organise a strike. It would have had significantly fewer.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. So long as the union has already authorised or endorsed strike action within the 28 days there is no requirement for another ballot. That is precisely what could have happened this summer if the union had authorised that action, which for reasons best known to itself it decided not to do. A further ballot would not have been required once the injunction had been lifted after the 28-day period. I have obviously said something which is of interest to noble Lords. I give way.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I have not looked at the possibility that if industrial action is started the 28-day period is no longer relevant. If that is right it is reasonably clear that the courts could achieve the entire purpose of the Bill by simply refusing to impose an injunction until a short period has elapsed in which the union could start industrial action, and then impose the injunction. That would be a most unfortunate position in which to place the judges, but they might have to do that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. I suspect that what I have said needs to be considered further. However, the basic principle of what I have said remains.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and other noble Lords suggested that employers might deliberately delay bringing proceedings until well into the 28-day period in the expectation that that might force a union to reballot. It would of course be a matter of serious concern if there was reason to believe that employers would adopt such tactics with success. However, there is no reason to believe that the port employers attempted any such device last summer. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, confirmed that. In any case, I very much doubt that such a manoeuvre would have worked or would work.
For any employer to be granted an injunction he must be able to convince a judge that there are sufficient doubts about the lawfulness of a union's action or proposed action.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister give way? I am seeking to help. Those of us who are speaking are professionals. We know what we are speaking about. We have fought these cases. I beg my noble friend the Minister at all events to defer to the expertise of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls if he will not defer to a couple of silks who earn their living doing this. I ask him to have a heart; take the matter back; think again. Do not just read this wretched departmental brief. It drives us all dotty.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if my noble friend will give me a chance, I am simply responding to the Second Reading debate at this stage and I have to make the point to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, about this idea of getting injunctions. Although this principle is well understood by many noble Lords, it is a stiffer test than I think the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, recognised when he was speaking. That is purely the point I was making.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that all that has to be shown is a serious case to answer? It is not the same as having to prove it. It is not a trial; merely a serious case to answer. Many instances could occur and have occurred where if it goes forward to a trial it is a perfectly lawful act. That is the point I am making.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe that it is a tougher test than the noble Lord seems to think. If I may turn to the problem that any formula which sought to impose a maximum limit on the extension which a court might award potentially poses, if the formula involved a court in making a decision about the circumstances in which the extension would be appropriate in terms of the effect on industrial relations or the union's rank and file, I do not believe that any court would find it easy to reach a view on the basis of such criteria. Also, if I may turn to the
964
noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and his very interesting examples, which were hypothetical, in the last five years—I say again, and I know that noble Lords have said that it might happen again very soon—there has been only one case where the 28 days were relevant.
I turn again to the point that I made. There are periods within that scenario when a union could authorise or endorse a strike. The Government believe that it would be wrong to modify legislation which has worked well—which is what this Bill proposes to do—on the basis of that one instance of difficulty which arose in unique circumstances.
However, we recognise the concerns expressed in this debate about potential problems which might become apparent in the future. Accordingly, and particularly minding what the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, said, I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to keep this aspect of the law under close review, whatever the fate of this Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be very brief, but that will not mask my sincerity to all noble Lords and in particular to the noble and learned Lords who have come to speak in this debate to give your Lordships' House and the Government, if they would only accept it, the benefit of their totally objective and unbiased expertise.
I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister for putting up the best show he could in the circumstances, and to say that, although this has been a constructive debate, it ceased to be, with respect to him, constructive when his speech came to be made. But I trust that it has remained calm and courteous, and hope springs eternal that the Government may read Hansard and defer to the expertise, certainly of the judges—forget about the silks—who really know what they are talking about. There are problems and they are very serious problems.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, cannot ever resist the opportunity to make some wonderful political point about what the next Labour Government would do. That is a hypothetical question. For a change it was the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who had a go at what the next Liberal Government would do. That is all very interesting. We do not have either a Liberal Government or a Labour Government and I shall not follow them along that line tonight. But with great sincerity and the utmost friendliness I thank them both for their support of this Bill. With hope, I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord

965
Chancellor I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the procedure in, and allocation of business between, the High Court and other courts; to make provision with respect to legal services; to establish a body to be known as the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct and a body to be known as the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board; to provide for the appointment of a legal services ombudsman; to make provision for the establishment of a conveyancing ombudsman scheme; to provide for the establishment of conveyancing appeal tribunals; to amend the law relating to judicial and related pensions and judicial and other appointments; to make provision with respect to certain officers of the Supreme Court; to amend the Solicitors Act 1974; to amend the Arbitration Act 1950; to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions; to make provision with respect to certain loans in respect of residential property; to amend the Children Act 1989 and make further provision in connection with that Act; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past ten o'clock.

  SPECTACLE SALES: TRADE DESCRITIONS ACT
  SPECTACLE SALES: TRADE DESCRITIONS ACT
  PROPERTY LAW: DIAMOND REPORT
  PROPERTY LAW: DIAMOND REPORT
  ELECTRICITY: SOURCE, COST AND PRICING DATA
  ELECTRICITY: SOURCE, COST AND PRICING DATA
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION: CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION: CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION: ELECTRICITY PRICE
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION: ELECTRICITY PRICE
  NUCLEAR POWER: RETENTION IN PUBLIC SECTOR
  NUCLEAR POWER: RETENTION IN PUBLIC SECTOR
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS: SAFETY
  NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS: SAFETY
  NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME: 1994 REVIEW
  NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME: 1994 REVIEW
  MAGNOX POWER STATIONS: LIFE EXTENSION
  MAGNOX POWER STATIONS: LIFE EXTENSION
  MAGNOX POWER STATIONS: DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
  MAGNOX POWER STATIONS: DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
  MUCH WOOLTON RC PRIMARY SCHOOL
  MUCH WOOLTON RC PRIMARY SCHOOL
  ANIMAL MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS: LEAD IN FEEDINGSTUFFS
  ANIMAL MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS: LEAD IN FEEDINGSTUFFS
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE: MARKET REGULATION EXPENDITURE
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE: MARKET REGULATION EXPENDITURE
  AGRICULTURAL GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES
  AGRICULTURAL GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES
  OPTICIANS ACT 1989: CONSUMER PROTECTION
  OPTICIANS ACT 1989: CONSUMER PROTECTION
  OPTICIANS' EARNINGS
  OPTICIANS' EARNINGS
  CHILDREN: ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT
  CHILDREN: ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT
  ABORTION STATISTICS 1987–89
  ABORTION STATISTICS 1987–89