Sitting of 22 February 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Rent Arrears
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department has on local authority rent arrears in London.
    The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): Rent arrears to local authorities in London rose by 24 per cent. in 1987–88, from £84 million to £104 million. They are mainly concentrated in a small number of Labour-controlled inner-London boroughs. One third of the total arrears in England and two thirds of the national increase last year was in the worst 10 authorities, nine of which are London boroughs.
    Mr. Summerson: In the light of those staggering figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that if local authorities were more efficient in collecting their rents not only would their housing revenue accounts be in better shape, but they would be less assiduous in making ever-increasing calls on the taxpayer for more and more money?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. For instance, in Labour-controlled Barking and Dagenham, arrears constitute 3·2 per cent. of the rent roll. In Brent, the figure is 46·9 per cent. in terms of rent and if rates are added it is nearly 100 per cent. That may, of course, be because three Brent Labour councillors together owe amounts of rent which must add up to £8,000.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware that in the Labour-controlled London borough of Waltham Forest rent arrears have been more than halved from the level under the previous Tory-Liberal controlled council and that the only reason for rent arrears across London increasing has been the cuts in social security benefits, especially housing benefit?
    Mr. Gummer: That last comment is not true. It is interesting to note that the 10 authorities with the highest rent arrears are Brent, Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, Hackney, Haringey, Liverpool, Waltham Forest—the eighth highest—Greenwich and Camden. They are all Labour authorities, they are all a disgrace and they should all be put right.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of Brent council owes £2,000 in rent arrears, and that the vice-chairman of the Lambeth housing committee owes £1,500 in rent arrears, having collected
    980
    £29,000 in council attendance allowances in two years? When will my right hon. Friend put into the Local Government and Housing Bill a clause which bans people from remaining councillors if they wilfully owe rent and rates to their local authorities?
    Mr. Gummer: I understand that my hon. Friend is a member of the Standing Committee on that Bill, so he will be able to express his views on that matter. I think that he is wrong about the leader of Brent council who I believe is not now in arrears—[Interruption.] I do not want to go into the history of this as it would be embarrassing. I agree with my hon. Friend about the Lambeth example, in respect of which my comments in the House were attacked by the Opposition but supported by the local representative of the National and Local Government Officers Association.
    Mr. Soley: Before Conservative Members turn their hatred on other councillors, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Secretary of State's own research shows that council housing is far better managed than housing associations? Why has the Audit Commission commended Brent council on its rent collection procedures and recommended that the Government help by recognising that those arrears have accrued over three different Administrations—including Conservative ones—and that it should have the burden lifted from it? Does the Minister agree with the housing movement generally that the reason for increased rent arrears is housing benefit cuts, or does he agree with the former Under-Secretary of State for Social Services, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who said that the real reason was that rents had been put up by the Government?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, wrong. On housing management, the Maclennan report states:
    "In general, tenants regarded housing associations as better providers of management services than councils".
    The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for trying to defend Brent—he council which does not even have a list of its tenants, the council which found that its council house keys were being sold in Nigeria to students who were coming here, and the council which has rent and rate arrears amounting to nearly 100 per cent. of its roll. Brent council should also be ashamed of itself.
    Mr. Gow: What action has been taken through the courts—by fellow councillors who do not belong to the loony Left, by fellow ratepayers who resent district councils cheating them, or by the district auditor—to prevent the scandal from continuing?
    Mr. Gummer: People should be taken to court by the councils to which they owe the rent. The problem is that if councillors do not support their officers' attempts to take people who do not pay their rent to court, the officers cease to be able to do their job properly. The trouble is that all those who do not pay their rent put a burden on others who may be much less well off. In a world of generous housing benefit, those who need help get it through the housing benefit system.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for homelessness; and what was the figure in 1979.
    Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available extra moneys to local authorities, to assist them with any increased housing or advice needs consequent on the rises in mortgage interest rates and the report of the Audit Commission on bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for homelessness in England and Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): In the 12 months to September 1988 English authorities accepted responsibility for 116,220 homeless households; in 1979 the figure was 57,200. For Welsh figures I refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    We have already made nearly £50 million in additional resources available to authorities in 1988–89 specifically to help the homeless, together with £680,000 to voluntary groups providing advice and assistance. Our review of the homelessness legislation will take account of current trends and the constructive conclusions of the Audit Commission's study.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that the leading cause of this distressing social problem is repossession due to mortgage arrears? Quite apart from the situation in London, is he aware that in Wales the rate of repossessions due to mortgage arrears is seven times higher than it was in 1979? Is it not time that the Government took active measures to tackle this problem, first by lowering interest rates and secondly through a major public housing drive?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman must have prepared his supplementary question before he read the report from the Building Societies Association, which was widely covered in this morning's press. I am pleased to note that figures published today by the BSA show that mortgage arrears and possessions in the second half of 1988 continued to decline. The director general of the BSA, commenting on those figures, said:
    "Statistical analysis shows no relationship between interest rates and either possessions or arrears. In general an increase in interest rates, even a substantial one, does not change a good borrower into a potential possession case."
    Mr. Boateng: As the plight of those who languish in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not a matter of party political controversy but is accepted by all, will the Minister assure Members in all parts of the House that he intends to undertake the review recommended by the Audit Commission of the regulations relative to leasing arrangements, which prevent councils such as my own, which the Minister has commended, from entering into arrangements with the private developers to provide other accommodation for people who otherwise languish in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he also accept the Audit Commission's recommendation that those boroughs which have a particular problem in relation to people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation should receive a special allocation of resources so that they can deal with the problem? Will the Minister give specific assurances on those matters?
    Mr. Trippier: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman as I believe that policy on bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a matter of political difference both within the
    982
    House and outside. The latest figures for London show that there are some 23,300 empty council dwellings, which is three times as many the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. There is a direct correlation not only between those figures, but between the number of empty dwellings in London and the number of people registered as homeless. It is hypocritical for the hon. Gentleman to give the Government advice on housing when he should be spending more of his time giving advice to his local authority to improve its housing management as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government. Until that authority has cleared up the mess in its own backyard, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should try to specialise in an area in which his own local authority is not an embarrassment to him.
    Miss Lestor: Has the Minister yet had time to examine the Barnardo's report and to consider the plight of young people coming out of care and joining the ranks of the homeless because they cannot afford to live and to pay rent? Is it not time that the Minister liaised with the Department of Employment about the position of those young people in regard to YTS? They cannot exist on the money provided and they are being treated as though they lived at home when they have come out of local authority care and literally have nowhere to go?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady's specific point is directly a matter for the Department of Social Security, but I have seen the report to which she refers. It certainly contains some messages that we should examine carefully in our current review of homelessness, which is nearing completion and on which we are almost ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Heddle: Is it not a national scandal that more than 130,000 council-owned properties were empty last night, of which more than 30,000 have been empty for more than 12 months? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Audit Commission has produced a damning report on the inefficiency of certain local housing authorities? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Brent and other Labour-controlled councils apply the efficiency suggested in the Audit Commission report?
    Mr. Trippier: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I said, we found the report by the Audit Commission—and Professor Maclennan's report which was released only this week—helpful in that regard. There is an inescapable correlation between the total number of empty properties in Britain and the number of those registered as homeless, particularly as the figures are almost the same. Until local authorities improve their efficiency in managing public housing stock, the position will not improve.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend will be aware of substantial investment by his Department in hostels in London which have provided shelter for people who would otherwise be homeless. Will he liaise with his colleagues at the Department of Social Security to see whether relatively minor changes can be made in the income support regulations to safeguard the revenue flow which underpins those hostels?
    Mr. Trippier: I know that my hon. Friend has raised that issue in the past and I understand the message that he

    983
    seeks to convey. I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Malins: Does my hon. Friend agree that because of homelessness many families with children in south London live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in quite appalling conditions? Does he agree that we should be moving towards the abolition of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and in the meantime considering legislation to force landlords of those bed-and-breakfast places to improve standards and conditions for families who have to live in them.
    Mr. Trippier: I recognise the important contribution that my hon. Friend has made to that subject, both today and in the past. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is incredibly expensive.
    Dr. Cunningham: It is inefficient.
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—it is inefficient. We should like more Labour-controlled authorities to use their empty housing stock. Greenwich seems to deal with the matter most satisfactorily, in contrast to more extreme Left-wing authorities which quickly use bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I welcome the joint Association of London Authorities and London Boroughs Association working party report which is providing tighter controls on hotels used by London boroughs.
    Mr. Soley: That is a disgraceful response. The Government should be ashamed of their attitude to homelessness. They know that 6 per cent. of Government-owned properties are empty, compared with 3·1 per cent. for housing associations and 2·5 per cent. for local authorities. The Minister knows that the figures that he gave for building societies are misleading because building societies are not the only lenders. One in 10 homeless families are homeless because of mortgage repossession. He also knows that the real reason why homelessness has doubled in Britain and men, women and children have to sleep in cardboard boxes is the lack of low-cost accommodation to rent or for sale. That is what is wrong with the Government's policy.
    Mr. Trippier: It is strange that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) should even comment on this issue as his local authority has not used the £27 million that it has drawn in capital receipts to carry out repairs to existing stock although it has a significant number of dwellings awaiting major repairs. [Interruption] It is hypocritical of the hon. Gentleman to suggest, as he has today and on previous occasions, that there should be an increase in money for public housing when in their last three years of office the Labour Government cut public housing expenditure—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us try to settle down a bit.

    Gloucestershire County Council
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of Gloucestershire county council; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no immediate plans for a formal visit, although I frequently meet local councillors.
    Mr. French: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of Gloucestershire county council—which, as he will know, is controlled by the Liberals with the support of Labour—will he ask why, in the past three years, the council has increasd its rates more than 50 per cent. while Gloucester city council which is controlled by the Conservatives, plans to reduce its rates by 18 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Ridley: I will certainly ask those questions, but I can answer some of them now. The spending by Gloucestershire county council under the control of the Liberal and Labour parties over the full four-ear period has increased by 46·2 per cent. against an RPI increase of 20·8 per cent. In addition, the council's debt has increased by 70 per cent. and it is planning this year to take £10 million from balances to try to disguise the necessary rate rise on the eve of the elections.

    Covent Garden Opera House (Extension)
    Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to call in the application for the Covent Garden opera house extension.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): No, Sir.
    Mr. Sedgemore: In the light of the current farcical circumstances in which an internationally renowned institution is being squeezed between a car park and art office development, and bearing in mind that the royal opera house has no intention of proceeding with its existing application and has budgeted for a planning inquiry in its second application, is it not time that the Minister called the application in? Is it not time that the Minister put an end to the deception and deceit of the operatic manipulators and ensured that the development which finally takes place will be in the interests of the opera house and the surrounding area?
    Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman has made some rather hysterical comments about a matter which is well within the competence of the local authority.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Very quickly, does the Minister agree that the royal opera house—[Interruption.] I am being as quick as I can. The royal opera house now admits that the extension scheme does not provide for the type of improvements that are needed—in fact, there will be only 17 extra seats, but 300 extra parking spaces. In the light of those facts, given that this is a sensitive conservation area of national significance, will the Minister agree to call the application in?
    Mr. Chope: The local council is well aware of the possible changes. That is why it has not granted planning permission and is having further discussions with the royal opera house. That seems perfectly reasonable.

    Football League Clubs
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on recent

    985
    meetings held by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) with the chairmen of the Football League clubs.
    Mr. John Carlisle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the football authorities on the appointments to the Football Membership Authority.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): My right hon. Friend and I had a useful and constructive meeting with the chairmen of many of the league clubs about the Football Spectators Bill on 17 January and I met them again on 26 January. I met the president of the Football League and chairmen of the Football Association on 10 February to discuss aspects of the Bill and the wish of the football authorities to form the Football Membership Authority.
    Mrs. Mahon: In view of the overwhelming opposition to the scheme and the decision in another place on Monday, will the Minister tell the Prime Minister that it is a non-tarter and that many league clubs are already in serious financial difficulties? Will he make a name for himself by standing up to the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Moynihan: On the first point, the answer is no. On the second point, there is no good reason to believe that the scheme will have an adverse financial impact on clubs, even the smallest. A number of companies have already offered to set up and run the scheme at no cost to the clubs or the supporters. If the football authorities and clubs take a positive approach to marketing the scheme, financing it will not be a problem and the scheme can produce an income stream to football.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend recall the words of Mr. Ted Croker, then secretary of the Football Association, when he asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last summer to remove her tanks from his lawn? Is it not extraordinary that Opposition Members, the football authorities and a few misguided Conservative peers now seek to frustrate legislation which will remove hooliganism in and around football for ever?
    Mr. Moynihan: Yes, and I firmly believe—as I am sure all my hon. Friends do—that Britain, the home of football, must set an example to the football-playing world.
    Mr. Pendry: When the Minister met the football authorities, did they help him to unravel a problem, of his own making, for thousands of Northern Irish citizens who have Irish passports and who support Manchester United or Celtic Football Club? They will have to show their passports when they go to Old Trafford, but not when they go to Celtic Park; they will have to show their passports when Manchester United plays Celtic in a friendly, but not when Celtic plays Manchester United in a friendly, and they will have to show their passports when England plays Eire but not when Scotland plays Eire even though Eire is managed by an Englishman. If that problem was unravelled at that meeting, will the Minister now unravel it for the rest of us?
    Mr. Moynihan: I will certainly do that. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. If anybody wishes to see two league teams playing against each other, he will either
    986
    have to be a member of the national membership scheme or a guest of the club. In those circumstances, there is no need for the use of passports.
    Mr. David Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment passed in the other place to the Football Spectators Bill is nonsense and unworkable? Does he also agree that if Liverpool were in the scheme and Tranmere were not, a Liverpool fan who was banned from his own ground and from watching his country abroad would be able to go to Tranmere and cause mayhem?
    Mr. Moynihan: My hon. Friend has raised two important points. The Government will give careful consideration to the impact of the amendment. On phasing, the Government have made it clear on many occasions that the position that my hon. Friend has just outlined is accurate. Phasing would require Charlton, a first division club which shares a ground with Crystal Palace, a second division club, to install and dismantle the technology at Selhurst Park every week, according to which team was playing at home. That would be nonsense.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Why is the Minister so grudging in his acknowledgment of the steps taken by Football League clubs to combat hooliganism in the past three or four years? If he thinks that those steps are insufficient and his own proposals are self-evidently correct, will he allow a free vote when the Bill come back, in a much emasculated form, from the other place?
    Mr. Moynihan: On the evidence of the last point, I am convinced that if it were not for the Whipping of the Labour Benches, more Labour Members would support the Government on this important issue. I have made it clear on many occasions that the Government welcome the moves that the football authorities have taken, not least in building on the package of measures announced in February 1987. We saw last season that that was simply not enough and that we needed to come forward with additional measures to tackle a problem that has tarnished our image abroad and which continues to have a major detrimental effect through hooliganism being associated with the sport in this country.
    Mr. Latham: If we must proceed with the scheme, may we at least have an assurance that the members of the Football Membership Authority, to which Question No. 7 refers, will be selected from people who attend football matches in places other than the directors' boxes?
    Mr. Moynihan: I agree with my hon. Friend and I was grateful to the representatives of the FA and the League whom I met at my last meeting, who said that they wished to be approved as the Football Membership Authority. The Government keenly wish to see that and I am glad that the football authorities do too.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Was it with the Minister's authority that, following the Government's defeat in another place on Monday, the No. 10 propaganda department yesterday called the press to a briefing to the effect that unless football ignores the will of Parliament as expressed in the Lords, sanctions will be taken against it, including refusing to allow the football authorities to operate the football membership scheme? Is not that contemptible blackmail? Furthermore, is it not a serious contempt of Parliament and a possible breach of privilege? What explanation can the Minister provide for that scandalous behaviour?
    Mr. Moynihan: The only time that I would have used the word "contempt" yesterday was with reference to the contemptible nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman spoke on Radio 4 when he was defeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans). The right hon. Gentleman's account of the press briefing from No. 10 is absolute nonsense—[Interruption.] We have made it clear that we shall consider carefully the effect of the amendment passed in the Lords and make a decision on that, and we shall, no doubt, announce it shortly—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Members should come into other Question Times which are always held in silence. I cannot think what has gone wrong today.
    Mr. Riddick: Has my hon. Friend seen the letter from the president of the Football League, Mr. Dunnett, to the Football League clubs? Is he aware that the letter is full of distortions and half-truths and, in some cases, downright lies? The letter states:
    "Football supporters will be the only people in the country"
    who have to carry identity cards. But everybody in this place has to carry identity cards. Does my hon. Friend think that Mr. Dunnett is deliberately misleading people, is simply in ignorance of the facts or is putting into practice the habit of misleading people that he no doubt learnt here as a Labour Member?
    Mr. Moynihan: I regret that many of the statements made in that letter were misleading. I understand that a number have already been taken up, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield. I am certain that on another occasion I shall be able to respond in full to that letter, although it was not addressed to me.
    Mr. Speaker: May we now proceed in good order?

    Bathing Water
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the cost of full implementation of the European Economic Community directive on bathing water and the date when he expects the directive to be fully met.
    Mr. Ridley: We have asked water authorities to assess the feasibility of bringing all their bathing waters up to European Community standards by 1995. The detailed .compliance programmes and the resulting cost to water consumers are not yet clear.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that the cost of complying with the bathing water quality directives and of getting rid of all the dangerous derogations in the drinking water quality directive will be about £2 billion? Will he also confirm that the report in The Daily Telegraph today that the Minister had achieved the agreement of Brussels to 1995 being a reasonable time by which we should comply with the bathing water directive is absolutely untrue? When I telephoned Brussels this afternoon, I was told that when officials there read the report in The Daily Telegraph they laughed because they felt that the reporter was not telling the truth all the time. Would not 1992 be a far more reasonable date?
    Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that I am not responsible for what the hon. Gentleman reads in the newspapers.
    988
    However, I can give him some information. The Welsh water authority plans to spend £100 million to improve its bathing beaches in the next six years to bring all Welsh waters up to standard. That £100 million will have to be serviced and paid for by Welsh consumers. The total annual spend in England and Wales is currently over £100 million. Over that period, the hon. Gentleman can estimate the total cost of the operation, which does not include improving the quality of water so that it meets the drinking water standards, which will cost considerably more. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's figure was probably an underestimate of the total cost. I make it clear that these costs will have to be borne by water consumers and are nothing to do with privatisation.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is also great concern on the Conservative Benches about the condition of some of our beaches and that many of us will be watching with great care the debates on the Water Bill to ensure that the mechanisms in that measure provide as powerful an incentive to the new water authorities to clean up the beaches as those which exist under the present arrangements?
    Mr. Ridley: I can, happily, assure my hon. Friend that the new arrangements, with the National Rivers Authority in place, are infinitely preferable to the older arrangements under which there was no proper control of the investment and standards achieved. I can also comfort my hon. Friend by telling him that the savage and massive cuts in sewerage investment made by the last Labour Administration have been completely reversed and that there are now major programmes in place to finance the necessary improvements.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deep concern in the south-west about the condition of the beaches in the area? Is he aware that in that one area, 54 beaches are being investigated for pollution of the water, that 23 regularly fail to meet European bathing water standards and that there is a strong demand for the Government to provide adequate investment nationally to clean our water, our beaches and our environment rather than to follow the massively unpopular path of simply privatising for profit?
    Mr. Ridley: We have got there already; the massive investment programme for which the hon. Gentleman calls is in place, restoring the cuts made by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Bearing in mind that it costs money to clear up our seas and drinking water, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that it is wholly in character for the Opposition to be demanding that clean-up and, at the same time, complaining about increased charges to pay for it?
    Mr. Ridley: The difficulty with the present situation is that Opposition Members are demanding higher standards, with which I agree, and at the same time denying the resulting financial consequences, which they try to blame on something else.
    Dr. Cunningham: Why have the Government deliberately understated the scale of the problem of polluted beaches by designating only 391, when the Royal Commission on environmental pollution recognised that there were 600 beaches in Britain popularly used by

    989
    swimmers? Why did the Minister for Water and Planning stupidly mislead the public today on Radio 4 by saying that there was no health risk unless people could see sewage in the water? Will the Minister admit that colliform bacteria, salmonella, entero viruses and pathogenic micro-organisms are invisible to the naked eye?
    Is it not clear that Government policy proposes insufficient control over private monopolies and can offer no deadline for the elimination of polluted beaches, as the chairman of the North-west water authority admitted to me in a recent letter? How can the Secretary of State say that the controls in his legislation are adequate when he has promised in advance immunity from prosecution to the private monopolies that he intends to set up? Will he confirm that all identified bathing waters will receive the same environmental quality objectives before privatisation takes place?
    Mr. Ridley: The question on the Order Paper concerns meeting the European Community directive, and that is the question I answered. The number of beaches that qualify under that directive is contained in the numbers that were given in a written answer yesterday.
    As to beaches that have not yet been cleaned, I confirm that swimming in contaminated water carries only a very small risk of disease. The system of controls—which the hon. Gentleman ought to understand by now, because he has been debating them long enough in Committee—is infinitely better than anything we have had before. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case, and I believe that even he agrees that if a programme of compliance is in place and adhered to, enforcement and prosecution should not take place until that programme is deviated from.

    City Grants
    Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications for city grants his Department has received to date.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of funding his Department has made available to date for city grants.
    Mr. Trippier: Since city grant was launched on 3 May 1988, my Department has received 86 applications, of which 31 have been approved, with a total grant requirement of £25 million.
    Mr. Wilshire: The interest shown so far is proof that the Government are operating a good scheme and keeping their promises. Does my hon. Friend agree that action and achievements are the best test of success? If so, can he give the House any good news about the number of jobs created by the scheme? Also, does he have any evidence that Labour local authorities are behaving in their usual way, by whingeing and whining, rather than taking every opportunity to do all they can to help?
    Mr. Trippier: Approved city grant projects will provide more than 500 homes and nearly 5,000 jobs, and will bring about 115 acres of land back into use. Labour authorities are improving, albeit slowly, but, in respect of economic development a number of them still suffer from delusions of adequacy. It is clear that they could play more of a proactive role with the private sector. Although they do not have to make a contribution, as they once did under
    990
    urban development grant, I have made it abundantly clear that we shall not consider a city grant application until it receives planning permission.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that businesses in Nottingham, where many of my constituents work, have been extremely successful in winning city grants, with less than £5 million of public money dragging in behind it more than £13 million of private money? That underlines the success of the city grant scheme and clearly demonstrates that Nottingham remains an attractive area for inward investment.
    Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. I have been overwhelmed by the number of applications that I have received from the private sector in Nottingham and the surrounding area. That success should be carefully considered by other areas that have not been so successful in securing city grants, and have not recognised that, as the private sector can now apply direct to the Department of the Environment, bureaucracy has been cut to a minimum.

    Urban Development Corporations
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times the urban development corporations have met jointly with his Department; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: Representatives of urban development corporations often meet Ministers and officials of my Department and discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister accept that the Government refused to accept the recommendation of the Employment Select Committee to widen the UDCs' remit or terms of reference? A report in The Economist on 11 February stated that the developers of Canary wharf can claim £1 billion in tax subsidy through enterprise zone concessions. The sum of £1 billion of taxpayers' money is equal to more than one year's expenditure from rates and balances by West Yorkshire authorities to provide services in that county area. What guarantees can the Minister give that UDC objectives will be better targeted towards the real needs of inner cities, and that public money will supplement local authority programmes rather than private developers?
    Mr. Trippier: It is untrue to say that the Department of the Environment did not respond to the Select Committee on Employment and failed to recognise that there is a need to develop community activity and training. Our response clearly emphasised that, in the UDC set-up at that time, we were doing precisely that. As to enterprise zones, I did not notice any Labour Member holding back from making an application to the Department of the Environment for an enterprise zone in his or her constituency. As the Opposition did not divide the House at that time, I should have thought that they would recognise the benefits that have accrued.
    On the hon. Gentleman's latter question, the main purpose of urban development corporations is to transform the landscape physically and to promote economic regeneration. That they are doing very successfully.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the new mood of confidence on Teesside where the urban development

    991
    corporation has announced five major projects, including a major scheme to put a barrage on the River Tees and to bring a Ministry of Defence agency to the area? When does he expect to be in the region to see these successes for himself? Does he agree that the role of urban development corporations is to concentrate on bringing the private sector into inner-city areas and to break the stranglehold that the public sector has had for too long?
    Mr. Trippier: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. It is my intention to visit Teesside development corporation very soon. I hope that I will see my hon. Friend there. In addition to the successes that he has catalogued to the House, there is a joint venture with the Tees and Hartlepool port authority to develop the former Smiths dock in Middlesbrough into a centre of excellence in offshore technology. An estimated 1,000 new jobs will have been created by the end of 1989.
    Mr. Fatchett: When the urban development corporation in Leeds is discussing important planning matters, such as a possible development by a Canadian organisation, which would transform a substantial area of south Leeds, why does it hold the planning discussions in private? Why should the press and the public not be invited to those meetings? Is it simply that the urban development corporations have something to hide?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will know that many of the matters that are discussed in planning committees and in local authorities, too, are of a commercial and confidential nature. All development corporations would, in any event, liaise with the local authority and take its views on all planning matters. I must make the point to the House, if hon. Members are unaware of it, that we have appointed a number of Labour councillors to that development corporation, so they will have a say in what is going on.

    Commons Commissioners
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has as to when the Commons Commissioners last met; and what was discussed.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The Commons Commissioners' function is judicial. It does not require them to hold meetings.
    Mr. Field: As I understand that the Commons Commissioners comprise barristers and solicitors of some seven years' standing, that the body costs £260,000 a year to run, with expenditure per case amounting to £712, and that just over seven cases per week are dealt with, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the organisation is offering value for money?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed. Since the Commons Commissioners were set up as a requirement of the Commons Registration Act 1965 they have settled 13,000 cases arising from disputes on the registration of 1·5 million acres of common land. While the cases in the Isle of Wight have all been settled, there are outstanding cases with which the Commons Commissioners are dealing, mostly in south Wales.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the plight of home owners whose houses were incorrectly registered as common land 24 years ago and who, since then, have had extraordinary difficulty in selling their houses?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Commons Commissioners are aware of the misregistration of houses to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. There are proposals to legislate on that when a suitable opportunity arises.
    Mr. Skinner: Is there any way in which the commissioners can investigate the case of the cemeteries that Westminster city council sold? Would those cemeteries be regarded as common land? Could they be restored to the council under the general auspices of common land? If so, the Government should be doing something about it. There is a scandal or two at Westminster, not only with selling the cemeteries but involving the £1 million that the council paid to the chief executive. I think that there is—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that has much to do with the question.
    Mrs. Bottomley: No, Sir.

    Public Health
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to seek to improve standards of litter removal, street cleaning, refuse collection, the control of dog mess and the extermination of rats and other rodents; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: These are local authority responsibilities. They have the necessary powers, and it is for them to ensure that proper provisions are made to meet local needs.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that uncleared dog mess, uncleansed streets and uncollected refuse are bound to lead to a serious deterioration in the environment, and to the breeding of rodents? Will she also bear in mind that rats reproduce from two to 800—sometimes more—in a year? Is she aware that the people of Ealing, including my constituents, suffered the effects of no cleansing of any kind for two weeks, while the Labour-controlled Ealing council has increased the rates by 35 per cent. and intends to reduce street cleansing? Will the Government force Ealing council to act on this matter?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The Government are well aware of the predicament faced by the ratepayers of my hon. Friend's constituency where, even when there has been an £8 million increase in Government grant, they have to face enormous rate increases. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents would be much happier if Ealing council spent more time employing rat-catchers than setting up inquiries into the possible deprivation of Irish women in Ealing.
    Mr. Bidwell: Can the Minister envisage a time when the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is likely to praise the Labour administration in Ealing? Is she aware that only recently, the Ealing authority won the London award for the cleanliness of its streets? Is she questioning the method of assessing these matters in the London area?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We hope that all local authorities will give proper care and attention to environmental health, cleansing their streets, dealing with litter and enforcing proper rodent control.
    Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend get together with her hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic to do something about the appalling amount of litter on motorways? Where does responsibility lie for cleaning up motorways? Does it rest entirely with local authorities? If not, will my hon. Friend ensure that more is done on that front?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the responsibility rests with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic. We are committed to improving the cleanliness of our surroundings. We are further increasing the funding of the Tidy Britain Group which is investigating a number of projects and analysing the most effective way of cleaning up various areas—including transport areas—so that we can learn the lessons which I shall then draw forcefully to the attention of my close and hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister confirm the suspicion that the question of her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised, which is that there has been an enormous increase in rodent infestation during the past 10 years? Does the hon. Lady consider that the Government-sponsored initiative UK 2000 has had the desired or desirable impact? Does not the experience of that initiative lead her to accept that local authorities should be supported, encouraged and assisted to achieve the cleaner Britain that market forces alone cannot achieve?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Local authorities are receiving much more money this year. Their expenditure has risen to more than £28 billion, and they are receiving an extra £1.1 billion from the Government.
    The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the role of UK 2000, which is involved in various environmental projects. The group entrusted to deal with litter and promote cleanliness is the Tidy Britain Group, which, we hope, will come forward with practical, realistic and effective programmes. As for rodent control, there seems to be evidence that the recent warm winters have resulted in a growth in the number of rats.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that, to deal with litter-dropping we need a much greater education programme, many more receptacles of an adequate size to contain it and a greater willingness by authorities to prosecute?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Tackling litter requires the active commitment and enthusiasm of many Government Departments and, above all, groups within the community. Education and the provision of litter bins both play a key part. We are investigating whether further steps should be taken on enforcement.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jeff Rooker.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: It is an outrage.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are no fewer than eight Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. If I call Front Benchers all the time I shall never be able to call any Back Benchers.
    Mr. Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I reacted to the hon. Gentleman's comment of "outrage".
    Mr. Roberts rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it afterwards. Mr. Jeff Rooker.

    Nature Conservancy Council
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to discuss protection of wildlife and field sports with the Nature Conservancy Council.
    Mr. Ridley: I recently agreed a concordat with the NCC which effectively protects both wildlife and field sports, as the hon. Member suggested.
    Mr. Rooker: When the right hon. Gentleman met the Nature Conservancy Council, did he ask whether its recent grant of over £70,000 to the Kent Wildfowling Association was the first ever state handout for the purchase of land for blood sports? The next time that he meets his friends on the NCC, will he take up with them their policy of not giving grants to organisations that genuinely seek to protect and conserve nature by refusing to allow blood sports on those lands? Surely the gunmen of Kent can buy their own land.
    Mr. Ridley: I understand that before offering grant the NCC satisfied itself that that grant would promote nature conservation and would give good value for money. I strongly support the general basis on which the NCC operates, which is that it is possible successfully to combine conservation and British field sports. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I bear no grudge against field sports.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the rubbish talked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does not understand the countryside? Does he agree that the best way in which to protect wildlife is to encourage field sports?
    Mr. Ridley: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right, and the NCC's concordat is testimony to the fact that it thinks so, too.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) plays in his car on his way home the sound of hounds in full—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is addressed to the Secretary of State, not to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames).
    Mr. Banks: But I want to know whether that is the general attitude. If the hon. Member for Crawley can go home playing the sound of—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask a question like that.
    Mr. Ridley: If my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) does as the hon. Genttleman claims, he is in very good company. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) believes that foxhunting should be abolished everywhere, except in his own constituency.

    Councillors
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's estimate of the number of local government councillors who are currently employed by other local authorities in positions which would he prohibited under proposed legislation.
    Mr. Gummer: The number of councillors in any local authority to whom the restrictions will apply will depend on the extent to which they have been disregarding the tradition of the political neutrality of senior local authority staff. This information is not collected by my Department.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree, none the less, that there is clear evidence of widespread political abuse, particularly where a councillor is subsequently employed as an officer by another authority? Does he further agree that perhaps one of the saddest consequences has been a decline in the quality of chief officers in many authorities, with resulting damage to local government in general?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that if we want to encourage the best kind of local authority officers they must not feel that there are political reasons for the appointment of senior officers. Nor must they feel that people who are clearly involved in party political activities in one borough pretend to be independent in another.
    I also believe that it is impossible for ordinary people to feel comfortable if they go to a local authority officer knowing that in another authority that officer takes party political views of a kind of which they do not approve.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the legislation being referred to, a psychiatric social worker receiving London weighting would fall into the category of "excluded from political activity"; would not be able to stand for election to say, the London borough of Richmond or a constituency such as the Isle of Wight; and would not be elected to Parliament for Surrey, South-West—unlike his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to whom all those things apply?
    Mr. Gummer: I confirm that in the country as a whole, people are quite clear. They do not believe that someone can be an independent officer on one authority, paid by the local ratepayers, and be a party political figure elsewhere. Universally, people condemn the Labour party for backing jobs for the boys and girls.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) could give the Government a great deal of advice about this abuse of local authority power? He could do that because Sheffield became the Socialist Republic of Sheffield and employed vast numbers of people from other local authorities. That practice spread throughout the north of England. That is an abuse and it is high time that it was stopped.
    Mr. Gummer: I have made it quite clear that whether Conservatives or Socialists do that, the practice is wrong. It is clear to the rest of the country that the public are
    996
    wholly opposed to the way in which the Labour party is defending what has become corruption in local government.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall now take the point of order of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
    Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that Back Benchers have rights—[Interruption.] and my talent is that I have been a Back Bencher longer than I have been a Front Bencher. However, your ruling today implies that Mr. Speaker decides which subjects the official Opposition Front Bench should respond to. Not only that, but Mr. Speaker decides which Front-Bench spokespersons respond to Ministers' replies. I would like some thoughts or responses about this point.
    Your ruling also, it seems to me Mr. Speaker, rules out the possibility of the Opposition Front Bench being able to respond to a new factor that emerges during the Ministers' answers and which might have very significant implications, calling for a statement from the Opposition. The Front Bench must have that flexibility.
    You were factually inaccurate, Mr. Speaker. There are not eight Opposition Front Benchers, there are only six. There are fewer shadow Ministers than there are Ministers at the Department of the Environment. Having had an indication through the usual channels, or through your assistant, that if I was brief on the first question, I would be called on the second—otherwise I would not have risen on the first question—it seems that you have treated the Opposition Front Bench unfairly. Very serious precedents are being set.
    Mr. Speaker: First, let me say that every hon. Member must catch the eye of the Chair. However, I have an indication about the subjects in which the Front Bench would like to participate. As a general rule, it is only fair to Back Benchers that Front-Bench spokesmen should rise only once. I try not to call any hon. Member more than once at Question Time except perhaps the No. 1 spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) is not the No. 1 spokesman and every time a Front-Bench spokesman rises, a Back-Bench Member is excluded.
    Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise that these are difficult decisions for you to have to take, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has an important point. It must surely be for Opposition Front Benchers to decide, in the light of answers and circumstances, who may want to seek to catch your eye—[Interruption.] Shut up, you fool.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that that was not directed at me.
    Dr. Cunningham: No, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "Shut up, you hon. Gentleman."
    Perhaps the best way to resolve these matters would be for us to discuss them with you in private.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a very good suggestion.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, outside this House, the Secretary State for Education and Science announced his first decision to nationalise schools and bring them into central control. The announcement concerned two schools—one in Tameside and the other in Skegness. Although the policy has flopped, and most of the very few schools that sought to opt out of the current arrangements and into central control are to be found in Conservative areas, this policy was announced by the Government as a flagship policy. Can you, Mr. Speaker, say whether you have received from the Secretary of State for Education and Science any indication that he is willing to make a statement to this House, as we have requested? If not, is it not a gross abuse of the House that the Secretary of State is unwilling to make a statement about a policy that has failed; although he claimed that it was crucial to the Government's approach?
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am not known for being hesitant in bearing good news to this House. The news this morning was very good indeed, in that these are the first two grant-maintained schools. If I am expected to make a statement every time I announce that a school is becoming grant-maintained, I will be monopolising the time of the House, because this policy will be very successful.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of these schools, though not in my constituency, is in a neighbouring constituency. Is it fair that this decision was made without consulting the Members concerned?
Mr. Kenneth Baker: When it comes to school reorganisations or amalgamations, the procedure is that the individuals are informed, as they and the governors and heads of the schools were this morning. We have followed the procedures.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Today we have a Bill under a guillotine motion. I will call one hon. Member from the Government side of the House. Mr. Thurnham.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are very pleased indeed with the announcement this morning about those two schools, and we look forward very much to an announcement about St. James's Church of England school in Bolton.
Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the legitimate interest of Members on both sides of the House in the decisions of the Secretary of the State indicates the need for a statement. What we now know is that the Secretary of State, instead of doing what would be sensible and rational-make one announcement of all his decisions for 1989—is trying to drip-feed these decisions out—[Interrupion.] Oh, yes, he is trying to drip-feed these decisions out to suggest that a policy that has flopped is
998
some kind of success. Can we have an undertaking from the Secretary of State that when these decisions are being made he will announce them to this House?
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that eight or nine days ago I raised a point of order about the fact that I had placed in the Table Office a question to the Foreign Secretary. I asked for information about the movements of the Foreign Secretary in relation to the Manx Government. That question was transferred, for some reason best known to other people, to the Home Office. The Minister said to me that when he had the answer he would let me know. Well, I have had the answer from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, telling me that the Home Secretary has met people. That is very interesting, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked.
Since this is the correct day to table questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I have today retabled the question, with slightly altered wording in order to get it through the machinery. Will you, Mr. Speaker, kindly take it upon yourself to see that, this time, I get an answer from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as to the activities of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for which Minister answers questions, but I can say to the hon. Member, as I think I indicated to him, that the Isle of Man comes under the Home Office.
Mr. Holt: It does not.
Mr. Speaker: Well, that was my understanding. I will not enter into a debate about it, because I might be wrong.
Mr. Tom Pendry: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State said very clearly to this House a few moments ago that Members of Parliament from the Tameside area had been informed of his decision concerning Audenshaw school. As one of those Members—I speak for my right hon. Friend also—I have to say that we were not so informed by the Secretary of State.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 10 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Graham Riddick

Mrs. Audrey Wise

Mr. Neil Thorne

BILL PRESENTED
  COMPANY DONATIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES
  Mr. Ken Eastham, supported by Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. George Howarth, presented a Bill to give shareholders and trade unions the right to block company donations to political parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 82].

  Employment Age Discrimination
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish age discrimination in employment.
  The aim of my Bill is to abolish age discrimination in employment. I hope that it will assist those who are in if not the evening then the late afternoon of life to find jobs. An information note issued by Hay MSL Management Consultants in November 1987 showed that, where an age was specified, 88·5 per cent. of advertisements showed an upper limit of 40 whereas only 2·5 per cent. advertised for candidates aged 46 or over. A recent report in The Sunday Times showed that over half the advertisements carried an age specification and not one carried an age requirement for the over–50s.
  The Sunday Mail has run a long campaign about age discrimination, and it is a salutary thought that, at the last general election, the average age of Members of Parliament was 49. It is worth pondering the fact that a large number of Members of Parliament would never get the opportunity to be interviewed for a position here were they to seek employment in the normal market place. I am glad to be able to present the Bill from the Conservative Benches, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister practises, as always, what she preaches and she has started Sir Leon Brittan, at the age of 49, on a second career in Europe. We look forward tomorrow to learning that William Hague has been elected in his place in the Richmond, Yorks constituency.
  In The Guardian on Saturday 4 February, a typical advertisement placed by a leading industrial company advertised for an industrialist journalist in Runcorn. It stated:
  "If you are an experienced professional journalist with industrial experience and are aged 25–40, this challenging opportunity will appeal to you."
  To fit in leaving school, having taken A—levels, training as a journalist and obtaining industrial experience by the age of 25, one would have to move with great speed. A recent survey by the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services found that 56 per cent. of employers admit that they tend to recruit from the under–40 age group. What employers are really saying is that they want an 18–year—old with 30 years' experience.
  There has been a steady decline in the economic activity of the over–55s. The sharpest drop has been among men aged 60 to 64, where employment fell from 83 per cent. to 54 per cent. between 1971 and 1985. There are some good reasons for this decline such as improved occupational pension schemes, with provsion for early retirement. Above all, until recently, it was seen as an act of social and moral generosity to give up one's job and retire early so as to create a vacancy for a young person or even a school leaver.
  All that has changed rapidly. Because of the succeess of the Government's economic and industrial policies, unemployment is falling fast. The overtime in manufacturing industry last month, at 14·8 million hours per week, was the highest since January 1980.
  An even greater problem facing the nation is the decline in the birth rate after the boom of the 1960s. In the 1980s there were 4·7 million 17 to 21-year-olds. By 1995–96, that figure will fall by 3·4 million, a drop of 1·3 million, bringing that age group down from 8·4 per cent. to 5·4 per
  1000
  cent. of the total population. In its evidence to the Employment Select Committee, the CBI forecast that the percentage of men and women within 10 years of retirement, who made up 28·7 per cent. of the work force in 1987, will rise to 31·2 per cent. by 1995.
  According to the rules of the House, a private Member's Bill may not amend taxation, but I must express the hope that, in his Budget, the Chancellor will honour our long-standing pledge to abolish the earnings limit for pensioners. About £85 million in lost revenue, to allow pensioners to earn, and to keep their pension, would remove a long-running sore affecting those among the nation's "grey power" who have the energy and the inclination to continue to work. This measure, coupled with raising the level at which people commence paying national insurance contributions from £43 to £55 a week, would not only be a natural adjunct to my Bill but, remarkably, would leave the Treasury £5 million better off.
  Grey power is the force of the future. For far too long the country has lacked an understanding of the rich, untapped reservoir in the over-40s. Older employees are often grateful for job opportunities. They bring stability, experience, loyalty and dedication. What they do not bring are baby problems, boyfriend problems or girlfriend problems. Very often, they are halfway through their mortgage repayments, so financial pressures do not make them conscious of the next pay rise. They act as a stabilising influence and have highly defined ideas and ideals about customer service, customer satisfaction, employee loyalty and a conscientious approach to all their duties. In London, we have all had experience of the shop assistant who is too busy varnishing her nails or telling her chum who she danced with last night to find time to serve paying customers. We have all experienced the surly, monosyllabic young man who greets all customers with, "Yeah, what yer want?".
  This Bill is Parliament's answer to Phyllosan. It will prevent age discrimination in employment and ensure that all employees and job applicants are only as old as they feel and not as old as they are made to feel—and feel unwanted at that. Like Phyllosan, the Bill will "fortify the over-40s". It will free the over-40s, the over-50s and the over-60s to continue to work for their benefit and for the benefit of our nation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Tony Favell, and Mrs. Maureen Hicks.

  EMPLOYMENT AGE DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. Barry Field accordingly presented a Bill to abolish age discrimination in employment: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 March and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order., Mr. Speaker, I have an important point of order to raise on this Bill because, clearly, a large number of hon. Members have a vested interest in it. I would like your ruling that people in the 40, 50, 60 and 70 age range—because of that vested interest and the direct pecuniary interest raised by the Bill—will not be prevented from voting on it, since that would give it no chance at all.
  Mr. Speaker: The Bill was not opposed and we did not have a vote on it.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL
  (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Resolved,
  That the Report [21 February] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in its resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) and agreed to.
  Following is the report of the Business Committee:
  That—

  (1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be as shown in the Table set out below;

  (2) on the allotted day given under the Order [13th February] to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading each part of the proceedings shall, subject to the provisions of that Order, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  New Clause No. 1 (Authorised publication) Amendment No. 9

  5 pm

  New Clause No. 2 (Public interest defence), Amendments 8, 1 to 7 and 13

  6.30 pm

  Amendment 10

  7.15 pm

  New Clause No. 3 (Protection of personal information), Amendments 11 and 12, remaining proceedings on consideration

  8 pm

  Third Reading

  10 pm

Orders of the Day

  Official Secrets Bill
  [ALLOTTED DAY]
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Bill, as amended, to be considered.
  The first new clause to be debated is new clause No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just read out "Bill, as amended". Is there an amended reprinted version of the Bill, because nothing is available in the Vote Office?
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that one word was changed.
  Mr. Rooker: Therefore, the Bill we are considering is not "as amended". A version of the Official Secrets Bill, which has been passed by the Committee of this House, is not available for hon. Members to consider on Report. That is a consequence of the guillotine. If a Bill is not available—it does not matter whether the alteration is one word, one paragraph, or one clause—you have no right, Mr. Speaker, to put to the House that we carry on with these proceedings today.
  Mr. Speaker: The Bill is available at the Table. I understand that this is the authoritative copy.
  Mr. Rooker: Where is ours? There is nothing available for hon. Members. You, Mr. Speaker, are a Member. There is nothing available for hon. Members. Are we expected to debate and vote on a Bill which is not actually before us? We would not allow that in local government or anywhere else. There is no urgency. The Bill does not have to be debated today. We have no right to pass legislation that is not before the House. You cannot ask us to rely on a copy that the Clerk has on the Table. Are we supposed to queue up in rota and pass it around the House?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I move that the House stand adjourned.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Business Committee discussed the timetable. That was agreed and the matter was not raised there.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter was never before the Business Committee. The only question discussed at that Business Committee was the timetable for the proceedings on the remaining stages of the Bill. The question whether the Bill, as amended, would be available for hon. Members was not raised. In fairness, that matter was not raised by the Opposition or by the Government. The assumption was, of course, that the Bill would be available to hon. Members.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Business Committee report, which the House has accepted on the nod, as it were, does not contain any reference to the alteration. You mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the Business Committee report, but there is no reference in that report to the alteration to the Bill. Therefore, even using the two

  1003
  documents—the unaltered Bill and the Business Committee report—would not provide hon. Members with the necessary documentation. I should have thought that it would be a breach of Standing Orders for you, Mr. Speaker, to submit to the House the Bill, as amended, when clearly it is not available as amended. It may appear a relatively small matter, but there is an important principle. We deal with important legislation. When legislation passes through the House, it applies to every citizen. Surely we must set standards of conduct which are above every possible criticism. Omitting a word can be extremely serious, and the House should accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to adjourn until printed copies are available for every hon. Member.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am conscious that in your intitial response you said that you had been informed that there had been only one word altered in the Bill. I want to submit to you the importance of that. It would be intolerable were a situation to arise where you had to judge whether the difference between the Bill presented to Committee and the Bill coming out of Committee were a significant one. With respect, it is neither for you, Mr. Speaker, nor for anyone else to decide whether an amendment is important. It is for the House to work on the assumption that all amendments have some significance and, therefore, that the Bill will have been changed substantially by any amendment, which I believe is comparatively true in this case.
  We are suffering the problem of having not a guillotine, but an absurdly rushed one. Last week we had two consecutive days of discussion under the guillotine and we have moved on to Report and Third Reading within a week of the Committee stage being completed. That is an affront to the House and it makes the whole operation appear to be demonstrably as shabby and second-rate as it will be if the Government persist in going on with it under the circumstances.
  I note that the Leader of the House is here and I hope that he will listen—
  Mr. Skinner: He is not bothered.
  Mr. Hattersley: I wonder whether the Home Secretary could draw the Leader of the House's attention to the fact that we are discussing matters directly relevant to him. The Leader of the House should know that the House is now put in an intolerable position. If we pursue this issue of principle and procedure we shall cut into the time allowed for the Bill to be debated on Report. If the Leader of the House appreciates the importance of the discussion that will now take place it is possible for him to assure us that at 10 o'clock or at some other time he will add on however long this procedure discussion takes, so that we do not lose any of the extremely limited time we have for Report and Third Reading.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen:: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are legislating for a generation; we are not legislating for the next five years. The question is whether the Bill will have the authority and legitimacy that will be necessary if prosecutions are to succeed in front of juries. Any juryman who saw our proceedings now would not feel the proper sense of respect and authority that the law-making process
  1004
  should have. Nothing will be damaged if we delay consideration of the Bill for another week or fortnight. I suggest that those who wish to protect our proceedings and wish to give proper delay and solemnity to the
  consideration of the Bill will be helping the Government and future Governments to secure that authority which, currently, the Bill lacks.
  Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even if this were a relatively minor piece of proposed legislation, I would argue, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Rooker), that the principle remains the same. You should also bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this is an extremely controversial Bill and you are aware that it has been much contested. That is all the more reason why the documents that we have before us on Report should be accurate.
  I hope that I can secure the Home Secretary's attention, as the Government have made much about the rule of law, but I submit that the rule of Parliament is also important and relevant. We are expected to debate on Report a controversial Bill which, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, is likely to stay on the statute book for many years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr has already explained to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is defective. Therefore, it would be wrong to proceed on Report to discuss it, especially as there is no urgency for it, for all the reasons that you know, Mr. Speaker. In those circumstances I hope that you will agree to reflect on the matter, as it would be wrong for us to proceed on this basis.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The suspense is killing us—what is the one word that has been changed, or is that an official secret?
  Mr. Speaker: It might be helpful to know that. It is not infrequent, when a Bill has been amended by a change of word, as in this case, for the whole Bill not to be reprinted. It might be for the convenience of the House if I say that the change in Committee was made to clause 2(2)(a) on page 2 when
  "prejudices the capability of"
  was changed to
  "damages the capability or
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member
  for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), Standing Order No. 69 refers to the report of a Bill from Committee to the whole House and states:
  "At the close of the proceedings of a committee of the whole House on a bill, the chairman shall report the bill forthwith to the House, and when amendments shall have been made thereto, a day shall be appointed for taking the bill as amended into consideration".
  That has not occurred. The Government have been exceedingly sloppy about this affair and they have been caught out by the Opposition. As you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, it is not your job to support the Executive when they have made mistakes. They have obviously made an error, and in view of that I believe that the motion that I originally put, namely that the debate stand adjourned until further notice, should apply.
  4 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the House knows the scale of the single word to which we refer, it is clear that it is not a minor matter, but a matter on which there was considerable discussion in Committee. The Government sought to claim that they were making a big concession by agreeing to the alteration of that word. Having made that big concession with which they were seeking to curry favour, for them to come before the House without having bothered to change the Bill is an important issue. The only proper way for the matter to be dealt with is for the debate to be adjourned.
  The Leader of the House has been present, but has not said anything. As the person responsible for the situation, he should ask for the House to be adjourned. As everyone has said, it is perfectly possible for the Bill to be discussed next week or the week after without any damage to the discussion. It would inconvenience only the Government, and the Government have inconvenienced us by producing a defective Bill. I appeal to the Leader of the House to get you out of the scrape, Mr. Speaker, as these are points of order for you, by admitting the folly of the Government and agreeing to withdraw the Bill until another day.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you say who is responsible for ensuring that that amendment is made to the Bill before the House considers the amended Bill on Report? Am I right in believing that, far from its being the responsibility of the Government, it is the responsibility of the authorities of the House and that Opposition Members who are saying that the Bill should not proceed today are attacking the authorities of the House, and the matter has nothing whatever to do with the Government?
  Mr. Speaker: The authorities of the House have carried out the normal practice. As I have already stated, when very minor amendments have been made to a Bill it has not been the practice for the entire Bill to be reprinted.
  Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you said inadvertently that it was a minor amendment, and that on reflection you would agree that it is a significant matter. It is not the case of an "and" or "if" being missed out in an earlier drafting and then reinserted. The amendment goes to the core of the Bill.
  We had a major debate, and it is still in contention that the word "damage" is insufficient and should be prefaced by the word "seriously". Far from its being minor, it is a significant amendment. We all understand how the error has occurred, but whether it is the responsibility of the Government or the authorities of the House, the ultimate responsiblity must lie with the Leader of the House.
  The Leader of the House faces the clear fact that the Bill is now not in order. It is not "as amended". Were this normal legislation, there would be agreement on both sides of the House not to push the point in a pedantic way, but the Bill is deeply offensive to many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having discussed an important issue on which the full procedures of the House have not been fulfilled, and having faced a guillotine motion on a constitutional Bill of great significance, surely
  1006
  the House is within its rights in demanding that the Bill is not proceeded with today and is brought back at another time.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You explained to the House most helpfully that the Bill as originally presented has been amended by the change of one word on page 2—[Interruption.]—it would be more courteous and helpful to the House if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) allowed me to complete my sentence. Therefore, since the Bill was published and since Second Reading, the Bill has been altered by one word. As I understand it, you, Mr. Speaker, outlined the normal practice on occasions when such a minor alteration is made. It has nothing to do with the substance of the alteration, but involves the number of words that are altered. One word has been altered and it is the normal custom of the House to continue with proceedings on the Bill without reprinting it. I believe that we should continue the normal procedures of the House and get on with considering the Bill. There are important issues to be discussed and I believe that we should not delay any longer.
  Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House is correct. Perhaps I should correct what I said about its being a minor amendment. I am not concerned with the importance of the word, which I accept is a major issue. The amendment is minor in that it alters only one word.
  We passed the timetable motion a few moments ago and we are now in timetable time. It would be wise if the House were to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that, apart from the Leader of the House, not one right hon. or hon. Member who has spoken has not expressed concern about the situation. I reflect my own concern about biting into the time allowed by the guillotine. Might I suggest that it is a House of Commons matter. Right hon. and hon Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern, and the way to resolve it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) so that the House can decide whether it wishes to proceed and then we can get on with the timetable and the other issues.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not able to accept a dilatory motion at that stage. I quote the motion passed by the House on 13 February:
  "No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill should be made on an allotted day, except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith."
  I am not empowered to accept the dilatory motion. The House is in some difficulty. Technically, the Bill should have been reprinted, but, as I have already said, when amendments of a minor kind, in terms of the number of words, have been made in the past, it has always been the practice not to have the Bill reprinted.
  Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might not the simple answer to the problem be for you to accept a manuscript amendment to the Bill so that we can debate it?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that we should proceed now.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that there is a question whether there is a Bill that has been amended for the House to debate. If the Bill has not been printed, it is at least arguable, in the light of the Standing Order that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) read out, that we are not in a position to debate the Bill. We were advised that such a Bill would appear before us, but it has also been said that the amendment is minor in terms of the number of words, but it is a major issue in that there is no debate on Report if that amendment has not been passed. As that amendment is the sole change that has been made, the Bill should have passed straight to another place. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a Bill that we can debate today.
  Mr. Speaker: The Committee reported some days ago, the Bill at the Table is the authentic text.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in some difficulty because we are really on the timetable motion. I shall hear the points of order, but they are taking time out of the debate.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that all those who had spoken were opposed to the Bill proceeding. That is simply because the rest of us were quite satisfied to proceed, so we did not bother speaking.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What seems to me to be most iniquitous is that many of us have been prevented from taking part in a serious discussion which is novel to many right hon. and hon. Members. No one doubts that the points of order are serious, but we are aware of immediacy of the guillotine—never has that word been so precise as it is today—so we are nervous about raising points of order on what everyone understands is a serious matter. I ask for your guidance and consideration, Mr. Speaker. When such discussions legitimately occur, should there not be some mechanism by which the time lost through points of order is made available for debating the Bill, or it will be impossible to raise points of order?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not something over which I have control. That would be a matter for the usual channels, which would be the best way of dealing with it.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appears that the guillotine motion refers to a "Bill". The argument is that at the moment there is no such Bill before the House. If there is no such Bill before the House, the guillotine motion cannot apply and, therefore, you can accept a dilatory motion. I should like your ruling on that.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. The Bill is on the Table.
  Mr. Dobson: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman. There is only one Bill, which is the Bill on the Table. The Bills available in the Vote Office are copies of that Bill.
  Mr. Dobson: We do not have access to that Bill, which contains the change that we consider to be significant and
  1008
  substantial and a material alteration of the nature of the Bill and the requirements in it. In those circumstances, such a Bill is not before the House in the way that it should be under the guillotine motion and, therefore, the guillotine motion cannot apply and you, Mr. Speaker, should be able to accept a dilatory motion.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter could be settled easily if you could quote a precedent, which I am sure is available, for such a set of circumstances. You said that it is common practice, but I am not sure that many right hon. and hon. Members know about that. If you are able to quote a precedent, I am sure that the matter could be settled immediately.
  Mr. Speaker: I should need notice of that.
  Mr. Rooker: Further to the point of order Mr. Speaker. I am raising this point only because, while listening to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) move his ten-minute Bill, I started to look at the amendments in detail. It suddenly dawned on me that I had only the marked copy of the Bill that I used last week and I thought the Bill had been reprinted. I went to the Vote Office and the clerk kindly looked for the new Bill at least three times because I told him that the Bill must have been reprinted because it contained an alteration.
  I was reluctant to raise a point of order because of the guillotine motion. However, I realise that we are discussing a Bill that is not before us so I do not see why I or anybody else should hesitate.
  You might argue, Mr. Speaker—and the Clerks would agree—that we have passed the motion for the allocation of time and the Business Committee motion. The Business Committee motion makes no mention of the fact that the Bill to which the timetable applies is not printed and before the House. The second motion on the Order Paper says:
  "Official Secrets Bill [allotted day]: As amended, to be considered."
  When you read out that motion, Mr. Speaker, I interrupted you, because I wished to challenge the words
  "as amended, to be considered."
  The House should decide whether we wish so to consider. There is no motion for us to approve which says that, "Notwithstanding the requirements of Standing Orders of the House that the Bill shall be printed and before the House, the House agrees to carry on." If there is a majority in favour of that, there is nothing the minority can do. We are demanding the right to decide—the right to lose—whether to continue in this unconstitutional way.
  Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question of a dilatory motion is covered in Standing Order No. 34(2). You, Mr. Speaker, said that you were not entitled to accept a dilatory motion under the terms of the guillotine motion. Hon. Members are saying that the copies of the Bill as presented do not conform to the requirements of the guillotine motion and that the Bill should be rejected. Under those circumstances, you would be able to accept a motion "That the Question be now put", because that is not within the terms of Standing Order No. 34(2), which lists dilatory actions as motions, for example, for the Adjournment of the House or debate, or for the Chair of a Committee such as yourself, Mr. Speaker, to report progress.
  We have a solution if you, Mr. Speaker, can accept a motion, "That the Question be now put". The copies of the

  1009
  Bill are not adequate because they do not represent the guillotine motion that has been put before the House. That excludes the terms of the guillotine motion which you say inhibits you from accepting the motion for the Adjournment of the House proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I should have thought that that would have been of help to you.
  From both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, you have heard concerns expressed by hon. Members who feel that the debate should not take place. Hon. Members should be provided with an opportunity to vote, because it would be outrageous for the Government to ignore what, to most hon. Members, is a clear error by them and simply bulldoze the error through the House and use their majority to trample on the rights of Members of Parliament. Surely we should have an opportunity for a vote.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I can probably save the time of the House. There is no motion before the House now. We have passed the timetable motion and I was about to propose the new clause, which would be a motion before the House.
  Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might I suggest that you invite my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to explain in practical terms what would be lost if the matter were delayed for a week or a fortnight? It is all very well for him to say that in his opinion the technicalities are in order and that as practical people we should disregard a technical difficulty in the Bill as it now stands.
  This legislation for a generation has been bashed through on the guillotine. If we delayed a little longer it would provide time for the proper procedural measures to be taken and would give the public an opportunity to reflect on the Bill. They cannot do that if there is not sufficient time between the various stages. Surely my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can explain to the House and to those of us who usually support him whether anything serious would happen if we were to delay for a week or a fortnight.
  Mr. Wakeham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I should say that when I spoke earlier—my hon. Friend may not have been listening—I supported your ruling that things are proceeding in order and in accordance with our custom. If the House believes that our long-established customs for the way in which we proceed are not satisfactory and should be looked at, we can arrange for the Procedure Committee to look at that to see whether changes should be made. However, as I understand it, we are proceeding in accordance with the established procedures of the House and we should get on with it.
  Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Leader of the House has just said is grossly misleading. If we proceed on the basis on which the
  1010
  Government have presented the Bill to the House today, the Bill will go to another place in this defective form. It is not merely a question of what has happened here.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I can probably help the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill will not go to another place in that form because the alteration is in the Bill.
  Mr. Foot: The change has not been made in the Bill before the House. Therefore, what the Leader of the House has proposed in not a remedy. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no fault on the part of the Government in bringing a defective Bill before us adds to the offence. It certainly does not ease the problems.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me try to deal with the matter. The Bill contains the alteration. The alteration is not made in the copies of the Bill. That is the factual position.
  Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have sympathy with the arguments expressed by Opposition Members. However, can you advise me whether in supporting them I am challenging your ruling, which I would not wish to do, or whether I am merely challenging the Government, which I would be prepared to do?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman would be challenging a ruling that I had made. I repeat to the House that this has been our custom for many years. When a small alteration, in terms of words, is made, it has not been our custom and practice to reprint the copies of the Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and myself, when we were talking about a vote on the matter, that there were some difficulties. I am sure that you appreciate that it is possible for the Question not to be put. Only a few Fridays ago, you dealt with a matter by saying that the Question, That the Question be not now put—complicated though it is—can be put to the House. The Leader of the House is present and it is quite possible for that Question to be put. I suggest, notwithstanding other advice, that as we have had a recent example and as there was another example when such a matter arose in 1985, it is possible for the Question, That the Question be not now put, to be proceeded with. If we lose the vote, so be it, for it will show that this bulldozing Government have had their way again, notwithstanding the fact that they have not even printed the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: On that Friday, there was a Question before the House. At the moment, there is not. We have only about 40 minutes left, so we should proceed.
  Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What we are concerned about—and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) clearly shares this concern—is whether there is a precedent for a significant change to be made to a Bill and then for the Bill not to be reprinted if it is subject to a guillotine motion. On precedents, we should like to know how many words would need to be amended and what significance they would need to carry before the precedent would not be binding. We find it difficult to imagine that, whereas it is possible to have a substantial number of minor changes to which no hon. Members would take offence and which

  1011
  they would be willing to nod through, the proposal before us is a substantial change which has been the subject of considerable argument and is likely to be the subject of further argument. What are the precedents that bind you, Mr. Speaker, to make the ruling that you are making today?
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the question of precedents is important and I had the impression that you intended to brush my point aside. We do guide our affairs by precedent. I wonder whether in the interval since I asked my first question the authorities of the House have been able to find a precedent because that would assist the House. I hope that we shall hear, sooner or later, of the precedents that are guiding you.
  Mr. Speaker: Going hack to the days when I had different responsibilities, I can say that it has, for many years, been our custom and practice to operate in this way. It is nothing new. I do not have the precedents to hand immediately, but they are being looked up now.
  Mr. Adley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given the impression that between Committee and Report a Bill is not normally reprinted. Surely it is normally reprinted with the changes made. Am I not right in thinking that it has not been reprinted on this occasion because we had a Committee of the whole House and because there simply was not time?
  Mr. Speaker: Those are not the reasons. Sensibly, the issue was to do with the costs of reprinting.
  Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not given the House his guidance on the question of the time between Committee and Report. It is, of course, true that, with their vast majority, the Government have steamrollered all hon. Members who disagree with them on this non-party Bill and there is no doubt that that is their privilege. But surely the purpose of delay between Committee and Report is to allow the public as a whole to write to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say, "Mr. Hurd, we notice that in your arguments with those disagreeable Tory rebels you managed to squash them on every occasion with your large and honourable, but ignorant, vote. But, as a matter of fact, I think you lost the argument on some of those issues." If one does not have a sufficient delay between Committee and Report, one cannot have any proper public interest and comment on these matters. That is just another example of the damaging effects of bashing through such legislation in a hurry and with a guillotine.
  Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree, irrespective of your rulings, that this has been a wholly legitimate series of points of order. But I hope you also agree that the House has been put in an intolerable situation. We have virtually lost the debate which would have been initiated by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). [Interruption.] It is no good for the Patronage Secretary to say "Hear, hear." He is responsible for the confusion and I have no doubt that he welcomed it, as the Government's technique throughout the Bill has been to postpone and avoid as much debate as possible.
  1012
  I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for another ruling, which does not simply concern the availability of the Bill. You make your judgments on precedent, not on custom and practice—which are what the Prime Minister is determined to stamp out in British employment. I hope that you will tell us how many words amount to a significant alteration. Is it one, five, 11, 27, or whatever number there happens to be when the appropriate Secretary of State has forgotten to make a reprint?
  My principal point is that I hope that the Leader of the House will be agreeable to another procedure, which I put to him through you, Mr. Speaker. It would be intolerable to the House and to the Leader of the House if the first crucial debate were to be extinguished. The Business Committee should be asked to sit again and agree to extend the debate simply by the amount of time that we have spent on legitimate points of order. If the Leader of the House will not agree to do that, he will not make the slightest concession to the wholly legitimate views of the House and the wish to conduct the debate in good order and with proper, democratic discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion. We should now get on with the debate. If the usual channels were to discuss how we may get out of this considerable difficulty, the whole House would be satisfied.
  Mr. Wakeham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am perfectly content that we should have discussions through the usual channels.
  Mr. Speaker: In that case, we shall proceed with the debate on new clause 1.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your advice. Page 4 of the Bill refers to the "Security Service Act 1988". There is, of course, no such Security Service Act of that year, so the Bill is clearly incorrect. I assume that it was a slip and I wonder whether a Bill is in good faith when there is no such Act.
  Mr. Speaker: It is entirely correct. I think we must get on. New clause No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9. Mr. Aitken—
  Mr. Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not understand your ruling that it is correct that there is a Security Service Act of 1988. There is no such Act.
  Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman please say that again?
  Mr. Shepherd: I understand from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that there is a Security Service Act 1988. There is no such Act. It was only discussed this year, it is still a B:11 and it has not yet gone to the House of Lords.
  Mr. Speaker: The date refers to the year in which the Bill was presented. That is another drafting convention.
  Mr. Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is intolerable that the Bill refers to an Act that does not exist. We are told that that is no drafting mistake, but an amendment was tabled—[Interruption.] There can be no Security Service Act 1988 because no such Act was passed in 1988. An amendment was tabled to correct that, but the Government would not accept it and the correction

  1013
  does not appear in the Bill. Therefore, we are trying to legislate or to make judgments on a Bill which is misprinted and which refers to an Act that does not exist.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that this is always the practice. The Bill was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 30 November 1988.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is not an Act. The point is that the Bill refers to the Security Service Act 1988, but there is no such Act.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were to discuss this with the experts at the Table, he would probably be able to get an answer.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Eric S. Helfer rose—
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have already spent half an hour on this and the Leader of the House has made a helpful suggestion, which would be for the convenience of the whole House. He is prepared to discuss this through the usual channels.
  Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough to say that my suggestion that the Business Committee should meet would be helpful and now you have described the Leader of the House as helpful. The only way in which the House could be helped would be if the Leader of the House agrees to an immediate meeting of the Business Committee—the first vote should come in 30 minutes. If the House is to be treated sensibly and with respect, the Leader of the House should say now that he is prepared to have a Business Committee meeting so that we may regain the 45 minutes that you, at least, believe has been spent on legitimate points of order. I ask the Leader of the House now to say that he will have an immediate meeting with the Business Committee so that the lost time can be regained.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Amery.
  Mr. Julian Amery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I urge the Leader of the House to take those points seriously? The new clause that I hope to move if the Bill is, by your ruling, still in order is of considerable importance. It is an issue of principle. I do not think that we would even be discussing the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1911 had it not been for a dispute about the principle on which the authorisation for publicaton could be given.
  We have had the unusual occurrence in the House that assurances given—in good faith, I know—by the Minister of State, Home Department have apparently been repudiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so that what stands in the Official Report at the moment may or may not still have validity. If it has not, we must have an explanation of why that is so. I do not see how, under the timetable motion, it would make sense for
  1014
  myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, indeed, hon. Members of all parties who share my view—to try to discuss the new clause.
  Mr. Budgen: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that it would not be useful to have a discussion between the usual channels while the House continues its discussion of the Bill? The fact is that the most sustained criticism of the Bill has come from Conservative Benches so it would be unwise for the Chief Whip to pretend that he represents the views of Conservative Members who disagree with the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) disagrees with an important part of the Bill and it would be wrong for his objection to be disregarded because of some private discussion between the Chief Whips. If the House were to rise for even half an hour or three quarters of an hour, all hon. Members who are genuinely interested could discuss the matter. However, if the Chief Whips get together, they may do a deal that they cannot honour.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Wakeham: We are getting ourselves into some difficulties. I respond to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who wishes to know what can be done to reallocate time and to make the best use of it so that we can have the best discussions. I sympathise totally with that proposition. I suggest that if the House gets on with the first amendment on the Amendment Paper—new clause 1—I can immediately have discussions through the usual channels to decide the best way to proceed. If the best way to proceed is to call a meeting of the Business Committee, I shall favour that, but I want to have discussions about the best way to deal with the difficulties. We should not be told what the answer is before we put the question.
  Mr. Hattersley: The Leader of the House must understand that what he is proposing is not a solution. By the time the usual channels—whatever they may be—have met and had their discussions we shall be into our first vote and the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) will not have had the chance to move his new clause in the manner that it justifies.
  I remind the Leader of the House that he need not be so fearful. He has a majority on the Business Committee and if the Committee meets, the Government's will will prevail. My proposition has the implicit suggestion that the Government's majority on that Committee will behave reasonably. Therefore, I ask him again to agree that it should meet. It could meet in five or ten minutes' time and return to the House with a new motion which, I am sure, will be carried unanimously. The right hon. Member for Pavilion can then move his new clause properly and in the way in which it deserves and the whole House can proceed in good order.
  Mr. Amery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for raising this again. I do not think that the House would find it acceptable if this controversial new clause, which is, I know, embarrassing to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, were to be dismissed in a matter of 20 minutes. If we are to proceed, which is of course a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide, it is

  1015
  necessary that the new clause that I wish to move be given adequate time. Even under the timetable motion, that time is not adequate.
  Mr. Wakeham: My proposal would be that we change the times when the guillotine will fall to make up for the time that has been lost in the first debate. If we start the first debate, we can meet and settle this in a few minutes. That is what I propose we do.
  Mr. Heller rose—
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a sensible suggestion.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order in a moment. I am on my feet and the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I have just said that what the Leader of the House has said seems a reasonable solution aimed at getting the House out of the difficulty in which it finds itself.
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Heffer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been trying for long enough. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have the power to suspend the sitting while the meeting takes place. I suggest that, because you have that power and because we are getting near to five o'clock when the first guillotine will fall and we cannot have a proper discussion, you suspend the House while the discussion takes place and then report back to the House so that we can then proceed.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no point in that. As the Leader of the House has already said what he will do about this, the discussions would simply be wasting further time.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Dobson.
  Mr. Dobson: It appears that the Government Front Bench may be willing to adjust the later business, and obviously we welcome that. However, if the Government were to move a dilatory motion that we adjourn for 10 minutes, which they have the power to do under the guillotine motion, it would be possible to have a seemly and sensible discussion of the Business Committee at which all members of the Business Committee could be present, and it would enable the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to know that he could have a debate for a reasonable time without being cut off in mid-sentence, and we would know that a Minister would eventually reply to the debate.
  The proposition of the Leader of the House is rather ragged and we could end up with a mess at the end of the discussion in the Business Committee. It would be altogether more sensible and seemly if the House were to adjourn for 10 minutes so that agreement could be reached in the Business Committee and the debate conducted in the way in which it should have been conducted all along.
  Mr. Riddick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you say whether any of our proceedings this
  1016
  afternoon are out of order, because it seems to me that everything is in order? The Bill, as amended, is on the Table and the Leader of the House has come up with a sensible and reasonable suggestion. Those who are riot prepared to take it are clearly trying to make mischief.
  Mr. Wakeham: If it is correct that I can move a dilatory motion—I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before I do anything—in my view it probably is the best plan if we adjourn for 10 minutes, see whether we can resolve the matter and then return.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is the wish of hon. Members that the House should suspend informally for 10 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—so be it.
  4.40 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  On resuming:—
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Speaker: The Business Committee recommends that the time set out in the Table of Proceedings be advanced by one hour, so that the first guillotine will fall at six o'clock, the second at 7.30 pm, the third at 8.15 pm, and the fourth at 9 pm. Third Reading will be concluded at 10 pm.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That this House doth agree with the Business Committee in the said resolution.
  Mr. Hattersley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not propose postponing debate on the amendment of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), since the purpose of the operation that has been successfully carried out in the last hour is to give his amendment the opportunity that it deserves. However, I place on record that, while we hoped and believed that the Business Committee would provide that which the House wanted and deserved, it has insisted that the debate concludes at 10 o'clock. Therefore, the House has lost one hour of debate because of the Government's intransigence and incompetence. I do not believe that the House would have been incapable of making an adjustment to the Ten o'clock motion, had that been the will of the Leader of the House, and had the House endorsed it. Instead, the debase has been scandalously guillotined, which is another example of the excesses for which the Government are responsible.
  Mr. Speaker: I believe that the House should proceed with the debate.
  Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remind you of my suggestion that if the two Chief Whips got together it would be for the purpose of screwing down Conservative opposition to the Bill. Many right hon. and hon. Members who voted for its Second Reading will wish to express their reservation about the way in which matters have been dealt with throughout the guillotine procedures. We would have had the opportunity to do so on Third Reading, but, as a result of the agreement reached between the two Chief Whips, many right hon. and hon. Members will be prevented from doing so. That is another example of the way in which discussion and dissent is being limited by the guillotine, and of the

  1017
  actions taken by members of the Government and Opposition Front Benches, getting together to keep the awkward squad out.
  Mr. Wakeham: I wish to proceed with debate as much as you do, Mr. Speaker, but I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the Business Committee did not have the power to extend the Third Reading vote beyond 10 o'clock, as that was in the guillotine passed by the House. The Business Committee had power to adjust earlier guillotines to the convenience of the House, and it did so unanimously. However, it did not have the power to do that which the right hon. Gentleman suggested.

New Clause 1

  AUTHORISED PUBLICATION
  `(1) A person who has been a member of the security and intelligence services may with the consent of the Secretary of State publish information relating to his former work.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall not unreasonably withhold his consent under subsection (1) above provided that the publication can take place without causing or being likely to cause jeopardy to national security directly or indirectly or to cause damage to the work of or any part of the security and intelligence services.
  (3) Where a person who has been a member of the security and intelligence services believes that the consent of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above has been unreasonably withheld he may seek the advice of the Staff Counsellor to the Security Services.
  (4) Where the advice of the Staff Counsellor has been sought under subsection (3) above and where it appears to the Staff Counsellor that by omitting specified information the publication could take place without causing or being likely to cause any of the effects in subsection (2) above he shall advise the Secretary of State of his omissions or alterations which in his opinion would be required for this purpose.'.
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 9, in clause 4, page 4, line 45, at end insert
  '(4A) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (3) above if:

  (a) before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had become widely available to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and

  (b) there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would endanger the safety of a British citizen, or damage the work of any part of the security or intelligence services or have any of the effects mentioned in subsection (2) above.'.

  Mr. Amery: I begin by expressing gratitude to those right hon. and hon. Members who earlier raised points of order and, as a result, ensured a rather larger attendance to hear the points to which I wish to draw attention.
  The new clause concerns authorisation for publication of memoirs, articles, or whatever, by former or existing members of the security services or those privy to that information, and the basis on which it should be authorised. I do not suppose that there are 50 or 60 people today in a queue to publish their memoirs, but right hon. and hon. Members may agree that the House would not be discussing reforming the Official Secrets Act 1911 had it not been for the case of "Spycatcher" and Mr. Peter
  1018
  Wright. The need for reform has been discussed for years, but that case was the fuse that led to the present explosion and debate.
  Before "Spycatcher" and Peter Wright, there was a well understood convention by which members of the secret services who wished to write about their experiences submitted their text to the authorities, who discussed the text with the author and proposed amendments or deletion of names where that was thought necessary in the national interest. That procedure was well understood, and I know dozens of people who followed it with little difficulty. The authorities made objections only on reasonable grounds, and deletions followed in almost every case. If someone had not been prepared to make the requested changes, he or she would have been liable for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911.
  When the cases of Mr. Peter Wright and Anthony Cavendish arose, a new principle of lifelong confidentiality was advanced, and instead of discussion of the text, the authors were simply told by the authorities "We cannot talk about it because of your obligation to observe lifelong confidentiality". My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is the only person who can confirm the claim made by Mr. Wright's lawyers that a text of "Spycatcher" was submitted, but I know from Mr. Cavendish and his publishers that they submitted a text. In both cases, the reply was given, "Sorry. We cannot discuss the matter because of the principle of your obligation to lifelong confidentiality".
  On Second Reading, I advanced as mildly as I could the argument for returning to the older and good-natured convention that previously prevailed. To my surprise—because in my 40 years in the House such a thing had never happened to me—a Minister agreed to a proposal that was put to him by a right hon. or hon. Member. My hon. Friend gave me the assurances I sought in great detail. I shall quote only one passage. In the presence of all of us my hon. Friend said:
  "So the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments.
  If a point of difficulty were to be identified it might still be possible through discussion to agree with the author a change in the text to overcome the problem."
  A little later my hon. Friend said:
  "If the problem is larger than just a few minor textual changes or if agreement cannot be reached, sometimes authorisation will not be given. My right hon. Friend"—
  that was me—
  "will understand that authorisation cannot be given on every occasion but I can assure him that this decision would never be taken by one person alone, but by senior members."— [Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 538.]
  5 pm
  I had occasion to write to my right hon. Friend about other points that I had raised in the debate and to which my right hon. Friend, naturally, had not had time to reply. When my right hon. Friend replied he said:
  "I must emphasise that authorisation to members or former members in respect of disclosures of information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."
  As I told my right hon. Friend, I do not see how we can reconcile the statements made by my hon. Friend in the

  1019
  House and by my right hon. Friend in his letter to me. The second statement was just in a letter to me; the House had not been told.
  However, my right hon. Friend has said that a correction was made earlier in Committee. So I searched, with the help of some of my hon. Friends, through Hansard. It is true that in the dinner hour on 25 January, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, rather surprisingly:
  "I have little to add to what I said on Second Reading. It will not come as any surprise to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1104.]
  Clearly, what happened was that, in the cold light of day, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend, having studied the assurances which they had given me, and which were so satisfactory that I almost ran into the Division Lobby to support the Government, saw that their assurances were not compatible with the principle of lifelong confidentiality, on which they had wasted a great deal of public money in the Wright case and rather less in the Cavendish case, and which was fundamental to the Bill. So they have been trying to get out of what they said.
  What is to be done? We cannot square the assurances given by my hon. Friend with the statements in Committee and later by my right hon. Friend in his letter to me. The statements cannot be reconciled. What are we to do? this poses a difficult House of Commons problem. We have assurances. They are enshrined in the tablets of the Official Report. If they wish to go back on them, the Government will have to explain why, and they will have to allow right hon. and hon. Members to discuss the matter. They have to explain whether they have changed their mind. I hope that on reflection my right hon. Friend will say that he still stands by the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. If he wishes to modify them, he should say so.
  I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the new clause. In the clause we are trying to write into the Bill, in view of the uncertainty, the assurances that were given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We have tried to put in textually the assurances that he gave. I do not think that we have departed from them in any respect. The new clause could be amended, of course.
  I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that from the beginning I have been basically on the Government's side. I do not want to see Privy Councillors or a Select Committee determining the conduct of the secret services. Members of the secret services must be under the control of the Executive. Every study that I have made of the American and Canadian systems convinces me that that is right. I point out to my right hon. Friend that the shadow Home Secretary has endorsed the new clause, as has the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who had more direct, if less lengthy, experience of the secret services than I have had, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  I urge my right hon. Friend either to accept the new clause as it stands or to seek to amend it, through a manuscript amendment or in the other place, but not to repudiate totally the assurances given by my hon. Friend. I urge him not to go back to the old position which was wrecked in Australia and has been made a laughing stock
  1020
  elsewhere. If he likes, he can produce a modified version of the assurances given by my hon. Friend which might be acceptable to some of us.
  The point is of importance to the secret services themselves. They have a problem of morale because they work in the dark. No one can tell whether a member of the secret services is succeeding or failing in life. He cannot talk about his work when he goes home at night. Members of the secret services need encouragement. The best encouragement that can be given to them is for them to be able to read from time to time information about what has been done in the past by successful members of the secret services. I have no objection to the information being censored by the authorities concerned who may be more liberal than those who pursued Compton Mackenzie many years ago. He wrote a book, "Water on the Brain", which I commend to all hon. Members. It was a skit on the secret services. I would not want my right hon. Friend and hon. Friend to be the victim of anything like that, although I might attempt to write it if they are not careful.
  Dr. Owen: I support the new clause. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) rightly concentrated on people who have been in the employment at one stage in their career of the security or intelligence services. It is also necessary to consider another category of people in which, I suppose, we all have a vested interest. After all, in clause 1 the person to whom the complete ban applies is not just a member of the security or intelligence services but also, in subsection (l)(b):
  "a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection".
  That would cover all Prime Ministers, all Foreign Secretaries, and all Home Secretaries, to name but a few, who have written memoirs. It would probably involve a number of other Ministers at various times.
  The formulation given to the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading—that authorisation would not be unreasonably withheld and that there would have to be proof that the information would jeopardise national security—was a considerable reassurance to many people. Effectively, it meant that there would have to be some mechanism whereby memoirs could be written about past events.
  I was not privy to the letter that passed between the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman, but I should be appalled if the authorisation were given only in rare or exceptional circumstances. I could understand that phraseology if it applied to only the initial period. We can all argue about when would be an apt time to allow someone to write his memoirs. After all, we are not the only country in the world with security and intelligence services. Other countries have mechanisms whereby people who have written their memoirs can have them checked and processed.
  The new clause sensibly addresses itself to creating a recognised and acceptable method whereby memoirs can be vetted and authorisation is not unreasonably withheld, particularly after the passage of time. Clearly a professional judgment should; be made by—to use the Home Secretary's jargon—somebody "inside the circle", and it is accepted that the staff counsellor is "inside". We are asking not for anyone to come in from outside, but for someone who is privy to all the matters concerned to make a reasonable judgment.

  1021
  An absolute ban—without any qualification—is unacceptable. The Home Secretary may want to accept modifications to the new clause, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Pavilion would accept any minor modifications that were needed. However, in principle, there should be some mechanism to assure the authorisation. Without it, the legislation would make us a laughing stock. Are hon. Members really willing to accept that they could be told that they could not reveal any aspect of their work?
  The former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan did not feel able to give all the information when he wrote his memoirs—although, like most Prime Ministers, he leaked pretty satisfactorily. Clearly when he talked to his biographer he gave far more information. His most recent biography—particularly its account of events in north Africa—has been given more authenticity, and an area of information has been revealed beyond what is in the official records. Should that avenue of information and knowledge be completely stopped without any say-so?
  It may be that writers are no longer Members of the House when their books are issued, and are therefore covered by privilege. Will such writers be abstractly told that their works cannot be published? Will the Home Secretary deal with that category of writer when he replies?
  It would be absurd for a Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary—or other hon. Members—to be affected by the legislation. They should not be made a special case or treated differently from people in the security and intelligence services. I am not asking that politicians should be allowed to make money out of their memoirs while members of the security and intelligence services cannot: the same rule should apply to both. However, it strikes closer to home when hon. Members themselves are affected.
  The severity, arbitrariness and authoritarian nature of the provision becomes more clear cut when we realise that hardly a word of Sir Winston Churchill's wartime memoirs could have been given authorisation under the Bill. It has been acknowledged that he went well beyond the bounds of reason and probably revealed far too much in his memoirs. He certainly did not have them checked. That precedent was followed by many people. I plead guilty to making a number of arbitrary judgments about what it was reasonable to disclose, and I think that it is healthy that we are not bound by provisions. However, I would live with a general mechanism such as that proposed in the new clause.
  I am not asking to be treated differently from anyone else, but the absence of the necessary mechanism in the Bill places intolerable restrictions not only on future hon. Members but on people who work in the security and intelligence services.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Aitken: As the debate has rolled forward I have wondered increasingly, listening to the Government's arguments, whether to cry or to laugh. On the whole, I have decided to do the latter. The burlesque nature of the episode was highlighted by the farce that we witnessed this afternoon over points of order.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Aitken: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary loudly saying, "Hear, hear". I am about to take him on the third act of the comic opera that he has staged for us—the way in which he and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have conducted this part of the argument. They remind me of the famous character of Uncle Podger in Jerome K. Jerome's "Three Men in a Boat." Uncle Podger was a somewhat hamfisted individual who, when asked to perform the simplest task such as hanging a picture or knocking in a nail, produced disastrous results. He smashed the window, cracked the sculpture and created mayhem and chaos as the hammer broke and flew off in the wrong direction.
  Uncle Podger has been at work on this part of the Bill. We need do no more than study exactly what was said about the perfectly sensible argument deployed by my right hon Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). As he reminded us, he first deployed it on Second Reading. Clearly the doctrine of lifelong, eternal, absolute confidentiality, in all circumstances and at all times, cannot stand up to serious examination without sooner or later, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, making those who administer the law a laughing stock. There are hundreds of good reasons for saying that such a doctrine cannot be sustained, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion illustrated on Second Reading. When he tried to discover whether there was any flexibility in the Trappist vows that we were being asked to write into law he received an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State whose words bear repeating once more, that
  "the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments."
  My hon. Friend the Minister went on to make it absolutely clear that the matter would be handled in a reasonable manner and that authorisation would sometimes be given. He ended with the words—in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was threatening rebellion, the wise words—
  "Following those reassurances, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion will be persuaded to join us in the Division Lobby tonight."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 538.]
  Didn't the Minister of State do well? Yet less than a month later those assurances were completely repudiated—not just by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in what I am sure he thought was a top-secret letter exchanged between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion, but up popped the Minister of State, with an apparently straight face[Hon. Members: "In the dinner hour".] Yes, it was the dinner hour. He opened with the words:
  "I have little to add to what I said on Second Reading."—
  hardly the usual phrase with which to announce a 180 degree U-turn. He continued:
  "It will not come as any surprise"—
  but, my goodness, there were enormous surprises to come
  "to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report. 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1104.]
  That was a tremendous surprise. Not since Archbishop Cranmer thrust his hands into the flames has there been a more spectacular example of public recantation. I thought

  1023
  that we might get an apology or explanation for such a major volte face, but apart from the poor old Minister of State appearing in the role of Uncle Podger, embarrassed and being made to eat humble pie, we have not.
  This is a serious matter. Humble pie is clearly not a diet to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State is accustomed. He wears his embarrassment lightly, but I hope that I can shame him into seeing the necessity to honour his original words, which were infinitely sensible compared with the later correction.
  It is not right that ministerial memoirs should be blocked for all time. I am looking forward to the second volume of the memoirs of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. My right hon. Friend's memoirs were memorably reviewed by a colleague with the opening line:
  "Julian Amery was born with a hand-grenade in his mouth."
  In his old age he seems to have lobbed it in the direction of the Treasury Bench instead of at the Albanians or whoever it would have been in the old days.
  In all seriousness—
  Mr. Gorst: Before my hon. Friend moves on in all seriousness, will he remind me exactly what happened to the boat in "Three Men in a Boat"? I cannot quite recall.
  Mr. Aitken: I think that we have two men in a sinking ship this afternoon. They are really in trouble with this new clause.
  Perhaps hon. Members remember the brouhaha over "My Country, Right or Wrong". That was a BBC radio programme, of ultimately stunning tedium, in which several members of the Security Service such as Lord Dacre, Lord Annan, Mr. John Day, with the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—who would be a proscribed person under the Bill—contributed a few thoughts as to how the security services might be better run and whether there should be oversight or better management. That is publication and it is covered by the all-singing, all-dancing eternal doctrine of absolute confidentiality.
  I have a more private and perhaps more illuminating example. Some months ago certain Conservative Back Benchers met at a suitably clandestine rendezvous, the Flyfishers club in London, with certain former senior members of the Security Service. We did not say anything improper, outrageous or anything which affected national security. We had discussions about how the security services might conceivably be a little better run and improved in future. Memoranda of some interest were exchanged. Would those publications mean that we shall all be in the dock? Would we all be in trouble under the terms of the Bill? We would be unless a sensible amendment along the lines suggested by the Minister of State is introduced.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Did Chapman Pincher give permission for the meeting to take place?
  Mr. Aitken: I do not think that Chapman Pincher had heard of it, I am happy to say.
  Unless the new clause is accepted, we shall be encapsulating a doctrine which is insulting to good Crown servants. It is quite wrong that disclosures cannot be made in any circumstances. The new clause provides that authority should be given on reasonable grounds which have nothing to do with national security and if it cannot
  1024
  damage the Security Service. The wording of the new clause almost exactly follows the words used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The new clause is sensible and wise and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Hattersley: I want principally to speak in support of amendment No. 9, which has been grouped with this new clause. Before I do that, I support the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I hope that he will not find it offensive, indeed he will probably find it positively helpful, when I say that the new clause is; a comparatively modest improvement on the Government's proposal because, if it is passed, the Government will in the end remain the arbiter of what is published. I hope that some Conservative Members as well as some of my colleagues will believe that the very modesty of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal should commend it to the House in the Division this evening.
  In common with the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), I regard myself as too old to cry and I have decided to laugh about the Bill. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, in admitting that, we both confess a taste for black humour. To paraphrase another cliché, some people will laugh all the way to prison as result of the proposals in the Bill.
  That may occur when people believe that they have a right or duty to reveal what happened during their distinguished careers in the secret services and then find that the present ban is so absolute and total that they are required to write nothing, or write things which, while legitimate when applied to any normal person making an objective judgment, become a criminal offence under this Bill.
  I hope that the Government will be able to accept the new clause. Not to do so offers a ban which is so total, absolute and unqualified that it renders the Government oppressive and absurd at the same time. The Government gain no advantage, even from their own point of view, in putting themselves or any of their successors in that preposterous position.
  The new clause changes the emphasis. It accepts that there are occasions when publication is right, proper and acceptable. However, it then goes on—and I understand the principles on which the right hon. Gentleman proceeds—to claim that publication must be organised in such a way that the interests of the nation are not jeopardised. For all its modesty, the new clause contains the essential element which has been lacking from so much of the Bill—the ability to distinguish between publishing information which is harmful and information which is harmless. Harm is defined, as the right hon. Member for Pavilion has rightly said, ultimately by the Home Secretary. When the appeals and complaints of the various subsections are exhausted, the Home Secretary will decide. If the Home Secretary is not prepared to accept this modification, that shows that not only does he wish to prevent publication of that which may harm, but in relation to the Bill he insists on the right to prevent publication of harmless material.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this goes even further? Under the list of notified persons, the Prime Minister of the day is entitled to silence former colleagues or former officials of

  1025
  another party. It brings in a form of dictatorship and censorship over what people can know. Is that not very dangerous?
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend must not tempt me into exploring all the dangers inherent in all the provisions. I agree with him and will go further. One of our objections to the rules as they now stand is that not only do they allow the Government to suppress things which should have been made public, but, as the Government can allow publication according to their judgments and criteria, they can positively encourage the publication of authorised memoirs, material which serves the Government's purpose, as distinct from fulfilling the proper purposes described by the right hon. Member for Pavilion.
  Amendment No. 9 is intended to extend the harm test about which the Home Secretary has spoken so often and which he has told us in a sense is an alternative to the public interest defence. In the debates on prior publication, the Home Secretary told us that the harm test is relevant to a defence, but should not, and cannot, be used as conclusive proof of evidence. Amendment No. 9 seeks to extend the Home Secretary's principle into two areas where, at the moment, the fact of publication is an offence, irrespective of whether the publication causes harm or can be demonstrated to cause harm.
  I know that the Home Secretary has constant semantic difficulties over this issue. I warn him that I am not asking for "serious harm" which is a concept to which he is wedded outside this place, but which he opposed in Committee. I refer simply to "harm test" as he defines it. Under amendment No. 9, the harm test should be extended to two areas to which it does not apply at present.
  As the Bill stands, any information related to a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985—to put it colloquially, that is telephone tapping—or any information concerned with or related to a warrant under the Security Service Bill is automatically prohibited from publication. We did not have the opportunity to debate why that should be so and the guillotine made it impossible for us to argue, as we would have argued, that the absolute rule—nothing can be published ever—should not have applied to those two categories of information.
  We want to extend the harm test to, as an obvious example, a telephone tap. I want to refer to an example which has been referred to many times in Committee. A man may discover from a member of the security services that his telephone is being tapped illegally without the permission of the Home Secretary or that it is being tapped under warrant with the Secretary of State's permission. It seems wholly unreasonable that he should be prevented from discussing that if the discussion does not harm the national interest. We simply ask that the harm test be extended in those two particulars.
  Since time is short, the Home Secretary may not want to intervene now, but he owes it to the House to give a considered explanation when he makes his speech.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I should like very briefly to support the new clause and the amendment, which are, of course, joined by a common feature—the Government's obsession not to admit error over the Wright case. That follows in
  1026
  both cases. I think we all know that Peter Wright did submit his memoirs to the Government and that a great deal of trouble would have been saved—
  Mr. Budgen: Is not the tragedy and the irony of these proceedings that they arise principally because section 2 of the 1911 Act lacked authority and could not be used by the Government? By bashing this measure through in such an authoritarian way the Government incur the serious risk that juries may not accord it the authority that it ought to have. Will they not have spent far more time and money than they would have done if they had treated the House with rather more respect?
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, in our earlier truncated discussions I tried to make something of the same point—that this Bill will soon have very little more legitimacy than the much-derided section 2 of the Act of 1911. The Government have an obsession not to be proved wrong. As I have said, Peter Wright did submit his memoirs.
  What my right hon. Friend is suggesting, and what my hon. Friend originally agreed to, is eminently sensible. Quite apart from the very good point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), if the new clause is not accepted the Government will be creating a complete barrier: ex-Ministers will be allowed to publish what they want, and members of the security services will not be allowed to publish anything at all. That is really quite unconscionable, and something that a free society cannot possibly tolerate.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not think my right hon. Friend is right. Surely what the right hon. Gentleman said was that ex-Ministers would not be able to publish their memoirs either.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: Either way, I think it would be wrong. What will happen, I think, is that ex-Ministers will publish their memoirs and that no action will be taken. That distinction, as I have said, is one that I do not think is tolerable.
  It seems to me that what the new clause provides for is eminently sensible and that the only reason the Government can possibly have for not accepting it is that, by doing so, they would be implicitly admitting error over the case of Peter Wright. The same thing applies, of course, to the amendment. It, too, brings in the question of prior publication, which again was one of the features of the Peter Wright case—in fact, eventually the crucial point, I think. The judges, quite rightly, decided that it would be entirely wrong to keep from the British people what was being published everywhere else.
  This amendment seems to me to be eminently sensible. It is quite inconceivable that a case such as that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should be kept quiet. If I were involved in such a case I would certainly publicise it, as, I think, would most other people. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept both the new clause and the amendment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I support the principle of the new clause and of the amendment. The wording of both may need further attention and adjustment; nevertheless, I hope that the Government will consider them sympathetically and, if need be, come back to the question in another place. None of my hon. and

  1027
  right hon. Friends can argue that the wording is necessarily exactly right, but the major point in both the new clause and the amendment is made in subsection (2) of the new clause, which says quite clearly:
  "The Secretary of State shall not unreasonably withhold his consent … provided that the publication can take place without causing or being likely to cause jeopardy to national security directly or indirectly or to cause damage to the work of or any part of the security and intelligence services."
  That is a major aspect of both which leads me to believe that, in looking for more flexibility, I can support the principle in both. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at those two points.
  I referred a moment ago to the actual wording. I must say that I am sceptical about the use of the words "Secretary of State". I do not want to develop the point, but I have to say that a Secretary of State is a bird of passage. As Home Secretary, I was informed that I could not see security information which arose under the previous Administration. There may be former security service officers or politicians who wish to publish a book years later. In these circumstances a new Secretary of State may not be able to make a judgment except on the advice of people talking second-hand or of people who were involved in the activities years previously. Of course, those people will tend to have closed minds. The words "Secretary of State" mean more than an individual occupying that position, so they ought to be reconsidered.
  I should like briefly to consider also the word "consent". Both the amendment and the new clause keep referring constantly, and properly, to consent under subsection (1) and consent of the Secretary of State. I wish to refer to one aspect of the Franks report which I do not believe has had sufficient airing. I should like to know whether the advice that we were given by the Home Office in 1972 still applies. I agree that that was given under the catch-all section 2, but in case the Home Secretary relents and the idea comes up in another place I draw attention to page 14 of the Franks report.
  We had come across something that we did not understand, in that many officials, and certainly politicians, regarded themselves as being self-authorisers—that, whatever the legislation said, they could authorise the giving of information. That part of the Franks report—I shall not read it out at this time—arose as a result. Senior civil servants and senior officials of the security services, not to mention Ministers, could authorise themselves in the public interest to reveal information. That authorisation was not given to people lower down and it was not crystal clear where the line lay. Nevertheless, as a result of the information that we were given, we wrote—it was not a recommendation—that Ministers were, in fact, self-authorising, that they decided for themselves what to reveal. That is the existing situation. Is that self-authorisation implicit in the new legislation, whether amended or not?
  In this regard I will tell the House what happened to me. I wrote a book about Northern Ireland. I looked at the Cabinet papers—there were not very many which referred to Northern Ireland, though there were acres from Cabinet sub-Committees. I read through them all and through security reports, and wrote what I had to write. I submitted my book to the Cabinet Office, chapter by chapter, and officials there looked at it. I had no complaints at all about what happened. The Cabinet Office suggested that certain things should not be revealed. When
  1028
  I pointed out that I had given the information to the House of Commons 10 years previously, and that it had been published in Hansard, it became clear that I could publish it. That was simple.
  Previously I had taken out people's names, and certainly I gave the name of nobody in the security services, but it was suggested that all names should be removed—even the names of persons whom I was praising for the excellent job that they had done, because, in the context of Northern Ireland, revealing a name in any way would be dangerous to the person concerned. I accepted most of the changes that were suggested to me, but nobody authorised me to publish—I made my own judgment after people had given me their views on certain aspects of the book.
  As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and others have said, we shall be running into serious trouble with this tighter Bill if politicians and others wish to write memoirs—unless, of course, there is a time aspect, a sort of innate 20-year rule, or something. I want to be absolutely sure what view the Government take of their own Bill in respect of authorisation and the role of politicians. What the Home Secretary says about that will influence me greatly.
  Both the new clause and the amendment have provisions to protect the security of the state, but they allow greater flexibility than the Bill as it stands. I have no great cases for my memoirs, but I know people who have. One day there will be a great argument about the security services, and in the public interest that argument should not be conducted under the legislation that will result from the Bill as it stands, which will not allow information to be published in the public interest. I hope that the Secretary of State will look closely at the amendment.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the new clause and amendment No. 9. In earlier debates on clause 4, and in more general debates on the absolute offences under the Bill, the Home Secretary has failed to draw attention to the fact that the defence of prior publication, which he has said is a relevant defence to be considered by a jury, is not available to someone who is accused. The provisions of amendment No. 9 are designed to ensure that the defence of prior publication may be deployed in certain, very narrow, circumstances. Under the amendment, it is not treated as an absolute defence; it is a factor which may be taken into consideration. I cannot see how, in line with the Home Secretary's earlier argument, he can fail to accept the amendment.
  If we were debating clause 4 as a whole, we might wish to raise what we did not have time to raise in the guillotined debate, which is why it is necessary to create an absolute offence about telephone tapping when disclosures about other forms of surveillance are not absolute offences. Some such disclosures will not cause harm. It would not be harmful, for example, to reveal that five years ago the phone of a possible suspect had been tapped, but the surveillance had been ended when it was realised that he was not in any way implicated in any wrongdoing. I cannot do more than draw the attention of the other place to the enormities of clause 4 and hope that it will take that to heart.
  The amendment would allow the Home Secretary to recognise the force of the arguments deployed in the "Spycatcher" case by at least two of the Lords who considered the matter—Lord Brightman and Lord

  1029
  Griffiths. The Home Secretary will remember that Lord Griffiths spoke of how the Attorney-General had admitted that, despite the fact that "Spycatcher" had received worldwide publication and was available in this country to anyone who wished to read it, the law forbade the press, the media or anyone else to comment on any part of it, saving only that which had already been referred to in the judgment of the courts. He said that if such was the law, the law would be an ass. If we do not accept amendment No. 9 tabled by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the law will, indeed, be an ass. I seek the Home Secretary's assurance that if we have not got it quite right, he will take the point on board and table his own version in the other place.
  It is in respect of clause 4 and the ban on repeating information that has already been disclosed so that no conceivable harm can be caused that the Bill is most likely to fall foul of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary has not given adequate justification for the blanket ban. Therefore, we look to him to accept amendment No. 9, if not in the letter, at least in the spirit.
  Mr. Winnick: Despite what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, I would imagine that even this Government would draw the line at trying to ban the memoirs of former Ministers, so we are dealing basically, despite what the Bill says, with those who serve in the security and intelligence services. Much has been made of the Wright case. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that the Wright case was probably one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill. That was a long-running saga, and if Ministers had been involved in secret collusion with Wright, they could not have done more to make him a millionaire. Without that publicity, the book would probably have sold only a modest number of copies, instead of becoming a bestseller. The Government did Mr. Wright a great favour, at the expense of the taxpayer.
  I have not read much of Wright's book because I find it too boring. However, I have read another book by a former member of the security and intelligence services, a book that the Government tried to ban. It is called "One Girl's War" and is written by Joan Miller. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has read it, because he quoted from it, and a number of other people have read it. I made sure that it was in the Library. I did not buy my own copy. I cannot for the life of me see any reason why the Government should try to ban it.
  5.45 pm
  Under the Bill, because Joan Miller had been involved in the security services, the book would be banned. However, she was involved in the security services during the war years, hence the title. What possible harm did the publication of that book do to the security and safety of the nation? The Government tried to stop it being published here but did not succeed, any more than they did with Wright's book, although Joan Miller's book came out first. Secondly, under the provisions of the Bill, the Government would have the powers to stop any such publication.
  1030
  Lifelong confidentiality is nonsense. It has not worked in any other western democracy—certainly not in the United States. If the Government insist on the Bill going through as it is, as they obviously will, because I have no doubt that the amendment and new clause will be rejected at 6 o'clock, sooner or later there will be another Wright case. There will be another saga and a lot of money will be spent for no purpose. Despite the passage of the Bill, if such a book is published abroad with the resulting commotion, it will end up, like Wright's book, in the United Kingdom. The Government of the day will be the victim of a great deal of laughter, as this Government were over the Wright case.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will reflect on the matter. He has not thought carefully about any previous amendment. He has been quite obstinate. No matter how moderate either the amendment or the speeches in favour of it, he has said no. I do not have much hope that he will change his view at this stage, but he should at least think about it.
  Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was generous in his comments on our earlier proceedings. I regret that time that could have been spent debating the issues arising out of the amendments was spent on an empty and deeply unprofitable point of procedure.
  The starting point from which to consider new clause 1 is the need to ensure that the security and intelligence services work effectively, and out of that need has come what is described as the doctrine of lifelong confidentiality. It is set out in clause 1 and was discussed without restriction of time on the first day of the Committee. It was strongly contested, as it continues to be contested, by critics of the Bill but it was approved. It is no good the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reopening the debate. The decision is clear.
  New clause 1 creates a right—I agree that it is hedged about with conditions—that, under certain conditions, cannot be unreasonably withheld. Therefore, new clause 1 sits oddly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion agreed, with the lifelong duty of confidentiality. I doubt whether my right hon. Friend would have thought to put this into statute if he were satisfied with the policy, because he is not normally one for putting things in statute if he is satisfied with the policy. He explained to the House why he was dissatisfied.
  On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave an account of the procedure which governs the position when a member or former member is considering writing a book. That account was an accurate description of the steps which a member or former member needs to go through before there can be any question of publication. When a former member proceeds to publication without seeking authorisation, or continues even when permission has been refused, the Government must take action to enforce the duty of confidentiality. As he said, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion wrote to me after the Second Reading debate. On reading his letter, it was clear that it was necessary to say more, not about the procedure but about the policy within which the procedure would take place. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State took advantage of the relevant debate on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member

  1031
  for Torbay (Mr. Allason). He used the words which have already been quoted and which I quoted when the matter was raised a week or so ago. He said:
  "authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1104.]
  On 31 January, I wrote in exactly the same terms to my right hon. Friend, whom hon. Members knew could not be present at the debate, on the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay. There is no question of repudiating correspondence. What is in Hansard of 25 January is on all fours with what I wrote to my right hon. Friend six days later.
  I do not object to the agreeable, able teasing from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). The last time he spoke on this matter, not having verified all his sources, he was wrong to say that there had been or might have been an attempt to mislead the House, and to say different things in correspondence with my right hon. Friend than was said in Committee. 1 hope that I have established that that is not so.
  Mr. Budgen: Is it not unsatisfactory to announce that some people will be allowed to break the law as a result of some policy that gives protection to a certain class? Is it not better to try to build that exception into the law, rather than leave it to the arbitrary discretion of the Executive?
  Mr. Hurd: That is disclosure without authority. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been paying the same close attention to the Bill that he paid during earlier stages of the Committee's proceedings. If he looks at clause 1, he will find that that is so.
  Mr. Amery: I am a little lost in the argument that my right hon. Friend has been developing. Does he say that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Committee, using the same words as he used to me in his letter, is in effect a repudiation of what he said on Second Reading?
  Mr. Hurd: In reply to the Second Reading debate, my hon. Friend was dealing with the procedure that would be followed. That is a statement of the procedure, and I will turn to one or two points connected with it in a moment.
  Having received my right hon. Friend's letter, it was clear that something more needed to be said, not about the procedure but about policy, and that was said first by my hon. Friend in Committee and then by me in writing to, and discussing the matter with, my right hon. Friend.
  It would not be fair to dwell on specific points in my right hon. Friend's new clause, because he was open-minded about it. He puts the Secretary of State into too prominent a position in deciding these matters. The security and intelligence service concerned would have a central role in considering whether the information could be disclosed. He also got the role of the staff counsellor slightly wrong. I refer him to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on Second Reading. The staff counsellor is to provide members and former members of the services with someone who is not a member of the services with whom he or she can discuss concerns and anxieties about their work which it has not been possible to allay through normal staff management channels. That refers to authorisation, as it does to any other matters.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) continues to press his point about article 10 of
  1032
  the European convention. I continue to say that it is entirely compatible with our obligations. Articles 10.1 and 10.2 provide explicitly that the exercise of the right
  "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority … carries with it duties and responsibilities",
  and accordingly
  "may be subject to such formalities … as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime … preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is case law, including the Handyside and The Sunday Times cases. I am satisfied that the provisions in the Bill are compatible with that article and with the convention as a whole.
  The right hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) talked as though we were bringing in some new restriction. I want to be entirely accurate. There is one limited respect, and that is the use of the word "purport". There was discussion in Committee about that. There is an extension of the existing restriction, but that is a relatively minor point. In all other respects, the obligation under the Bill is the same as that under the present law. This happens so often in our debates. We are removing so much from the scope of the criminal law and modifying in the direction of openness what remains so extensively with the harm test that when something remains more or less unchanged, according to some hon. Members, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
  Mr. Foot: How does this cover ministerial memoirs and reports? Are they covered by the phrase "only in rare and exceptional cases", or is the present situation to continue? The right hon. Gentleman has not made it clear.
  Mr. Hurd: It is to continue under the law. We are talking about people who entered work which they knew was secret, and that fact was made totally plain when they entered the work. People who are notified will be in the same position. It cannot be retrospective. There is no expectation of a right of publication, even hedged about with conditions. Of course there are different types of book. We can imagine somebody writing a book about East-West relations, or a politician writing his memoirs and dealing incidentally with work that might fall under this category. I disagree that full-blown memoirs would be a good thing. The policy and principle in clause 1 are accurate and right.
  I agree with the importance of amendment No. 9. The situation in respect of warrants has completely changed, compared with the mid-1970s, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and other signatories to the amendment were in positions close to these matters. There was then no statutory procedure and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, no reason in law why the Secretary of State should be involved in organising individual interceptions. There was no commissioner with statutory powers to invigilate the application of that duty by the Secretary of State, no tribunal to whom the aggrieved citizen could turn, and no staff counsellor to whom anxious members of the Security Service could turn. They are substantial changes over the past five years and they completely alter the background of the amendment. With the Security Service Bill, we propose to extend that principle further. That entirely alters the background to the amendment.

  1033
  Clause 4(3) is consistent with what we have done, and the amendment would not be. It would allow free circulation of information about matters such as operational techniques, as long as they had been published previously and as long as their disclosure could be held to meet a form of damage test. It would be signalling that, in certain circumstances, these matters could become general and accepted currency.
  The new clause has not taken on board the difficulty in bringing any such matters to court. How could the prosecution introduce evidence without revealing or confirming in some detail information about the use of those provisions which are essential if we are adequately to protect the citizen? [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows that the procedures for trial in camera are inadequate to meet that point. We are on the same point that we have had to make before. The Opposition are proposing that irreparable damage could be done and that thereafter the lawyers could argue about justification. The question before the House is whether that is too risky a procedure in this limited area. I have not time to expound yet again to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook the position of the gentleman who believes that his telephone is being tapped. I shall do so in time for the right hon. Gentleman to comment. I believe that in this narrow and limited area this absolute provision—which I accept—is the correct one.
  It being Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided Ayes 197, Noes 309.

  Division No. 110]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cummings, John

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Donald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Douglas, Dick

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Bradley, Keith

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fearn, Ronald

  Buchan, Norman

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Buckley, George J.

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

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flannery, Martin

  Cartwright, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Clay, Bob

  Foster, Derek

  Clelland, David

  Foulkes, George

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Fraser, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Corbett, Robin

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  1034

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morley, Elliott

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Gorst, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gould, Bryan

  Mullin, Chris

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Murphy, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grocott, Bruce

  O'Brien, William

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Haynes, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Patchett, Terry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pendry, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Prescott, John

  Home Robertson, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Radice, Giles

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Randall, Stuart

  Howells, Geraint

  Redmond, Martin

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Illsley, Eric

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Ruddock, Joan

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Salmond, Alex

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Charles

  Sheerman, Barry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lambie, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Leighton, Ron

  Short, Clare

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Litherland, Robert

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Soley, Clive

  Loyden, Eddie

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAllion, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McCartney, Ian

  Stott, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Strang, Gavin

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McKelvey, William

  Turner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Vaz, Keith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wall, Pat

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wallace, James

  McTaggart, Bob

  Walley, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Madden, Max

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Martlew, Eric

  Worthington, Tony

  Maxton, John

  Wray, Jimmy

  Meacher, Michael

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Meale, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &; Bute)

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths and

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Amos, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Benyon, W.

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Body, Sir Richard

  1035

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grist, Ian

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Boswell, Tim

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Hannam, John

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

  Bowis, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Harris, David

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Bright, Graham

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Hayward, Robert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Heddle, John

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Burns, Simon

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Burt, Alistair

  Hill, James

  Butcher, John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Butler, Chris

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Butterfill, John

  Holt, Richard

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howard, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Cash, William

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Churchill, Mr

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Irving, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Jack, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Couchman, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

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

  Key, Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kilfedder, James

  Day, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Devlin, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knapman, Roger

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Durant, Tony

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Ian

  Fallon, Michael

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  McCrindle, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  French, Douglas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maclean, David

  Gill, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Madel, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mans, Keith

  Gow, Ian

  Maples, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Marland, Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gregory, Conal

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  1036

  Mates, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mellor, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mills, Iain

  Speller, Tony

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Moate, Roger

  Squire, Robin

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Steen, Anthony

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Stern, Michael

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mudd, David

  Sumberg, David

  Needham, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thorne, Neil

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Thurnham, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Page, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Trippier, David

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Trotter, Neville

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Portillo, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Price, Sir David

  Walden, George

  Raffan, Keith

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Ward, John

  Renton, Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Watts, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Wheeler, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Whitney, Ray

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wilkinson, John

  Rost, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ryder, Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Woodcock, Mike

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

  Shersby, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

  PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENCE
  '.—(1) It shall be a defence for a person charged with a offence under this Act to prove that the disclosure or retention of the information, document or other article was in the public interest insofar as he has reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct.

  1037
  (2) In the case of a Crown servant or government contractor charged with an offence under sections 1,2,3,4,6, or 8 of this Act, subsection (1) above shall only apply if he has taken reasonable steps to comply with any established procedures for drawing such misconduct to the attention of the appropriate authorities without effect.'.—[Mr. Corbett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
  Amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 36 at end insert 'but a disclosure which indicates the existence of a serious threat to the health or safety of the public shall not be regarded as damaging for the purposes of that subsection.'. Government amendment No. 1.
  Mr Corbett: This clause is not about spies and espionage, but about public servants who, through their duties, find that the public are being misled or worse. It is also about editors and journalists who, in a free society, have a duty to expose official malpractice. The new clause tries to meet the Home Secretary's ludicrous claim that a public interest defence is somehow a "trump card". Under new clause 2 public interest would be a defence—not the trump card, but one of many in the pack—to put before court, but not the overriding defence claimed by the Minister of State in his letter to The Independent today.
  The public interest defence could be used only in limited cases where there were allegations of specified types of misconduct. It is not a green light to every whistleblower in Whitehall. There would be no protection, for example, for someone who wanted to argue that Britain's nuclear weapons were against the real public interest. There would have to be "reasonable cause", demonstrated in court, to believe that serious misconduct was taking place. It would not be enough for someone to say "I think that it is happening." The evidence would have to be strong enough to persuade a jury.
  6.15 pm
  Another test of the defence is that the misconduct would have to be serious enough to justify disclosure in the public interest in the categories listed:
  "crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct … a serious threat to the health or safety of the public."
  The Minister should note that the new clause and amendment No. 8 do not cover the work of the security or intelligence services, the armed forces or any other matters touching the vital interests of the nation.
  There is yet another test—I am beginning to sound like the Home Secretary and his hurdles—in that a civil servant could invoke the public interest defence only if he or she had first tried to get the problem dealt with internally, but without success. That touches on the point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who spoke of the public right to know not simply about the wrongdoing, but that the wrongdoing had taken place and had been stopped. I stress that the public interest defence would not benefit anyone whose real purpose was to embarrass the Government and who leaked information without first invoking the available procedures.
  The existence of internal Civil Service remedies—the right to complain to the head of the Civil Service—does not remove the need for a public interest defence in the limited form proposed by the new clause. The public
  1038
  interest defence would operate only after reasonable efforts to deal with the problem internally had failed. I stress that that defence is not available to journalists and to other non-civil servants.
  Amendment No. 8 relates to the key element of the offence outlined in clause 3—that the offence does not depend on the nature of the information disclosed. That is irrelevant. Again it raised the possible prospect of the Government acting against a newspaper which planned to publish something that was simply embarrassing to the Government. In matters of public safety, such as health or a leak from Sellafield, the Government may decide that they do not want to inform the public immediately although clearly it would be in the public interest that the information should be made public speedily. Yesterday's debate about the dangers arising from salmonella and listeria illustrates the need for such information to be public.
  I shall not develop my argument further because of the timetable, but the Home Secretary should consider carefully this narrower, more restricted public interest defence, which seeks to meet many of his main objections. These are modest amendments and would cause the Government no harm if accepted. The Government could still prosecute. All that would happen is that in a narrow band of specified areas a proper public interest defence would be available.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will either accept the new clause or undertake to consider the issue when the Bill goes to another place, where we all hope that it will be subject to better scrutiny than the Government have allowed us here.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is an important new clause and we touched upon it in some length the other day. The contention is that should a crime, a fraud or an iniquity happen in Government, as the last resort—not the first resort—the aggrieved civil servant may release himself of the burden into the public domain.
  This matter has been dealt with by the courts up to the House of Lords where Lord Griffiths conceded that, although he found it extremely difficult to envisage the circumstances where such a complainant had not been dealt with or satisfied internally, in the last instance it was his duty to alert—I believe that that was the word he used—the public to the impending danger.
  Throughout the debate on the public defence, the Government have argued that there is no such concept in law. When confronted with the possibility of using the Obscene Publications Act, they told us that that legislation is really defective and should be amended or repealed. They ignored the fact that the very first Official Secrets Act of 1889 included a public interest defence, which was felt to be such an important legal matter involving the freedoms and rights of citizens as well as the protection of Government information that it required the distinction of the Attorney-General moving a Government amendment.
  The Government have asserted the proposition that the internal structures of government are so secure and certain that there can never be a failure to remedy crime, fraud or iniquity. That proposition is profoundly distasteful to the House. Only last week, during our debate about prior publication, the Home Secretary drew our attention to hypothesis. Could we not hypothesise circumstances in

  1039
  which a Government do not enable legitimate existence of fraud or crime to be remedied internally? The amendment seeks to clarify what would happen to the civil servant.
  It is really a last-ditch amendment because the Government have rejected almost every other attempt to give balance to the Bill. Had there been a serious injury, it would have been possible to argue whether the injury was serious and that would provide the opportunity for a defence. However, the damage tests consistently have been set at such a trivial level that it is difficult for a defence to secure freedom on those bases. The amendment seeks to avoid the possibility of having to rely on a perverse jury which does not understand the issues, because in the case of an absolute offence it is not necessary ever to reveal what has caused the offence. Under clause 1, if a civil servant has revealed a piece of information, he has to plead whether or not he revealed the information, but there is no opportunity for the jury to examine the merits of the information that he revealed. Unless the jury is perverse, it appears that an automatic conviction would follow.
  The amendment challenges the central proposition in the Bill. The Bill claims that the public or national interest is synonymous with the interests of the Government of the day.
  Mr. Hurd: Not at all.
  Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says, "Not at all", but the Bill asserts that the absolute offence applies to any piece of information revealed. Therefore, the determinant of whether it should apply are the Government. They hold to themselves that judgment. The House is in conflict with the assertion in the Bill that the national interest is synonymous with the interests of the Government of the day, as that is unacceptable in a free, liberal democracy. We are trying to repudiate that assertion. We accept that there may be times when the two are synonymous, but there are also times when that manifestly is not true.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to try to give some good wind to the Bill, which has limped so badly through the House, and which will go to the House of Lords in an almost contaminated form and to show that the Government's spirit is more generous in these issues. It is the interest of accountable government and responsible Ministers that they tolerate the access of the citizen to information that gives evidence of crime, fraud or iniquity that has not been revealed or resolved by internal procedures.
  Mr. Rooker: The Government, in defending their rejection of new clause 2, must tell us what a civil servant should do when crime, fraud or abuse of authority occurs within Government. I accept that the Secretary of State will say that the Bill frees greater areas of the Government machine and that revealing such informatin will not be a criminal offence.
  In issues such as defence procurement, the security of the state is a borderline matter, but vast amounts of public money are spent. Committees in the House have heard that tens of millions of pounds of public money have been wasted because of the operation of the equipment that is purchased, or because of the companies and contractors that supply such equipment double-charging and fiddling on the maintenance. Those issues involve crime and fraud in the normal sense. If civil servants try to follow procedures to bring such matters into the open, surely
  1040
  there must be a defence, or do the Government argue that there is never crime or fraud within the Government machine? That argument does not stand up. Over the years, the House has heard evidence of instances where Government contractors have been hand in glove with those they should not be, or fiddling the taxpayer. That is crude ordinary crime and fraud, not the crime that we discussed earlier involving spies and spooks. Everyone knows what I mean by the crimes that we are discussing here.
  How can it be that civil servants who are aware of such crime and trying to put matters right—but failing to do so—are not able to say that it was in the public interest that the information relating to the crime or fraud ought to be made public and therefore they used the public interest defence? The Home Secretary should be a little more forthcoming about the Government machinery dealing with cases involving civil servants than he was during the very short debate in Committee.
  Mr. Aitken: I shall say a few brief words about amendment No. 8 which seeks to exclude safety matters from the scope of clause 3. I also wish to express some reservations about Government amendment No. 1.
  Amendment No. 8 seeks to do no more than protect our own citizens from being blocked from an alert when some foreign Government may be warning our Government about a major safety problem. Clause 3 deals with two types of disclosure—information about international relations and information supplied in confidence by another Government or international organisation. An offence is committed if disclosure is likely to jeopardise the United Kingdom abroad.
  A foreign Government might easily reveal all sorts of important safety information. They might tell us that food exports from that country were suspected of containing food poisoning, or that their national airline or shipping fleet was a possible channel for smallpox or rabies. In my part of Kent, some people fear that the Channel tunnel might be a possible conduit for rabies, and if such information were passed in confidence from the French Government to our Government our people would have the right to know about it. Under clause 3 as drafted, anyone could be prevented from revealing such vital safety information. Without labouring the point unduly, I feel strongly that the huge definition in clause 3 should be qualified by allowing whistleblowing in the interests of public safety and health.
  Government amendment No. 1 enlarges the already broad definition of damage in clause 3. Connoisseurs of the rift between the Secretary of State and the Minister of State may have noticed an interesting letter from the Minister of State the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) in this morning's edition of The Independent, effectively saying that the Bill contained good safeguards, including the fact that one could be prosecuted only if one had disclosed something which had caused unacceptable damage to the national interest. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been writing gaily in The Daily Telegraph about how "serious damage" is still contained in the Bill. That is a point on which I crossed swords with him in today's correspondence columns of The Daily Telegraph. Government amendment No. 1 does not just jettison the words "serious damage" or

  1041
  "unacceptable damage" but enlarges "damage" still further by saying that something can be damaging by the mere
  "fact that it is confidential."
  What is "confidential"? As I understand it, a Government document or overseas document becomes confidential as soon as that word is stamped on it. This is an unacceptable enlargement. We all know that civil servants in particular, no doubt foreign civil servants as much as anybody, overclassify and stamp matters as confidential when they are not. Therefore, subject to what my right hon. Friend has to say in explaining the Government amendment, I have grave reservations about it.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I wish to express my doubts about new clause 2. The House has heard the arguments about a public interest defence and I do not propose to repeat them. However, we have decided that secret service officers or those who are notified are pledged to a life in which they do not reveal matters relating to their work, and the new clause drives a coach and horses through that provision. The Security Service Bill contains adequate internal mechanisms for their complaints.
  We have to deal with the harm test in relation to all civil servants, who are not notified. That is what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was driving at. The harm test still applies to all those people. If they wish, they can make disclosures, providing they are not harmful to the national interest. We have said time and again that disclosures can be made to other Crown servants, including the police and Members of Parliament, provided the Members of Parliament use that information responsibly and pursue it through the proper channels or, if they feel that it is sufficiently important, they can use the privileges of the House.
  he real danger in the clause is that there is no consideration of the damage that can be done to the national interest. The person disclosing the information may think that it would be in the public interest. However, although that person may be honest, he may be misguided and may feel that he has reasonable cause to believe that
  "it indicated the existence of crime, fraud, abuse of authority, neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct."
  What if that is not so? We are left with untold damage done to the national interest by somebody who acted in good faith when there were clearly other ways of dealing with the matter.
  There are adequate safeguards in the Bill due to the harm test. We must not underestimate the importance of the harm test as a defence that can be used by civil servants who are aware of information such as that to which the hon. Member for Erdington referred.
  Mr. Gorst: The presumption that lies behind much of what my hon. Friend and others have been saying is that one is concerned with abuses and wrongdoing. That is not necessarily the case when we are dealing with health and safety. I instance the continual outbreaks of Legionnaire's disease or perhaps some other health hazard which has not yet been explored. It may be that, in such circumstances, what is in the public interest is not the revelation of the
  1042
  information so much as the revelation of the procedure which requires reform. We all know that bureaucracies are resistant to changing their methods. It may be that public debate is necessary. I foresee that Governments may wish to suppress that. How would my hon. Friend answer that?
  Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend forgets that the Bill is a major liberalising measure—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but they seem to forget that only five categories are covered by the Bill. All other Government matters are now free from prosecution under the criminal law.
  On health and safety, the harm test would apply only if something had been disclosed under confidential circumstances by an overseas power. If someone makes a disclosure, he is able to argue in the courts that the disclosure of information affecting health and safety did no harm to the national interest. That is a defence open to him. In assessing whether the prosecution should be brought, the Attorney-General would look at all those factors before making his decision.
  The new clause will drive a coach and horses through the spirit of the Bill. It undermines the principle behind it—the harm test. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it.
  Mr. Hurd: The Opposition, with customary support from some of my hon. Friends, have made a second attempt to produce a public interest defence clause. I acknowledge that it is a narrower clause than before. In unrestricted time we spent an entire Committee session on that principle. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was brief and I can be brief, too. However, this is a useful debate because it enables us to encapsulate the main principle involved. The hon. Member for Erdington has done that and so have my hon. Friends.
  There is no overarching right of public prosecution in the Bill. The discretion, which now rests with the prosecuting authorities over a huge area, is removed from the bulk of that area and whittled down in almost all the remainder. There is no overarching right of public prosecution in order to protect some vague concept of public interest, let alone to save the Government from a red face. Those are the major changes in the Bill.
  Mr. Aitken: I know that it is part of my right hon. Friend's great thesis that the Bill is a liberalising measure and that the discretion of the prosecutors is narrowed to a small area. However, before he goes overboard on that, could he tell us the last occasion on which a prosecution was launched under the 1911 Act in any of the categories outside the five categories that he has, so called, narrowed it down to?
  Mr. Hurd: That is not the point. I have just heard an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) who is seriously concerned about Legionnaire's disease. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) was concerned in Committee about environmental safety. My right hon. Friend told us with example after example how he had been told by officials that it was illegal—not wrong—to give him information that he thought he should have about environmental safety. Therefore, we are not talking about something that is abstract. That is a real fear and worry, and according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, the Father of the House, officials have

  1043
  said on numerous occasions that they cannot give the information because it is illegal. We are sweeping that away. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North can sleep in his bed without worries about Legionnaire's disease, safe in the knowledge that if people now say that information in the Department of Health about Legionnaire's disease is confidential and cannot be revealed because of section 2, that argument does not apply. That is true except in the limited case sketched by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). Of course, it may still be wrong to release that information and there may be disciplinary consequences if it is released. That would be true even in the Labour party and in any other organisation. We are talking about the criminal law.
  Mr. Aitken: We are talking about section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
  Mr. Hurd: Yes, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North said that I was talking about a hypothetical situation. Our speeches in Committee prove that that is nonsense.
  Mr. Gorst: I am sorry if I misled my right hon. Friend in that respect. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was concerned with information that might be exchanged between Governments. I merely mentioned Legionnaire's disease as an issue that is constantly cropping up and I withdraw the illustration if my right hon. Friend thinks that it misleads him further. I am concerned about information on health and safety matters, exchanged between Governments, which would be disallowed under the Bill. If I am wrong, I hope that my right hon. Friend will say so.
  Mr. Hurd: I follow my hon. Friend's narrowing of the point. I am sorry if I interpreted him too widely.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Hurd: Let me answer one point at a time.
  The information to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North referred would then have to pass the harm test. If he looks at the harm test in clause 3, he will see that he would have to invent a fairly ingenious hypothesis to conceive of circumstances in which the prosecution could argue that the disclosure about Legionnaire's disease, received in confidence from a foreign Government, would prejudice or jeopardise United Kingdom interests abroad. That is the test, not embarrassment to the Government.
  Mr. Gorst: What about AIDS?
  Mr. Hurd: The same point would apply.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The important point, which I am sure my right hon. Friend takes on board, is that we are considering only offences under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which involves the climate of secrecy in Whitehall. There are, of course, about 80 other pieces of legislation that make the disclosure of information a criminal offence, on environmental matters, pollution controls and similar matters, and such disclosures will remain a criminal offence after the Bill is passed.
  Mr. Hurd: I am talking about the scope of the Bill. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.
  1044
  I turn to new clause 2, although I believe that it was right for me to have been distracted from it. I shall try to show briefly the damage that might result from the system that the Opposition seek to erect. The Bill protects, quite properly, information that needs to be protected from disclosure. if that protection fails, or anyone is given cause or encouragement to believe that the protection is in some way a paper tiger, the Bill would fail in one of its two main purposes. It would give a signal of encouragement, not of deterrence. It would say that as long as some allegedly serious misconduct, or any neglect at all, in the performance of official duties can be identified and can be argued to have been reported to no effect, it is all right to disclose that information whatever damage has been done. That is the thrust of the new clause. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Erdington really believes that that is a sensible way to proceed or that it is safe.
  I return to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said on 2 February. He said in a flourish that no one
  "would attempt to justify revealing, say, the battle plans of the British Army of the Rhine".—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 457.]
  He is right; no one would. Yet it would be perfectly possible under the amendment.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: That would be an offence under section 1.
  Mr. Hurd: I disagree because section 1 deals with espionage. We are talking about section 2. The disclosure I have mentioned would not necessarily fall under section 1
  Mr. Shepherd: Espionage is a section 1 offence.
  Mr. Hurd: It would not necessarily fall under section 1.
  Let us consider another form of serious revelation. When we were talking about prior publication, I referred to talk about the techniques of counter-terrorism. Whatever example one chooses, I am making the point that the new clause is not balanced, because it provides an overarching defence. The hon. Member for Erdington says that it does not, but I believe that he misunderstands it. It is an overarching defence because it allows any amount of damage to be done as long as the defendant can prove—and he has only to prove it on the balance of probability—that the information disclosed gave him reasonable cause to believe that it showed some form of "serious misconduct" or any neglect of official duty. It is odd that the Opposition, who are constantly twitting me for not putting the word "serious" into the Bill, did not put it into the amendment. They refer not to "serious misconduct" but to any "neglect…of official duty". That is the crucial point. The argument of the Opposition and the proponents of a public interest defence—even defined narrowly—is that it should be allowable for somebody to make a disclosure, however great the damage that might result from that, provided that the information disclosed gave him reasonable cause to believe that it showed some form of serious misconduct or any neglect of official duty.
  There is a further point about timing which the Opposition have not hauled on board. If a disclosure were made, damage would result and that would be past recall. There would then be an argument before the courts about whether there was justification under any of the different

  1045
  public interest defences that had been proposed. The public servant concerned might be able to show that he sincerely thought that he had reason to believe that his disclosure showed some neglect of official duty. But the damage would have been done. The public servant might or might not be convicted, depending on what the jury decided, but the damage could not be repaired. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence could not run the armed services—and nor could the Security Service or the police be run—on the basis of the damage being done, with an argument then taking place between lawyers on a definition of whether disclosure was justified.
  Mr. Corbett: I do not know why the Home Secretary is concentrating on security, intelligence and the armed forces. He knows as well as I do that clause I would cover the security and intelligence forces and that disclosure would be an absolute offence. Is he seriously arguing that anybody would remotely consider a defence of, say, neglect of the performance of official duty if he had leaked the battle plans of the Army of the Rhine? That does not make sense.
  Mr. Hurd: No, it does not and that is why we oppose the new clause. I am not in favour of balance in this matter. I can see the argument that we should enable a balance, but that is not even what is being proposed. The new clause proposes that if any damage is done, however serious, the public servant would then, after the damage had been done, be able to say that he had reasonable cause to believe that the information indicated some form of serious misconduct or any neglect of official duty.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: I want to make a minor, but important, point. Surely my right hon. Friend is misreading the new clause when he speaks of "any neglect". Neglect has to be read in conjunction with the later words which say, "other serious misconduct". It is plain that the "serious misconduct" applies also to neglect.
  Mr. Hurd: I am advised that that is not so. There may be loose drafting there, but I am not resting my argument entirely on that point. I am advised that, as it stands, the neglect of official duty is not qualified. The Opposition new clause—
  Mr. Corbett: It is an all-party new clause, not an Opposition one.
  Mr. Hurd: I was giving the hon. Gentleman a compliment. The new clause mentions the existence of internal remedies, but does not apply any judgment about who is to decide, and it would be perfectly possible for the public servant concerned to gallop through whatever remedies were available in a perfunctory way, if it were for him to decide whether those remedies had been exhausted. I do not think that the attempt to deal with that is adequate. If only because of the time scale that I am talking about, I do not believe that to have the damage first and then the argument within the narrow sphere of the Bill is a risk that any Government would advise the House to take.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made two points about amendment No. 8. In general, the harm test would apply to all the examples that he gave. The harm test in this sphere is exacting. However,
  1046
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend really thinks that it is right and automatically justified that any terrorist threat reaching us from abroad should be disclosed, however alarmist.—[Interruption.] Well, amendment No. 8 would do that. It would clearly be a matter of public safety. The harm test would adequately protect the position that my hon. Friend wants to protect but in a few cases that would fall within the scope of the amendment it would not be axiomatic that disclosure should be unprotected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South also dealt with amendment No. 1, which stands in my name, and which fulfils an obligation that I made to see whether we could clarify this matter. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend thinks that I have managed to do so. I have wrestled intellectually with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on this and I hope that he at least is satisfied.
  It is now spelt out that the harm test applies in both cases. The harm test about British interests abroad applies whether the prosecution argues that it was the contents of the disclosure that passed the harm test or the fact of disclosure. In either case, the prosecution would have to prove harm and in neither case would it be an absolute offence.
  Mr. Rees: I had been going to intervene, but the Home Secretary has now sat down. I wonder whether he can explain the problem that I am facing. I used to think—and I still think—that under section 2 the Attorney-General of the day, who holds that position as legal adviser to the Government—not in any political sense—advises on prosecution and, as things are at the moment, makes his decision in the public interest. The Home Secretary will remember that we touched on this tangentially earlier when the former Solicitor-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), made it clear that the words "public interest" are used in the remit of the Attorney-General in a different way from the use of "public interest" in discussion of the Bill. Nevertheless, under the Bill, the Attorney-General has to consent to prosecution.
  In deciding whether there shall be a criminal prosecution and on the Attorney-General evaluating some of the criteria that we have been discussing, such as the harm test and whether harm may be caused, could it be that it would be in the public interest not to prosecute? I recall that in some instances it was thought better to keep quiet than to let the information get out and that course of action has been regarded as being in the public interest. Is that public interest aspect still present in this Bill?
  Mr. Hurd: The role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General as the prosecuting party and the way in which he discharges his role are not affected by the Bill, except to the extent that they are greatly restricted in the ways that I have described, which are central to the Bill. The way in which my right hon. and learned Friend operates within the scope of the criminal law as it will remain under the Bill will be of exactly the same quality, character and nature and his decision making will be exactly the same as that with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar.
  Mr. Maclennan: I recognise that the Secretary of State has a closed mind on the issue of a public interest defence

  1047
  and therefore I do not propose to pursue him on that, although I found some of his arguments profoundly unsatisfactory.
  I wish to probe a little more into amendment No. 1. It seems to me that the new version of clause 3(3) reveals a catch-all that is much greater and more seriously damaging than that which appeared even in the original drafting. The Home Secretary has said that the amendment was intended to make it clear that the harm test applied. However, I submit that that is not so in any meaningful sense. A presumption of harm flows from this subsection when viewed in conjunction with subsection (2)(b).
  It is a difficult argument to make, but I must try to do so. Clause 3 provides that a Crown servant or Government contractor is guilty of an offence if he makes a damaging disclosure and that that disclosure will be deemed to be damaging
  "if it is of information or of a document or article"
  which is likely to have any of those effects that have been spelled out.
  Amendment No. 1 states:
  "In the case of information or a document or article …

  (a) the fact that it is confidential, or

  (b) its nature or contents,

  may be sufficient to establish for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above that the information, document or article is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned."
  If that is a harm test, it is one which it would be extremely easy for the prosecution to satisfy because it seeks to define the document in terms of its likely impact, not its actual impact. As the clause deals with matters that may be extremely trivial, and makes it an offence to publish such information because it is described as
  "any information, document or other article relating to international relations",
  that is a catch-all phrase if ever there was one. It is too wide a definition.
  It is unacceptable that we should create a crime that is susceptible to punishment of up to two years' imprisonment for the publication of a document that may be such that its unauthorised disclosure would be unlikely to have any of the effects that have been mentioned. The amendment is a wholly unacceptable attempt to clarify what was perhaps obscure before, but was certainly worrying. However, now it is no longer only worrying; it is deeply disturbing.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary deployed his usual forceful arguments against the public interest defence but the arguments that he advanced against it are totally inapplicable. He referred first to revealing the battle plans of the British Army of the Rhine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, that would clearly fall under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, but, even if it did not, the idea that anyone could justify that as being in the public interest on the grounds that he might have been given
  "reasonable cause to believe that it indicated the existence of crime, fraud,"
  clearly could not be advanced as a defence. It would be laughed out of court and the jury would not look at it. Surely the same applies to the other example given by my right hon. Friend about revealing counter-terrorist
  1048
  operations. The idea that somebody could say, "I did that because, after all, there was a little crime about" simply would not work. It is not—
  Mr. Hurd: Indeed, it might not work. The jury might not be convinced and then whatever harm had been done would have been done and there would be no rectifying it, but it would be a small satisfaction if the chap went to prison.
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The chap is going to prison anyway. He is unlikely to have his decision about revealing this information determined by whether there will be a public interest offence. He will be a man, certainly on the examples given by my right hon. Friend, who will be either off his head or a near traitor. So the idea that he will be influenced by a provision such as this is not applicable. In other words, my right hon. Friend has adduced a way out of arguments that would not apply to any of the examples that we have in mind.
  7 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked, in relation to this being a great liberalising measure, when there had last been prosecutions in any of the categories that are to be removed from the Official Secrets Act. I understood the Home Secretary to admit that there had not been any for a long time. But he said that it was still a liberalising measure because civil servants in the Department of the Environment would no longer be able to use the Official Secrets Act as a reason for not giving information.
  I cannot regard that explanation as bringing the Bill within the category of a liberalising measure because, as my hon. Friend said, they will still be able not to give the information. In other words, one rather unserious excuse has been removed from them, and that is the main reason given by my right hon. Friend to justify his claim that this is a liberalising measure. It is tidying up the law—I appreciate that and that is, no doubt, a good step to take—but in tidying it up it is tightening it elsewhere, which, I am afraid, makes it the opposite of a liberalising measure.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I have hesitated to speak before this point because I missed the beginning of today's proceedings, for which I apologise to the House.
  Not for the first time the Home Secretary has got matters seriously wrong. The expression in new clause 2,
  "neglect in the performance of official duty or other serious misconduct",
  by definition qualifies the previous reference to,
  "crime, fraud, abuse of authority"
  as being serious misconduct. On that count the right hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense.
  The Home Secretary goes on to say that the danger in giving a public interest defence is that the cat will already be out of the bag. He gave as an example the battle plans of BAOR and said that by the time the matter came to court the secret would be out. But we are talking in terms of a defence, and it would be no defence for me to release the battle plans of BAOR and say that I thought fraud had been committed in Squadron No. 2. That would not be the point. It would have come out because I had already released those battle plans. At that point, not at any later stage, the facts would have come out.
  I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about Government amendment No. 1. The fact that something is confidential

  1049
  could of itself be sufficient to establish guilt under the previous subsection. It cannot be right, with such contorted thinking, to leave the measure without any public interest defence.
  In the same way as it has been argued that the law of confidentiality cannot be extended to find people guilty simply to cover up an iniquity—in the words of the last century—so it cannot be the case here that a crime—be it fraud or whatever—revealed in this process must automatically carry a verdict of guilty because a public interest defence cannot be adduced.
  I return to the example that I have given in the past and to which I have not yet received a reply from the Home Secretary, and that is the position we face on the Clyde. If it is known that a nuclear leak has taken place, and it is in the interest of the communities there that that fact should be revealed, the decision to reveal cannot be defended in the courts because the harm that would have been done would come under clause 2 in relation to defence.
  We cannot leave the Bill—any more than we could leave the law of confidence, the concept that the Government have been fond of using in recent years—without a defence. Equally, if there is no public interest defence in this case, the Home Secretary is stripping out almost all possible forms of defence, despite the fact that we are dealing with areas which are prone to offence of one kind or another. That is the enormity of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, sometimes on the basis of grammar. I hope that he will look at the whole matter again.
  Mr. Dykes: I, too, support new clause 2 and will address my remarks to that and to the other amendments in this series. I am glad that anxiety has been expressed about Government amendment No. 1 because the more one considers it, the more worried one becomes lest it represents an unsatisfactory replacement of the present provision.
  I hope that in commenting on new clause 2 I shall not repeat too much of what was said last week in Committee. I, too, am astonished by the example that the Home Secretary gave about a revelation of top secret battle plans. I cannot see how that could come into the context of an adjudication in the area we are now discussing. So inextricably and exclusively wrapped up is the issue in clause 1, like a massive piece of treason, espionage or a combination of both, that even if there were, coincidentally and surprisingly, some conjunction of internal departmental serious misconduct, and so on, one would have to envisage two separate cases. There would be no connection between the two. Even if they took place in the same court building, they would be a million miles apart intellectually, politically and constitutionally.
  Although it has been suggested by Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a closed mind on this, I hope that he will give further thought to the possibility of accepting new clause 2 and will further examine amendment No. 8. I am disturbed by the fact that the implication of the Government's response is always that a person concerned in a clause 2 case would be rushing hastily into some form of public disclosure. In the new clause we are thinking in realistic terms of the tail-end of a long process of internal investigation through the proper channels before any public disclosure has been
  1050
  made. It is not like a journalist writing an article about policy. Here we have someone who, with great psychological pain and travail, feels moved to reveal something basically wrong and rotten by way of a happening or misconduct. I hope that it will not have occurred in a Government Department, and it is to be hoped that all Departments are free of such matters, but such things do happen from time to time for various reasons, perhaps out of moral weakness. Even inefficiency can produce misconduct and should be revealed.
  Mr. Rooker: The Bill makes it a criminal offence to point the finger at criminality.
  Mr. Dykes: That was the central objection voiced both in Committee and on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is known for his careful choice of words, used the expression "monstrous" to describe the peril facing the body politic and the public if we permit the Bill to be passed in its present form.
  I was postulating that it would be a long, agonising process for the person who was going to blow the whistle or spill the beans. One can imagine the agony that he would feel and the pacing up and down, as it were, that would occur in the mind and spirit of a conscientious public servant, for example, in using the proper channels. followed by lengthy investigations, with the matter passing up through the various layers of scrutiny internally by his respected superiors—one hopes that they would be respected.
  By the same reciprocal token, that would involve the same massive concentration of mind on the part of those superior officials having to respond to that person's complaints. They must not brush them aside. Various books have been written about the Civil Service of the past, describing how such matters could be brushed aside, with career references being made to those concerned to ensure that they concentrated their minds on the real issue, which was keeping their mouths shut, and preventing them, if necessary, from pursuing the matter. That would be a wholly beneficial process which would help all future Governments and it should therefore be welcomed. If it were an implicit part of the Bill, that would satisfy the whole House.
  The new clause is extremely solemn and important. Once again, regrettably and sadly, we see that except for one important exception that we discussed earlier today—I repeat that I have sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's position and the problems and pressures that he faces—the Government are not prepared to entertain any indispensable improvements. The public interest defence surely comes into that, ranking equally with publication as being absolutely ineluctable and indispensable elements in improving the Bill. If that improvement is not made, it will be a matter of regret—and something that the Government themselves will regret later.
  Question put and negatived.

Clause 3

  INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  '(3) In the case of information or a document or article within subsection (1)(b) above—

  1051

  (a) the fact that it is confidential, or

  (b) its nature or contents,

  may be sufficient to establish for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above that the information, document or article is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of the effects there mentioned.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Clause 6

  INFORMATION RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURES OR ENTRUSTED IN CONFIDENCE
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 22, leave out 'a State which is'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3 to 7.
  Mr. Hurd: The amendment simply reflects an undertaking that I gave in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 3, in page 6, line 37, leave out 'a State which is'.

Clause 7
  AUTHORISED DISCLOSURES
  Amendment made: No. 4. in page 7, line 28, leave out 'a State which is'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
Clause 13

  OTHER INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS
  Amendments made: No. 5, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)'.
  No. 6, in page 10, line 42, after 'which', insert 'only'.
  No. 7, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
  '(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) above whether only States are members of an organisation, any member which is itself an organisation of which only States are members, or which is an organ of such an organisation, shall be treated as a State.'.—[Mr. Hurd.]
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must point out that the procedure that we have just observed illustrates how wrong it is to introduce guillotines because they do not allow right hon. and hon. Members properly to discuss amendments in which they have an interest.
  Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 10, line 40, at end insert
  'but do not include any disclosure made to a solicitor for the purpose of seeking legal advice'.
  The amendment concerns the right of an individual, such as a member of the security services or a person classified under the Bill, to consult his solicitor if he has reason to believe that he is subject to an illegal act by the security services. Hansard for 16 February records at column 503 that a statement on that subject was made by the Minister of State, Home Office purporting—I believe that is the fashionable word—to raise a point of order. He made that statement with the contented air of a man who was suddenly sure that he had mastered his brief. Unfortunately, the Law Society's judgment of his comments about the relationship between solicitors and their clients remains what it was before the Minister's
  1052
  clarification. As we need a statement that we can examine before 7.30 pm, I shall describe the Law Society's judgment as clearly as I can.
  The Law Society ought to know something about the obligations of solicitors, and it ought to have a locus in respect of the protection of solicitors in defending their clients. The society makes a point that I made rather more feebly and inadequately in response to the Minister's original, late-night, surprise announcement.
  Clause 7 concerns and defines authorised disclosures. A disclosure by an individual is legal and authorised
  "if, and only if, it is made in accordance with his official duty."
  The Bill specifies who may make disclosures. It also describes the circumstances in which a person may make disclosures, and shall therefore be authorised to do so. Clause 7 does not list among the authorised persons to whom disclosures may be made a solicitor retained by an individual. Nor does it include among the authorised purposes a disclosure for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the engaged solicitor is not an authorised person, and neither is a disclosure to that solicitor authorised.
  As clause 7 stipulates the circumstances in which disclosures shall be legal, it does not need a major logician to conclude that all other revelations or disclosures will be unauthorised and illegal. The Minister of State, Home Office said that it was right to draw such a conclusion in the context of the Bill, but added—albeit late at night, but with further clarification a fortnight ago—that the privilege that affects a solicitor's relationship with his client overrides that provision.
  7.15 pm
  When the Minister first made that point, some concern and doubt were expressed about whether the relationship between a solicitor and his client is a qualified privilege is not, anyway, absolute in all circumstances, and does not provide absolute protection. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) asked whether the privilege that obtained in conventional and common law could somehow supersede statute law and an Act that expressly and explicitly rules out consultation between client and solicitor in the circumstances I described. However, in the Minister's second statement, he brushed all such arguments aside, saying that he had taken legal advice and had no doubt that the relationship between solicitor and client is privileged and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill and even though a solicitor is not an authorised person, nor could become one, a client could approach his solicitor in the circumstances I described.
  As the Law Society had raised that matter with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the first place, we inevitably asked the society for its judgment on the Minister's statement. Its initial reaction was that the Minister's view was a "red herrring" that did not begin to meet the facts—the term "red herring" is the society's not mine. The society categorically states:
  "The fact that a communication is privileged does not provide a defence if the act of communication is itself a crime."
  As a solicitor is not an authorised person, as consultation with a solicitor is not an authorised activity, and as only those persons and activities specified in clause 7 enjoy legality, the act of revelation to a solicitor would be a crime. If the Law Society is to be believed, and if its judgment is to be given any credence, the protection that the Minister described cannot exist.

  1053
  I wish to leave the Attorney-General with as much time as possible to answer that point. In any event, as the most lay of laymen, I am reluctant to cite the precedents cited by the Law Society. However, it informs me that the leading case is that of Regina v. Cox and Railton, which established that all communications between a solicitor and his client are not privileged and cannot be privileged if they are themselves concerned with the commissioning of events and if they are themselves a crime because of the nature of the communication.
  I also draw to the Attorney-General's attention the case of Francis and Francis v. Central Criminal Court. The society categorically states that no protection exists for a member of the secret services who, believing that he has been treated illegally by the process of the services, approaches a solicitor for advice on the way in which he can obtain redress.
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can assure the House that the danger that I have described does not exist, but there is only one way in which I, at least, can be completely convinced. If it is possible for a solicitor to be consulted in the way I described, there can be no possible objection to making the amendment to the Bill. If the situation is as clear and as favourable to the solicitor's prospective client as was blandly stated by the Minister two weeks ago, all that has to be done, to make everyone aware of that, is for the Government to accept the amendment.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): It may be convenient if I express my opinion at this stage on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. I shall do it in the orthodox way of addressing myself first to the effect of the amendment and then dealing specifically with the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Let us imagine that a Crown servant has in his possession, by virtue of his position, an important document relating to defence which is protected under clause 2. Let us suppose that he takes it into his head to bargain with rival bidders in the media for the damaging disclosure—we will assume that it would be damaging—of that document which is of high value to the media. If he did that, of course it would be an offence under the Bill.
  Now let us suppose that for fear that he may not be paid he consults his solicitor in advance about how payment may be secured. [Interruption.] Let not the right hon. Gentleman say that he is concerned that this may be a fanciful scenario because the whole thrust of the Opposition's point in this regard is fanciful in practical terms. Let us suppose that for fear that he may not be paid the Crown servant consults his solicitor in advance about how payment may best be secured, and, for the purpose of consulting him, he discloses the document to him.
  The amendment would deprive that disclosure to the solicitor—criminal though its purpose would undoubtedly be—of any criminality under the provisions of the Bill, because the scheme of the Bill makes disclosure the kernel of the offence. I should have thought that that would be, in the view of any hon. Member, a dangerous and absurd result. It cannot sensibly have been asked for by anybody and there could be no justification for it. What is more, it would damage the law of legal professional privilege, and for the first time it would extend the protection of legal
  1054
  professional privilege to anyone using a solicitor for a criminal purpose. [Interruption.] No, he did not; I will come to that point.
  Why should we change the law to do that? In section 10(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Parliament expressly excluded items held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose from that Act's definition of items subject to legal privilege. The context was the search and seizure provisions of the Act. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will remember that, because we were both on the Standing Committee on the Bill. That was a reflection of the common law rule, dating back for at least 100 years, certainly to the Cox and Railton case cited by the right hon. Gentleman. As recently as 1986 Parliament adopted it once again in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
  In Cox and Railton in 1884 it was held that not all communications between a solicitor and his client are privileged from disclosure; only those passing between them in professional confidence and in the legitimate course of the professional employment of a solicitor are privileged. The headnote of the case said:
  "Communications made to a solicitor by his client before the commission of a crime for the purpose of being guided or helped in the commission of it are not privileged from disclosure."
  In a case decided last year—Francis and Francis—again mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, it was decided that the 1884 case still defined the extent of the exception to the rule of legal professional privilege. That is enough to dispose of the amendment. Why should we make extraordinarily dangerous and absurd change?
  Out of deference to the argument I will go further. My hon. Friend the Minister of State did not say that privilege overrides the terms of the statute. That would be wrong. What my hon. Friend said was:
  "Legal professional privilege acts to prevent the production in evidence of such a communication and hence to deprive of its foundation any prosecution that might ever be sought to be founded on such a communication in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman envisaged in his first point of order. But of course, it is well established that anyone who, when communicating with his solicitor, seeks the latter's help in the furtherance of some criminal purpose is disqualified in respect of that communication from the benefit of privilege."
  He also said:
  "The function of legal professional privilege is to aid the administration of justice and not to aid crime. But such a person's position is quite different from that of someone who discloses information to his solicitor in the process of seeking advice in good faith about his own legal position in relation to it."—[Official Report, 16 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 503.]
  [Interruption.] Of course it is the point. What we are discussing in this scenario is that someone who is told improperly under the Bill that his telephone line is being tapped goes to his solicitor to ask what is his position in criminal law in relation to that. It would be idle and fanciful to suppose that in doing that he espoused any criminal purpose. He may say, "I have been told about this. I am asking you what my position in law is."
  Mr. Hattersley: The Attorney-General says that it would be idle to suppose that anyone who went to a solicitor saying, "I have been told by a member of the security services that my telephone is being tapped," was espousing a criminal purpose. The Home Secretary told us that the act of going to any individual, other than one who was authorised, and making that statement was in itself a criminal act. That is the problem.
  The Attorney-General: There is nothing between the two sides on this rather technical point. Criminality attaches to that by reason of the wording of the clause. The whole point is that the foundation for any criminal prosecution arising out of it is removed by reason of the operation of legal professional privilege, because legal professional privilege protects all communications and disclosures between a client and his solicitor which take place in the ordinary professional employment of a solicitor. That is what was said in the Cox and Railton case. But there is, and has always been, excluded—the House insisted on the exclusion in the two recent Acts that I mentioned—those communications which are done to further a criminal purpose. [Interruption.] It is not something to get excited about; it needs close attention.
  The purpose of legal professional privilege is to further the administration of justice. It cannot possibly be said that any communication with a criminal purpose can be said to be in furtherance of the administration of justice; it is in furtherance of crime. That was the very point that my hon. Friend made. It is clearly established that the rule exists for the protection of the client to enable him to confide unreservedly in his legal advisers. The protection of privilege from disclosure is part of the law of evidence. Like all that law, it is intended to further the administration of justice. The administration of justice is not furthered by preventing any evidence from being given in court of a disclosure made to a solicitor in order to further a criminal purpose. That is why the law is not such an ass as to extend protection in those circumstances.
  It is a very different matter when a disclosure occurs by reason of a man asking his solicitor where he stands in law, with no criminal purpose at all. It is very much in the interests of the administration of justice that there should not be able to be levelled against him in support of a criminal charge the very fact that he sought such advice. So I endorse in every particular what my hon. Friend said.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The House has two difficulties. The first is that, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the act itself is a criminal offence. If the act itself is a criminal offence it is difficult to see how the privilege applies. The second problem is that, whatever my right hon. and learned Friend may say, what happens in the House will not be considered by the court. The court will look only at the face of the legislation and in doing so may take a different view from that of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  The Attorney-General: I am sure that the court will look much further than the face of the legislation if this point ever becomes a practical consideration; I emphasise that. Of course, it would have to imply the consent of the Attorney-General of the day to any such prosecution. [Interruption.] I mentioned that because we are talking about realities, but I shall deal with this point on the law of legal professional privilege. As is plain from the argument adopted by the judge in the Cox and Railton case, the judgment of the court for Crown cases reserved is entirely consistent with what I have said. Leaving out any consideration of prosecutorial discretion, the protection given in these circumstances deprives of its foundation any prosecution that might ever be sought—
  It being half past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 309.

  Division No. 111]

  [7.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gordon, Mildred

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gorst, John

  Alton, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Anderson, Donald

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Battle, John

  Haynes, Frank

  Beckett, Margaret

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Beith, A. J.

  Henderson, Doug

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Holland, Stuart

  Blair, Tony

  Home Robertson, John

  Bradley, Keith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howells, Geraint

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Buckley, George J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cartwright, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Janner, Greville

  Clay, Bob

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kennedy, Charles

  Cohen, Harry

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Lambie, David

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lamond, James

  Corbett, Robin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Cryer, Bob

  Litherland, Robert

  Cummings, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Darling, Alistair

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Douglas, Dick

  McFall, John

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McKelvey, William

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McLeish, Henry

  Eadie, Alexander

  Maclennan, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  McWilliam, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Madden, Max

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flannery, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Flynn, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Meacher, Michael

  Foster, Derek

  Meale, Alan

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morley, Elliott

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  1057

  Murphy, Paul

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Norris, Steve

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

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

  O'Brien, William

  Soley, Clive

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Spearing, Nigel

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Parry, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Patchett, Terry

  Stott, Roger

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prescott, John

  Turner, Dennis

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaz, Keith

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wall, Pat

  Radice, Giles

  Wallace, James

  Randall, Stuart

  Walley, Joan

  Redmond, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Richardson, Jo

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Salmond, Alex

  Worthington, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Allen Adams and

  Short, Clare

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Skinner, Dennis

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Alexander, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amos, Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Churchill, Mr

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Beggs, Roy

  Couchman, James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

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

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Davis, David (Booth ferry)

  Benyon, W.

  Day, Stephen

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Devlin, Tim

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginla

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Favell, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bright, Graham

  Forman, Nigel

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

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Forth, Eric

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Franks, Cecil

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Freeman, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gill, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Butler, Chris

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  1058

  Gow, Ian

  Madel, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mans, Keith

  Gregory, Conal

  Marland, Paul

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Marlow, Tony

  Grist, Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hannam, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

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

  Mellor, David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Harris, David

  Mills, Iain

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Moate, Roger

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heddle, John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hill, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hind, Kenneth

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Mudd, David

  Holt, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Howard, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hunter, Andrew

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Page, Richard

  Irvine, Michael

  Paice, James

  Irving, Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Janman, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Price, Sir David

  Key, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  Kilfedder, James

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rathbone, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Redwood, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Renton, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Riddick, Graham

  Knowles, Michael

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lang, Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Latham, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rost, Peter

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Ryder, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lilley, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lord, Michael

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Speller, Tony

  1059

  Spicer. Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walden, George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stern, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Watts, John

  Stokes, Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Wheeler, John

  Sumberg, David

  Whitney, Ray

  Summerson, Hugo

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thorne, Neil

  Woodcock, Mike

  Thurnham, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Tredinnick. David

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

  INFORMATION ENTRUSTED IN CONFIDENCE TO OTHER STATES OR INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 40, after 'above', insert
  'but "international relations" shall not include any information relating primarily to the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom whose unauthorised disclosure in the United Kingdom would not he an offence under sections 1, 2 or 4 of this Act.'.
  Under the provisions in the Bill, the phrase "international relations" provides a catch-all way of arguing that the disclosure of information is a criminal offence. On a previous occasion when the Committee considered clause 6, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) drew attention to the fact that clause 6 created a highly anomalous situation in which information communicated abroad might be regarded as criminal, yet if the same information had been communicated at home it would not be regarded in that way.
  Much trivial matter passes between our Government and other Governments, particularly within the European Community. Under this clause, much of that will be caught and its disclosure could result in an offence being committed. That could attract a penalty of two years' imprisonment.
  We complained in the Committee that the phrase "international relations" was too wide and we tried to remove it. The purpose of the amendment is to try to narrow the definition of "international relations" to recognise that there might be certain matters which affect the conduct of our relations with other countries, but there are other matters about which we may be in communication with other countries which are essentially domestic and should not attract a criminal penalty if they are disclosed.
  1060
  7.45 pm
  In that respect, the right hon. Member for Worthing referred to such information as our Government's proposals about VAT rates, which might be discussed with another European Government in relation to an EEC proposal to harmonise VAT. The Minister might argue that the revelation about VAT rates must still pass the harm test before an offence is committed. Of course that is so, but we know that the harm test is a very low hurdle to leap. The simple test is whether the disclosure is likely to jeopardise the United Kingdom's interests abroad.
  It could be argued that such a test could easily be passed if it was shown that, using the example of the right hon. Member for Worthing, a VAT communication had irritated another Government who were seeking to harmonise at a different level, or that there was some lining up of our Government's interest in the matter with the interest of another member country. The sanction of the criminal law should not be invoked in that case.
  Although I have not, in the time available to me, been able to draft the amendment in precisely the appropriate way, I am sure that the Minister would not rest on that because the Government's resources for drafting are much greater than those available to individual hon. Members. However, I hope the Minister will accept the principle that it is undesirable and unacceptable to provide for a new criminal offence of disclosure of something so minor as a proposed change in the rate of VAT.
  Through the use of the concept of "international relations" the Government have enormously widened the Bill's ambit. Many of the Home Secretary's claims that this is a liberalising Bill are set at naught by the Government's refusal to exclude the provision relating to international relations. So much of what is primarily domestic material is the subject of international discussion. There is scarcely any matter of public policy which, does not come before some institution of the European Community for consideration. The very fact that the matter has been communicated from part of a process abroad will be sufficient to bring into play the criminal law in a wholly unacceptable way. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I will follow my notes closely because we are being hurried through these matters.
  I support amendment No. 10, which I believe represents the views of the House. It limits the definition or "international relations" as it applies to clause 6 in relation to disclosures taking place overseas of information supplied by the British Government.
  The subject was discussed on 16 February under an amendment which would have omitted information about international relations from the scope of clause 6. This amendment proposes a different solution to that problem by limiting the definition of "international relations".
  The amendment attempts to exclude from clause 6 information which, in the normal sense, is not about international relations at all but is primarily about Britain's domestic affairs—information that we pass on to another Government or international body, perhaps because discussions about harmonisation or common standards are taking place. We might pass on information about consumer protection measures in Britain, pollution, VAT, the harmonisation of summer time, the labelling of food products, or measures to encourage motorists to use lead-free petrol. The list is endless.

  1061
  On 16 February my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made the point that if we pass such information on to an international body or to another Government, and if it forms part of our discussions with that body or Government, it is, technically, transformed into information about "international relations". We therefore have the bizarre situation in which it might be an offence to publish information about Britain that had been leaked overseas, though if that information had been leaked in this country it could have been published without giving rise to an offence. The problem is caused by the all-embracing definition of "international relations" used in clause 3(5). This makes it clear that information of any kind, on any subject, is covered if it is
  "capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State or with an international organisation."
  Any information that we pass on and discuss with another Government must be capable of affecting our relations with that Government—perhaps with others, too.
  The harm test mentioned in clause 3(2) would have to be met, but, as previous debates have made clear, this test is extremely weak—a disclosure likely to "jeopardise" United Kingdom interests abroad meets it. For example, Britain and another EC country might be having private discussions aimed at obtaining derogation from an EC directive on water pollution standards. We might pass on unpublished information about pollution levels in Britain and about the cost of meeting the standard. The fact that Britain appeared to be secretly discussing ways of avoiding meeting an EC standard that was being met by other European countries could well affect our relations with some of those countries. The information would therefore fall within the definition of "international relations".
  This amendment, which relates to clause 6(4), seeks to avoid that situation. It says that, for the purposes of clause 6, the definition of "international relations" in clause 3(5)
  "shall not include any information relating primarily to the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom"
  if the disclosure of that information in this country would not be an offence under clause 1, which deals with security, clause 2, which deals with defence, or clause 4, which deals with law enforcement.
  If the information related to sensitive Foreign Office negotiations its disclosure overseas would still be an offence under clause 6, but leaks of other information, primarily about Britain's domestic matters, would not be caught by the international relations definition simply because we had passed the information overseas.
  I think that the argument is a formidable one, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would accept it.
  Mr. Foot: This debate is a further illustration of how objectionable it is that the House of Commons should be considering a Bill of this nature under the restrictions that have been imposed on it. We are now approaching the parts of the Bill—indeed, we have reached them—in respect of which the truncation started at the Committee stage, when debate was curtailed by the falling of the guillotine. Now we are being denied a proper chance to judge what consideration the Goverment have given to these amendments, as happened in the case of the amendments that were moved during the Committee stage.
  1062
  As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, there is not the slightest doubt that the use of the words "international relations" greatly enlarges the ambit of the Bill in various ways. Never has a Bill dealing with subjects of this kind included provisions of this kind. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that the Government should be careful to ensure that the House of Commons has a chance to satisfy itself that the references to international relations would be properly applied, and would not be invoked in a way in which the Government may claim they do not wish to see them invoked. But we have not had that chance. The Government are leaving the several references to "international relations" without any qualification, and that is one of the Bill's many flaws.
  Let me refer to clauses 6, 7, and 8. At the Committee stage we had quite a sensible debate with the Home Secretary about how a new amendment might be formulated to deal with the question of premature disclosure—a balance that could cover the view of the Government and the view being put forward by the Opposition. It seems to me that those clauses, though they would affect international relations, have not been considered by the Government. I am not saying that the Home Secretary gave an absolute promise that he would consider accepting an amendment, but we did have a sensible debate in which we said that there surely ought to be a way of dealing with the situation, particularly in the light of terrorism.
  I fully acknowledge the problems that the Home Secretary and the Government have in respect of acts of terrorism, and so on. Of course, these create a whole new dimension of horror. I do not have the slightest doubt that the worst problems the Home Secretary has to deal with every morning when he comes to his office are those concerned with terrorism in its new forms. But all the more necessary is it that the Government look at this question and see whether we could have an amendment that would take into account all the anxieties that have been expressed on the Labour side of the House and by Tory Members, and still give protection.
  We could have had an amendment giving some protection to newspapers. That is what I am concerned about. I fully acknowledge my interest in newspapers, although I am no longer an editor. Indeed, I have not been offered an editorship for quite a considerable number of years, such is the decline in standards in Fleet street. However, this Bill introduces a whole range of new offences that have to be dealt with by newspaper editors, under the provision concerning international relations. So far as editors and other journalists are concerned, this is fresh legislation. During the Committee stage the Minister told me that he had had discussions with editors and others on these questions. I know that there were some discussions, but the Minister could not answer my question then, and I do not think that he can answer it now.
  None of these clauses provides properly for consultation with editors or the others who work in this industry. There has been a very startling and dramatic outrage on the part of the judges in the last few days. When the Government do not consult the judges and the Law Lords, they are told—quite properly—that they are not discharging their functions properly. I bet that the judges would have a good deal more chance of consultation about the supposed reforms to be introduced in their case than the journalists will have in theirs. What is being forced on

  1063
  the journalists is a new measure dealing with questions involving criminal offences. It involves what they can print. It involves a whole range of questions—in particular, as this clause discusses, how they are able to report a whole range of matters affecting international relations. What we should have had is a detailed list of amendments on all the clauses including clauses 6, 7 and 8. All of them should have been opened to proper amendment, and then we might have had a Bill that showed that the Government were really approaching the matter seriously.
  I hope that the Government will listen to what is being said and that they will accept this amendment. It might not make the Bill very much better, but it would be a small sign that the Government are listening to what the House of Commons is saying.
  Mr. Hind: I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has decided to exclude from his amendment information relating to security, defence and crime—matters that are dealt with in clauses 1. 2 and 4. The House is being asked to consider the narrow issue of information connected with international relations which does not come under those headings. We should view the matter from the point of view of damage that could be done to the national interest if that information were disclosed. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if information connected with the British Government's position on negotiations about VAT harmonisation were revealed by way of document or discussion, that should not attract the full force of the criminal law. I urge him to reconsider because real problems can be created for Government, particularly in negotiations of that kind, by the disclosure of such information.
  8 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: I do not wish to take up time because this is a ridiculously short debate. The point is that under the Bill it is not an offence to reveal such information in this country—to reveal it abroad. Presumably, the embarrassment will be the same whether the information is revealed abroad or at home.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman quoted the example of VAT harmonisation negotiations with other EC member states, which is a matter connected with international relations. Under the provisions of the Bill, the courts would take that view. It would therefore be regarded as an offence within the context of disclosure in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is trying to impose far too narrow a definition. He is trying to create something in a grey area of the law that is not capable of definition. The beauty of the Bill is that it is clearer about this. If information connected with international relations, as VAT would be, is disclosed, that could undermine negotiations in the Council of Ministers. That would cause positive harm to the British public and would undermine the national interest. Therefore, it should attract the full force of the law.
  I think that the public will agree that information on matters as emotional as the British Government's decision on VAT on food and children's clothes, or trade negotiations with other countries, which may be highly
  1064
  sensitive, should be included in the provisions of the Bill because positive damage can be caused to the national interest.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: How will we tell whether information has been leaked from this country so it will not be caught by the Bill, if enacted, or from elsewhere and so will be caught by the Bill?
  Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend is correct. Nobody would consider bringing a prosecution unless there was fairly strong evidence that the information was leaked by a Crown servant or somebody caught by the Bil11 in this country.
  Mr. Higgins: They would not be caught under the Bill.
  Mr. Hind: As I understand, my right hon. Friend is asking how we can determine whether the information has been leaked by somebody in another country or by somebody here. If the information is leaked by the foreign power, that is a different matter.
  Mr. Higgins: We shall not be able to tell.
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also referred to information being leaked during negotiations. If a civil servant involved in the negotiations, knowing that a document has been passed over to a foreign power in the negotiations, decides to disclose that information, that is a different situation. The foreign power has the information, and the test of harm does not apply because it can be argued that no harm would arise, so no prosecution will be brought in such circumstances. The Attorney-General would examine the circumstances, but no prosecution would be brought.
  What the hon. Gentleman is trying to put into the Bill is too unclear. The Bill is much clearer. The harm test will apply in all circumstances. In our attempts to introduce exceptions to the rule and to cover this or that corner we forget that the harm test, which is so beautifully simplistic, protects the national interest and covers many of the points that have been made.
  It is not necessary to put the amendment into the Bill, so that the hon. Gentleman can confidently withdraw it.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: This is a ridiculously short debate in which to discuss a provision that will shroud much of our lives in secrecy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on his valiant defence of the Government. When the Bill has received its Third Reading he should get a prize for being the only Tory Back Bencher to support the Government regularly.
  It is frightening that so much of the information relating to potential EEC legislation would be struck out under the Bill's provisions by the wide drawing of the clause. Much of the prospective legislation that affects the lives of our people is discussed at ministerial level or between Government officials or organisations of Governments. For example, three countries in the Shengen group are discussing the single European market and the movement of people in advance of 1992. If I am told, and I reveal, that the Government are supplying information to those countries, that would be an offence under this provision, because it might be damaging and might damage the United Kingdom's interests abroad. Those countries might take great exception if what they were discussing was known either here or in continental Europe.

  1065
  However, those discussions might be of great interest to our people. The clause will keep our people in the dark about what is being discussed at ministerial and Government organisation level. At a time when more and more decisions are being taken in the EEC, we should know what is being said on our behalf, and know what legislation is being considered. If the clause becomes law, we shall not have that option if the information is revealed by way of leak.
  The clause affects more than international treaties. As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, if information on harmonisation proposals on VAT or water pollution or other matters of great importance is revealed and reported through leaks, it will be struck at by the legislation. The Minister might reflect on the fact that if he proposed a similar provision striking at the revealing of information in the normal course of day-to-day discussions in this country, never mind international relations, people would regard that as unjustified and objectionable. Because the clause covers international relations and because the definition of international relations is so widely drawn, many of the negotiations on matters that will affect the way in which we conduct our lives and move about will be covered by the clause. If it is revealed to an individual, we in this country are not entitled to know about it.
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Darling: I do not have time to give way, because the Minister must be given time to reply.
  If the Minister says that the clause is badly drafted or needs tighter definition, I am sure that the Government could so arrange things when the Bill goes to the other place or comes back here. The definition of international relations is so widely drawn that it will strike at just about everything, and that cannot be good for discussion in this country. I trust that the Minister will come up with something better than a criticism of the drafting of the amendment. He must accept that, as drafted, clause 6 is far too wide and is thoroughly objectionable.
  Mr. Higgins: My remarks will be brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has clearly spelt out the case. Matters were confused at the end of the Committee stage. I cannot believe that the Minister will manage to resolve them in the five minutes that remain before we must reach a decision on the matter. In that case, it is debatable whether hon. Members should waste time on a Division when there are other important matters to be discussed. Be that as it may, the House of Lords must sort out a matter which this House should have had time to deal with.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The position is perfectly clear. I will return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in a moment.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on the way in which he moved the amendment, though I disagree with it in principle and also because of the effects that it would have. It is important that we realise that the effect of the amendment would not have much logic. First, it would be an offence to disclose international relations information
  1066
  which has never left this country, because such disclosure could be proved to jeopardise our interests abroad in one or other of the harm tests in clause 3(2).
  The other effect would be that, if the same information were entrusted to another state or to an international organisation and was leaked and then disclosed by exactly the same period in the same circumstances with exactly the same effect, it would not be an offence. There is no logic to the way in which the amendment would apply.
  As I told the House at the end of the previous debate, clause 6 does not extend the categories of the information protected by the Bill. It extends the protection to the three categories that are specified when that information is entrusted in confidence to another state or to an international organisation and is then leaked abroad by a foreign national. All that clause 6 does is to extend the protection to information already protected in this country by clauses 1 to 3 when it is thereafter sent abroad and disclosed.
  Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing came into the Chamber, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to what he had said in Committee. What makes the information relate to international relations in the case of VAT or water pollution is not the circumstances of the disclosure or where it is sent, but the nature of the information itself. The information has precisely the same definition in all the offences in the Bill which relate to international relations, and it is in clause 3(5). I do not accept the criticisms of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the drafting of clause 3(5).
  If some official information is produced in this country relating to international relations—say because it relates to relations between states or international organisations—of course it could be covered by the Bill, but only if the unauthorised disclosure met the harm test to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) referred, relating to international organisations in clause 3, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) rightly referred.
  The point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing on 16 February was simply that, if the information in this country does not meet the language of clause 3(5), which we have debated before—say it is a statement of our VAT charges or information about water pollution levels—it cannot simply meet the language of clause 3(5) by being sent off to another state or to an international organisation. If it does meet the language of—
  It being quarter past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 309.

  Division No. 112]

  [8.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Margaret

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Beith, A. J.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Blair, Tony

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Keith

  Baldry, Tony

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Battle, John

  Buchan, Norman

  1067

  Buckley, George J.

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  McAllion, John

  Cartwright, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McCartney, lan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Clay, Bob

  McFall, John

  Clelland, David

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McKelvey, William

  Cohen, Harry

  McLeish, Henry

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Corbett, Robin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McTaggart, Bob

  Cryer, Bob

  McWilliam, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Madden, Max

  Darling, Alistair

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dewar, Donald

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Dixon, Don

  Martlew, Eric

  Doran, Frank

  Maxton, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Meacher, Michael

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Michael, Alun

  Eadie, Alexander

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Eastham, Ken

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morley, Elliott

  Fearn, Ronald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Brien, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Parry, Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Foulkes, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Fyfe, Maria

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Galloway, George

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Radice, Giles

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Randall, Stuart

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Redmond, Martin

  Gordon, Mildred

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Gould, Bryan

  Richardson, Jo

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Grocott, Bruce

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Haynes, Frank

  Sheerman, Barry

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Henderson, Doug

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Short, Clare

  Holland, Stuart

  Skinner, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Soley, Clive

  Howells, Geraint

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Stott, Roger

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Illsley, Eric

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ingram, Adam

  Turner, Dennis

  Janner, Greville

  Vaz, Keith

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Wall, Pat

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wallace, James

  Lambie, David

  Walley, Joan

  Lamond, James

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Litherland, Robert

  Wilson, Brian

  Livsey, Richard

  Winnick, David

  1068

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Martyn Jones and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Eggar, Tim

  Alexander, Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Amos, Alan

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Favell, Tony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Field, Barry (lsle of Wight)

  Ashby, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Atkinson, David

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Franks, Cecil

  Beggs, Roy

  Freeman, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gale, Roger

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Benyon, W.

  Gill, Christopher

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Body, Sir Richard

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gorst, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Gow, lan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Green way, John (Ryedale)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Grist, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hannam, John

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

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

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Harris, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Burns, Simon

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Butcher, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butterfill, John

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hill, James

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Holt, Richard

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howard, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Chope, Christopher

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dforcl)

  Churchill, Mr

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Irvine, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Irving, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Jack, Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jackson, Robert

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

  Janman, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jessel, Toby

  Day, Stephen

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  1069

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Raffan, Keith

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Redwood, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Renton, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knox, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Lang, lan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Latham, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lawrence, lvan

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rost, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lilley, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lord, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Squire, Robin

  Marlow, Tony

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon lan (Herts N)

  Mellor, David

  Stokes, Sir John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, lain

  Summerson, Hugo

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, lan (Esher)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thorne, Neil

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thurnham, Peter

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tredinnick, David

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Trippier, David

  Mudd, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Neale, Gerrard

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walden, George

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waller, Gary

  Norris, Steve

  Ward, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Watts, John

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Wheeler, John

  Patnick, Irvine

  Whitney, Ray

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pawsey, James

  Wilkinson, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wilshire, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Portillo, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wood, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Woodcock, Mike

  1070

  Yeo, Tim

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mr. Tony Durant and

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

  INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
  `(1) A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or article relating to the personal affairs of an identifiable individual which has been supplied in accordance with any requirement to do so imposed by or by virtue of any statutory provision or so supplied in connection with an application under a statutory provision for the grant of any benefit, approval or other permission, or which is held by any police authority, and which is held on terms requiring, or in circumstances in which it would be reasonable to expect, it to be held in confidence.
  It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the disclosure was required in order to prevent serious injury to the health, safety or welfare of any person or a serious risk to public health.
  It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question was such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Richard Shepherd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Again, I shall go as quickly as I can through new clause 3. The clause proposes to add a new category of information—personal information about individuals—to those protected under the Bill. At present, the one area in which section 2 of the 1911 Act is still being used, and where its use is least controversial, is to deal with improper disclosures of personal information.
  Earlier this month, two police officers and five private investigators were convicted under section 2 for conspiring to obtain information from the police national computer about criminal convictions and car owners. In 1986, a clerk at the DHSS was convicted under section 2 for revealing to a rival councillor details of social security claims made by the husband of a local councillor. Such information would no longer be covered by the new Official Secrets Act. The only police information that would be covered would be information whose disclosure would impede law enforcement.
  Disclosures may still be offences under other statutes. If the information is held on computer, unauthorised disclosure by an individual may be an offence under section 5(3) of the Data Protection Act 1984. If the information is held on paper files, however, it is not covered by that Act. There are other prohibitions in individual statutes on the disclosure of certain types of personal information, but it is not clear how comprehensive they are. I recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State actually said that one of the things that the Department would be doing would be to review the existing legislation to ascertain whether there are omissions. We have not had the Minister's view on that yet. It may, of course, turn out to be the case that some types of information covered by the amendment are already adequately protected by other statutory provisions

  1071
  and that the amendment is therefore not required, but I have some doubt about that in respect of the national police computer.
  The new clause recognises that the protection of personal privacy is an extremely high priority for the public and should be recognised by legislation. The amendment would cover the following types of personal information held in confidence about an identifiable individual. First, it would cover information that an individual is required to supply by statute. That would, for example, include income declared to the Inland Revenue—I should like to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's view on whether that is protected by existing legislation—census information or car ownership details. Secondly, it would cover information supplied in connection with an application for a statutory benefit or permit, such as social security or legal aid. Thirdly, it would cover information held by the police. The new clause refers to information held by a "police authority", but perhaps it should have referred to a "police force".
  Subsection (2) of the new clause provides a defence for an unauthorised disclosure if
  "the disclosure was required in order to prevent serious injury to the health, safety or welfare of any person or a serious risk to public health."
  That principle is incorporated in the Prevention of Pollution Act 1974. Such disclosure might arise in an emergency when, for example, someone was carrying a highly dangerous infectious disease such as smallpox. A need for an exception of this nature is also recognised in the Data Protection Act 1984. Section 34(8) of that Act allows disclosure which otherwise would be an offence where it is
  "urgently required for preventing injury or other damage to the health of any person or persons".
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Corbett: I shall make a brief contribution to the debate because the conviction of a clerk at the DSS, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), happened in my constituency. I do not want to cause any trouble by saying that the councillor involved was a Liberal, but whatever else he did, he should not have asked for that information.
  Mr. John Patten: Name him.
  Mr. Corbett: He is no longer a councillor, so it does not matter.
  When the Minister replies, he may well assure the House that the restrictions on the passing of information that citizens have to provide on a statutory basis, such as information to the taxman, the DSS, or whatever, are protected by other legislation. If that is so, we shall be able to dispose of this debate fairly rapidly.
  Mr. John Patten: During the course of my speech I hope that I will be able to bring a smile to the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
  Ms. Diane Abbott: I doubt it.
  Mr. Patten: Wait and see.
  We explained in the White Paper—a document long since forgotten in our debates—why we did not consider it right to give blanket protection to information provided by individuals. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of
  1072
  the arguments that were adduced in the White Paper. I am sure that it is better for Parliament to look at particular kinds of such information individually and decide whether it is right to give it the protection of the criminal law. I shall develop that argument and then make some announcements to the House.
  The elements of the offence, and of any relevant defences, need to be considered in the context of the purposes for which the information is supplied in the first place and the circumstances in which it, quite properly, might be disclosed. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend also outlines the circumstances under which information should be properly disclosed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suspected—it was also implicit in the contribution by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—there are already a number of individual offences that protect information provided Ito Government under statutory requirement or for some other purpose. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned census information, which is already protected by the Census Act 1920. There are other examples that might interest my hon. Friend. Section 74 of the Airports Act 1986 makes it an offence, subject to certain exceptions, to disclose information obtained from airport operators by, amongst others, the Civil Aviation Authority. We have had a brief discussion of value added tax during the previous debate and section 44 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 makes it an offence to disclose information obtained by the business statistics office of the Department of Trade and Industry for the business register or any other statistical survey other than to a Government official who needs it for that purpose. In practice, where prosecutions are brought for the disclosure of the categories of personal information referred to by my hon. Friend, they are normally brought under those specific offences. It is extremely rare that such offences are brought under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
  My hon. Friend's new clause would bring back the blanket protection in a manner that would not be consistent with our proposals. As we said in the White Paper, in general the civil remedies available to those who provide the information and the disciplinary procedures that penalise disclosure by a Crown servant provide sufficient protection for private information.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall develop this argument before I give way to my hon. Friend.
  In the White Paper we acknowledged that there are circumstances where, as the Franks committee argued, it is in the public interest that private information should be given the protection of the criminal law. I do not believe that anyone would dissent from the view that in certain circumstances such information should be given the protection of the criminal law.
  Mr. Bermingham indicated assent.
  Mr. Patten: I am glad that I have the assent of the hon. Gentleman. We see no reason why all such information should automatically be given that protection. Generally we believe that Parliament should have a selective attitude when considering the nature of the information that may be provided and the harm likely to arise from its disclosure.

  1073
  The new clause contains no test of harm. It protects every piece of information that is provided in the broad circumstances covered by the clause. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that a person who provides information about himself or herself to a public official has the right to expect that that information should be kept in confidence. In the White Paper we undertook that we would consider whether the repeal of section 2 left without the protection of the criminal law any information provided to the Government in confidence which needs such protection. Tonight I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to continue to provide such protection for those who give private information about themselves and their businesses in confidence to the Inland Revenue and to Customs and Excise.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does that mean that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will propose new legislation to the House? What legislation protects the national police computer?
  Mr. Patten: The protection given to those who provide information to the Inland Revenue and to Customs and Excise will be a continuation of previous practice, but it must be hallowed in legislation in this place—
  Mr. Shepherd: Will it be a criminal offence?
  Mr. Patten: It will be a criminal offence.
  Mr. Shepherd: So it is new legislation?
  Mr. Patten: It will mean the continuation of previous practice. The offence will apply to personal information only about taxpayers, including companies. It will not protect information about tax policy or about prospective tax changes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked whether the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 would leave personal information on the police national computer without the protection of the criminal law. I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance as personal information held on that computer is covered by the Data Protection Act 1984. It would be an offence for those responsible for the operation of the police national computer wrongly to disclose such personal information. Equally, I can tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security proposes to make provisions in relation to private information provided to his Department, similar to those to be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Social Security Bill which is currently before the House. I hope that the House will welcome those proposals by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I must not pre-empt those debates as the House will have the opportunity to discuss those matters.
  Mr. Corbett: What about the guillotine?
  Mr. Patten: That is not a matter for me—that is a traditional answer to the traditional question, although it was asked from a sedentary position. The House will have the opportunity to consider those details in Committee, when they are published in relevant Bills.
  1074
  At present, we have not yet identified other categories of personal information which would not be protected other than by official secrets legislation, and which merits the protection of the criminal law. That can be considered in the context of any relevant legislation which is brought before the House.
  The new clause goes wider than we believe is needed at present to ensure the protection of personal information. We agree that such information should be protected, but, if my hon. Friend presses his new clause, we do not agree that all such information needs to be protected by the criminal law under all circumstances all the time, nor that such protection should be given by official secrets legislation. That is probably the wrong route and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will consider withdrawing his new clause.
  Mr. Bermingham: It is interesting to hear the Minister announce new legislation. However, like the money changer, he comes with almost empty hands and high interest rates.
  The Minister has really missed the point. Of course some categories of information need to be protected, and once again the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has highlighted them. He mentioned the police national computer and the problems that can arise when that information is made available to other people, for legal or illegal purposes. We know from experience that information in the possession of the Inland Revenue is not always safe, and that information passed to the Department of Social Security about legal aid applications and other matters has leaked into the hands of third parties. Computers are not free from hackers and that information has a curious way of leaking out, often to the detriment of ordinary men and women.
  We seek to ensure that such information is protected. If our society is worth having, if people want to go to the Inland Revenue and feel that it is their duty to disclose matters which involve companies and interlinking between companies, they need to know that the information that they provide will be safe. That occurred some years ago in the lump scandal in the building trade when an enormous amount of tax was defrauded. There are people within Government Departments involved in tax, social security and so on who for a quick £1 or £2 will disclose information. We need to know that those people can be prosecuted.
  I become concerned when I hear the Minister say that the Government will cover any particular information in another Bill, such as the Social Security Bill. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) ask about a guillotine, but I shall leave aside that argument. We need the legislation to be in a composite form. If it is not, there is no guarantee that the legislation on each category of information will take the same form and that there will be the same certainty about that legislation. That is why I still have very grave reservations about the Bill as it stands.
  Once again I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for moving new clause 3. It is not word perfect, but its spirit is right. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman does not push the new clause to a vote, the Government will take it away and examine it with care, and perhaps consideration will be given to statutory protection when the Bill passes to another place.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. John Patten: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have demonstrated their good intentions through the two announcements I have made this evening about future legislation from the Treasury and from the Department of Social Security, particularly dealing with the income tax matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred?
  Mr. Bermingham: I hear the Minister and I hope that the actions which will follow are as pure as his words. The Government are prepared to listen, and I am prepared to give them one more chance. However, the Government's track record on the Bill to date has been pretty awful and therefore I have little faith in the dulcet tones of the Minister. Let us hope that he proves me wrong for a change.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

  SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION
  Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 24, after 'such', insert
  'and has disclosed without official authorisation'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 8, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert
  `and the person discloses it knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it is such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above and is likely to be used without authority for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.
  Mr. Corbett: The Minister has fair taken away the breath of the House with those two generous announcements, and I wonder whether I can tempt him to make it a hat trick. I want the Minister to understand that amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are not solely Opposition amendments and stand in the names of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
  The clause is about disclosures which helped someone gain access to protected information. There is no harm test; the offence is disclosure where
  "it would be reasonable to expect"
  that lawfully held information might somehow be used by a person to whom it is passed to get at protected information.
  Clause 8 applies to any information and is not limited to categories of information that are protected under the Bill. The legally held information need not have been leaked. It would apply to information which a civil servant disclosed with proper authorisation, or even to information published in an official report sold by HMSO. That is possible. If it is not possible the Minister will tell me. The Minister may well say that it is very unlikely, but I do not want to know that, as in paragraph 14 of the White Paper the Government's aim is that there should be no uncertainty as to whether people risked prosecution.
  The nub of our objection is that the person who passes on the information which he or she legally holds commits an offence even if he or she has no reason to believe that the person receiving the information is likely to use it
  1076
  improperly, so the holder of the information has to guess at the intentions of others. 1 accept that ultimately that would be a matter for the courts, but none the less the offence is too widely drawn and relies too much on guess-work about the intentions of another person.
  I shall give the Minister and the House a couple of examples. It is not unknown for people to be walking by the side of canals or rivers or around the areas of rubbish dumps—it has been well reported—and to find batches of secret information. The good citizen in those circumstances would look at the documents and say, "What shall I do with these?". He may sweep them up and walk home with them. He is then faced with a range of choices. One option would be to phone the local police station. The citizen may say, "1 do not know the value of these papers or who they belong to because there is no clue." Such papers do not often say, "Home Office" or "John Patten's Office".
  Let us assume that the documents have the word "Secret" stamped all over them. The citizen may think, "I know what, I'll phone ITN." He may not do that for any malevolent reason but simply because he thinks that that organisation would know what to do. He may believe that it would pick up the telephone and speak to the Minister of State's Office and say, "We have some documents. We think that they belong to you so please come and get them." That may not be done for malevolent reasons or for financial gain but purely to return the papers, which, clearly, should not be on the side of a canal, to the person responsible for them. Under the clause as drafted, if a good citizen passed such documents to ITN and ITN let the side down by saying, "Holy smoke, there's a real cracker here and we should do something about it."—let us assume that the D notice committee does not hear about it—the good citizen could be in trouble. He or she may have no idea of the intentions of the person to whom the documents were handed.
  Somebody travelling on a train from the golden city of Birmingham to Euston may overhear a conversation between two people who seem to be members of the Security Service who are talking more loudly than they should about their work. That person may get bored with the conversation and go to buy a bacon sandwich—I think that British Rail has stopped making bacon sandwiches. He may say to the man in the buffet, "I heard two spooks talking about their work." Under the Bill as drafted, the mere fact that he said that means that he may have committed an offence and risk prosecution. Those are open-ended offences which should not be in the Bill. Our two amendments seek to narrow the offence.
  The first amendment seeks to limit the offence to passing on information disclosed without official authority. Passing on information that has been officially published would not be an offence. That should be the Government's intention if they do not want to look even more stupid than they do now. The second amendment means that no offence would be committed unless the holder of the authorised information knows that it was held by a Crown servant, that it was disclosed without authority and that it is likely to be used to obtain access to protected information. The clause as drafted does not lay that test. The clause uses the words:
  "it would be reasonable to expect".
  It does not say who would make the test of reasonableness or how it would he applied.

  1077
  Perhaps the Minister would give examples of the specific problems that clause 8(6) is designed to guard against. If he cannot, the amendments should be accepted.
  Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) and his right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendment are attempting to raise the threshold for the offence. He described accurately what he is trying to do and perhaps he will correct me if my understanding is wrong.
  The two amendments apply the access offence in clause 8(6). Amendment No. 11 is a paving amendment for amendment No. 12 because it introduces a preliminary step in the offence requiring that the Crown servant or the Government contractor in whose possession the information was had disclosed that information without authority. That theme has run throughout all our debates. The intention is clear and I would not argue about the wording.
  Amendment No. 12 requires the prosecution to say that the discloser knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the information had been disclosed by a Crown servant or a delinquent Government contractor without authority and that it was likely to be used to obtain unauthorised access to protected information.
  The two amendments turn the test of use from one of expectation to one of knowledge. It would not be much use, if the Bill prohibited the disclosure of protected information, if a person could avoid responsibility by telling someone how to obtain information for themselves. That is what would happen. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would ensure that neither the discloser nor the recipient would be liable for any offence. Clause 8(6) closes that loophole and the amendments, to some extent, reopen it. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The objective of the offence is to prevent people obtaining unauthorised access to protected information.
  Mr. Corbett: Yes.
  Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman said, "Yes" and he has explained his intentions clearly. However, amendment No. 11 is misconceived.
  What matters is the misuse of the official information, not whether it was originally disclosed without authority. Surely there are no circumstances in which a Crown servant would be authorised to disclose information that might provide unauthorised access to protected information.
  Mr. Corbett: What about the rubbish dump scenario and accidental access?
  Mr. Patten: Accidental access would undoubtedly be protected by the harm test. Accidental access could not be an offence because there would be no way of proving that the person wished to make available to someone else, with the intention of causing damage, information which he or she had stumbled upon on the edge of a rubbish dump. The hon. Gentleman is simply repeating the fruitless search for the honest whistleblower and is now replacing that motif with the honest stumbler over information on the edge of rubbish dumps. That example does not help the proper understanding of clause 8.
  It is pretty far-fetched and imaginative in the extreme to suggest that the Government would publish information that would give access to protected material. That was another point that was implicit in what the hon. Member for Erdington said. What is really relevant to the offence is that the individual has reason to know that the information he discloses might be used to gain unauthorised access to protected information. That requirement is already in the Bill and it is reinforced by the need for the prosecution to show that, in the circumstances of the disclosure, it was reasonable to expect that it should have that effect. That seems to reflect more accurately the circumstances in which such offences might be committed.
  Questions about official authorisation and whether the person disclosing the information had reason to believe that it had been officially authorised for disclosure only take attention away from the essential element of the offence itself, which is to prevent someone giving someone else the nod and wink about how to gain access to unauthorised information and to escape any penalty for so doing. I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that that would help to protect the official secrets of the realm, where they need protection. What matters is not official authorisation, which might or might not be relevant to the particular disclosure, but whether the person disclosing the information did so in circumstances in which he had reason to expect—which is the critical point—that it might be used to give access to protected information.
  It being Nine o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Amendment negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9 pm
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House has spent six days—all on the Floor of the House—on an important Bill of 16 clauses. I do not think that, in retrospect, that will be found niggardly. The two main issues of contention identified by critics of the Bill were, first. the absolute offence for members and former members of the intelligence and security services and, secondly, the principle of a public interest defence. Both issues were discussed at length and without restriction.
  We have seen a devoted and articulate band of critics, from all parties, coming together against certain aspects of the Bill. Those critics have not, of course, opposed the proposal to free the great bulk of official information from the criminal law so that the great majority of civil servants will, if the Bill becomes law, hardly ever possess information that will come within its scope. That is a substantial change. The critics have not opposed the proposal that there should be harm tests in, for example, foreign affairs and defence which now, for the first time, will have to be surmounted before prosecution can succeed. They have not opposed the proposal that there should be no ministerial certificates and that the jury should decide.
  What the critics have been doing is urging us to do more, to go further down the road, to make the hurdles higher and to introduce new forms of defence within the narrow area still to be protected. They have done that overwhelmingly because of the particular person whom they continually conjure up before us—the vision of the whistleblower, the conscientious civil servant who is asked to do something wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) gave perhaps the most vivid description of that person a few hours ago. Such a person can exist and it is right, wherever possible, that there should be safeguards and remedies open to him. But the House cannot be expected to build the whole structure of the law around that person. He is not the only pebble on the beach.
  That is why the argument from the critics has been unbalanced. Yet that argument has dominated most of the debate. A balance must be struck because the information that we believe must be protected needs to be protected—not to save Ministers from embarrassment or to safeguard some vague concept of public interest, but to enable certain services of the Crown to protect the citizens of this country against certain specific evils, such as terrorism, crime and espionage. Where that has to be done, it should be done effectively.
  In the areas defined by the Bill, information disclosed can cause serious damage—I use the word "serious" deliberately.
  Mr. Corbett: What about "serious damage"?
  Mr. Hurd: I am coming to that—as I have come to it so often. I used the word "serious" deliberately, knowing that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) would be spry in interjecting, because I believe in the narrowed categories of test as defined in the Bill. I believe that harm could be serious without the further need for qualifying it as such in the various harm tests in the Bill.
  1080
  Perhaps because the critics' arguments have tended to be unbalanced, they have not made decisive headway. Nevertheless, they have strong assets. They have their own strong talents and the fact that many of them, as Privy Councillors, have under our rules rightly been prominent in debate. They have also had the support of a powerful section of the press, which has often emitted more smoke than light. Of course, the press has a perfectly legitimate interest in maximum disclosure, so no one should be surprised by that. Despite all those formidable assets, however, the critics have not been able to mobilise more than a certain level of support—[Interruption.] I hope that no one will try to tell me about the power of the Whips, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) did earlier when lie referred to the ignorant majority. I know the limits on the power of the Whips, having stood at the Dispatch Box and seen a Government measure come apart in my hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, this is it."]—despite all the power of the Whips to sustain it on Second Reading.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Shops Bill deserved to fall apart.
  Mr. Hurd: I believe that my hon. Friend will agree with what I have been saying. If the whole House believes that the Government have got their basic judgments wrong about a measure, it will make that belief felt—especiallly when every word in the argument has been spoken on the Floor of the House, as has been the case with this Bill.
  Mr. Budgen: Is not the problem that if a Bill is bashed through quickly there is not the opportunity for the House to respond to public opinion? In the case of the devolution measures that went through the House 10 years ago. public opinion in the end changed and, as it changed, it affected opinion in this House. By bashing the Bill through so unnecessarily, my right hon. Friend and the Government do not know what the people of this country believe about it.
  Mr. Hurd: I must beg leave to differ with my hon. Friend. The process has seemed almost interminable. We had the White Paper, a debate on the White Paper arid then the Bill, with long processes of discussion and debate for many months, so "bashing through" is certainly not what has occurred. Time for the play of public opinion has been substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills began the process with his private Member's Bill. There has been at least a year—indeed, more than a year—for the processes that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) describes to have their effect.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed rose—
  Mr. Rooker rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) because he has been here throughout the debate.
  Mr. Rooker: The real test of public opinion—this is where the Home Secretary will come to rue the day that he rushed the Bill through—was not the White Paper or the Bill. It will be the first trial, when the whole damned thing will blow up in his and the Government's face.
  Mr. Hurd: I am content to wait for that day because one of the root elements of the Bill has been to transfer more power to the jury than was the case under previous proposals.
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Hurd: I want to get on as I promised to take only 10 minutes.
  Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is his only friend in the House.
  Mr. Hurd: I shall not say, like Mr. Neville Chamberlain, that I have my friends, because that usually ends in tears.
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Hurd: No, before I close I shall return to the theme that has been behind almost the whole of the debate for more than a year. I refer to what I would describe as the myth of obsessive secrecy. There can be few critics of the Bill who have not used some such phrase.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) personalised that argument in debating the Bill last week by referring to my background. He was polite, as he almost always is, and he described me as a mandarin. As it happens, before I was a mandarin I was a son and grandson of Members of the House, both of whom spent many years as journalists, so my background is not wholly dissimilar from that of my hon. Friend, albeit less celebrated. I assure my hon. Friend that the main difference that has occurred since I started as a small mandarin in 1952 has been precisely the spread of information flowing out of Whitehall. That is the biggest single change under all Governments, and it is continuing. It is a particular change that I see in my present Department. The great increase in the workload of my Department is, in large part, due to the disclosure, publication, defence and explanation of information which was previously held tight. That is true in relation to prisons and immigration, and it is increasingly true of the police. I welcome it and I acknowledge that much of it has been extracted by the press and by the Select Committees and proceedings of this House. I repeat that I welcome that. I believe that the process has some way to go and that the Bill makes an important contribution to it.
  This is a task that has baffled several Governments. It baffled the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who received the Franks report but had no time to do anything about it because of the 1974 election. My right hon. Friend would certainly have done something about it, but it is equally certain that what he would have done would have been on the basis of conclusive ministerial certificates. For five long years, it baffled the Labour Government of 1974–79, who left behind the White Paper, which again rested on conclusive ministerial certificates. It also baffled the present Government in their first year or two. Now we have a chance collectively to get it right and to get it through.
  Far from making the Government the arbiter in these matters, the Bill reduces the present wide, vast role of the prosecuting authorities. It asks Parliament to define the harm and it asks the jury, without ministerial interference,
  1082
  to conclude whether the harm has been done. I believe that, among the reforms introduced by the present Government, this is one of the most substantial and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Hattersley: I appreciate that the rules of order governing a Third Reading debate have put the Home Secretary at some disadvantage. Those rules require that speeches do not deal with matter that is not contained in the Bill. Yet since the Bill was published the Home Secretary's speeches have concentrated largely on material that does not appear in this legislation, usually pretending that it did.
  The process of misrepresentation of the Bill's contents began when the Home Office handout, purporting to describe the Bill, referred to
  "specific tests of harm to the public interest".
  As we have discovered after the limited debate that the Government have allowed, the phrase "public interest" does not appear in the Bill. Nor are any of its clauses built on the concept of public interest.
  But the concept of harm does appear, and I shall spend the limited time that the guillotine allows me examining whether the concept of harm as it appears in the Bill enables the Home Secretary to claim with anything like plausibility that his proposals pass the central test of official secrets legislation.
  That test can easily be defined. In a free society, official secrets legislation should protect information that, were it to become widely available, would jeopardise the security of the nation. It should not, however, embrace or include information that can be made public without damaging the national interest, whether or not the publication of that information embarrasses the Government of the day.
  That is central to the principle on which much of the argument in Committee and on Report was based—an argument in which the Home Secretary has never chosen to join—which is the contention that the Government are not the nation, that the national interest is not necessarily synonymous with the Government's interest and that the courts, rather than the Government, should decide where the national interest lies.
  Those principles are all essential to democracy. After all the time spent on discussion and debate, about which the Home Secretary spoke with such pride, we still have no idea whether the Government share the view I described, or whether the Home Secretary believes that he has introduced legislation that properly distinguishes between national and Government interest. He has by implication continually rejected all the principles advanced by hon. Members by his refusal even to contemplate a public interest defence for those accused of revealing official secrets. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to create the impression—at least outside the House—that the so-called harm test is in some way proof and demonstration of the Bill's moderation.
  The claim that the Bill suppresses only information that, were it to be revealed, would jeopardise the national interest is built on that simple idea—a concept that the Home Secretary variously calls "serious damage", "serious injury", and "serious harm". None of those terms accurately describes anything that appears in the Bill. When attempts were made specifically to insert into the Bill the word "serious", to qualify harm, injury or damage, the Home Secretary always resisted. Tonight, in his most

  1083
  recent and final speech—until the Lords improve the Bill—he told the House that the harm or damage must be serious, and was giggling when he remembered that, although that is what he told the House, "serious" is not a word that he will allow into the Bill.
  The Home Secretary sought to bolster his arguments over the adjective "serious" with language that a more confident and scrupulous man would not employ. A recent example of the Home Secretary attempting to make words mean whatever he wished them to mean appeared in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday. I quote his words exactly:
  "Under the new Bill, prosecutions must, in most cases, prove to a jury that serious damage has been done, in terms defined by the Bill."
  No doubt the parentheses "in most cases" and
  "in terms defined by the Bill"
  were intended as qualifications so extreme and substantial that the meaning of the sentence was, on analysis, quite different from that which the casual reader supposed. That is a pretty disreputable technique in itself. But even when that disreputable linguistic practice has been recognised as such, the Home Secretary's statement is wrong. The idea that the Bill prohibits only the publication of official information when serious harm is done, or is even likely to be done, does not stand up to a moment's examination.
  All information covered by clause 1 is expressly excluded from all tests of harm. Any man or woman employed by the security services is required now and for ever to maintain absolute confidentiality about every aspect of their work, as are men and women notified by the Government that they are obliged to maintain lifelong confidentiality. For them, there is no test of harm. For them, there is no question of judging whether or not the information they revealed is damaging to the national interest—or is inconsequential, trivial or even meaningless.
  Members of the security services and those associated with them are allowed to publish anything about their work only when the Government agree that they should do so. Nobody doubts why that rule applies. The Government want to be able to allow and promote books that are to their political advantage, and suppress books that are politically embarrassing. If there is a test for harm in that area, the test for publication is the test of whether harm will be done to the Government's political reputation.
  There is a test of harm in other areas, but as to the Bill itself—and contrary to what the Home Secretary persistently says about it—no reasonable person could believe that the test of harm relates to serious harm and to serious harm alone. I take as my example clause 2(2)(a) where the concept of damage, which, rightly or wrongly, the Home Secretary equates with serious harm, is defined. A damaging disclosure is said to be any disclosure which "prejudices the capability of, or any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks".
  We learnt in Committee that that definition applies to all the armed forces' tasks, no matter how trivial or inconsequential, no matter whether or not they are even related to the national interest or could reasonably be defined as assisting the national interest or damaging it. The idea that the definition of harm, as specified in clause 2 and related to the armed forces, contains any serious protection for those who might inadvertently allow inconsequential or trivial information to appear in the public domain is nonsense.
  I cannot believe that the Home Secretary, with his expensive education and all the prizes about which he
  1084
  keeps telling profile writers, does not realise that what he claims to be in the Bill does not appear in it. I cannot believe that it is a genuine error. He must know that his claims for the Bill are substantially, materially and grossly different from what the Bill contains on analysis of its clauses.
  I am reinforced in that belief by the Home Secretary's demeanour and performance. Throughout the debate he has avoided, rather than meet face on, the arguments of his critics. He has been an accessory to the guillotine and he has exploited it on every occasion to avoid giving serious answers to serious questions. In my 25 years in the House. where I have seen Governments of both persuasions anxious in adverse circumstances to slip legislation through with the minimum of debate, I have never seen a measure that was so opposed by some Government Back Benchers and so little supported by the rest. I have never seen a ministerial parliamentary private secretary running around attempting to get Government Back Benchers to read from the Home Secretary's notes and failing to persuade them to do so.
  What I have seen throughout the debate that we are about to conclude has been a shabby performance by the Government; they knew that they could not win the arguments on their merits and, therefore, took refuge in every device that was open to them. I have no doubt that they will get their majority tonight, but it will be a shabby victory and the Government will pay for it in the long run.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Amery: When my right hon. Friend replied to the debate on new clause 1 he tried to draw a distinction between procedure and policy. I do not think that anyone who listened to him or who studies the matter can believe that there is such a difference. The assurances that I was given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State detailed how authorisation would be given Then my right hon. Friend said, yes, but the policy was different. It was the procedure on the one hand and the policy on the other. I do not think that we can seriously reconcile the two.
  Where do we stand? We have a repudiation by my right hon. Friend of assurances given by my hon. Friend. Perhaps we should not be too surprised about that. If my right hon. Friend had come back to the Dispatch Box and reassured us that we could rely on the assurances given by my hon. Friend, he would have kicked away the whole basis on which the Peter Wrights, the Cavendishes and the other cases were based. There is a difficulty for the Government. If they kick away a pebble, they may bring down the whole arch on which the Government's policy is based. I do not see that the House should accept that view of the architecture on which our policy is to be determined.
  I very much regret that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has gone so far in repudiating the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What are we to do about this? We know perfectly well that the Bill must be accepted, but I regret that, because the future of our defence administration—which to some extent depends on the secret services—may be weakened.
  I have been careful during these debates never to oppose what my right hon. Friend tries to do if I can help it. However, we must face up to the fact that the Trappist vow of lifelong confidentiality cannot work in a democratic society. Of course, it can work if the Trappist monk has made his vow to God, but who can say what

  1085
  God will decide? I have great regard for my right hon. Friend, but I cannot regard him—or even the "Ayatollah" or higher responsibility to which he has to bow—as God. Therefore, I find the Bill difficult, perhaps impossible, to accept.
  I have been a Member for a long time and I have quite often been a Cassandra, and nothing is more boring than saying "I told you so". Tonight I am trying to say, "I am telling you what is going to happen". If the Bill is passed as drafted there will be a number of cases—perhaps even during my right hon. Friend's tenure of office—that will discomfit him or the Government. I do not know whose memoirs it will be—perhaps those of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who is not present or perhaps some quite insignificant man will write his memoirs or publish an account of what he has done—but it will be very difficult to proceed against him in court when he will be able to claim various reasons why he should have made his disclosures.
  It is too late tonight to ask my right hon. Friend to disclaim what he has already laid down. All I would say is that from the beginning I have tried to help him by putting forward my suggestions, which were accepted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I tried to throw the Government a lifeline, but I recognise the difficulties that they would have faced if they had accepted it. Perhaps they have accepted it in part, and, when decisions are taken in court or elsewhere, perhaps some of what has been said in the House—and to which my hon. Friend the Minister agreed—will rub off; I hope so.
  I have some experience of defence and foreign affairs, and I could not bring myself to vote against the Government on the entire Bill. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that in the circumstances and after what I have been exposed to—double dealing? I would not want to call it that—I cannot support him tonight. On Second Reading I said that I would support the Government if they gave me the right assurances. They gave them, but then they took them back, so I hope that my right hon. Friend will understand that when I abstain tonight it will not be with any spirit of malevolence.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has played a role in this debate rather like Hamlet when confronted by Polonius. The right hon. Member seems to have said, "Methinks I see yon cloud in the shape of a camel." "Very like a camel," says Polonius. "Methinks it's like a whale," says the right hon. Member for Pavilion. "Very like a whale," says the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary will agree with anything to command the right hon. Gentleman's vote. Many of the Home Secretary's remarks have sounded as if they were made by Polonius. If he continues to play Polonius to the Claudius of this Government, he may find himself stabbed behind the arras.
  The Home Secretary rather gave the game away when he opened the debate. In a throwaway line, he said that the press has a great interest and a natural interest in maximising the disclosure of information. Do we not all have that interest? Is that not why we subscribe to article 10 of the European convention on human rights which
  1086
  guarantees our freedom of information? Is that not why Lord Goff of Chieveley in the "Spycatcher" case said in the House of Lords:
  "Although in the case of the private citizen there is a public interest that confidential information should as such be protected, in the case of Government secrets, the mere fact of confidentiality does not alone support such a conclusion because in a free society there is a continuing public interest that the workings of Government would be open to scrutiny and criticism"?
  The truth is that the Home Secretary has tackled the problem which he says has been ducked by other Governments, not through any desire to widen the disclosure of information, but as a straight response to the disclosures of the "Spycatcher" case. He has acted in this way because of the "Spycatcher" case. He has rightly recognised that there are certain public interests in maintaining security. Those exceptions are set out in the article 10 provisions of the European convention. However, he has surrounded the exceptions with such definitions as to extend the scope far beyond what is necessary in the interests of the security of the state.
  I know that I must be brief, so I will give only one example. The Home Secretary's definitions of international relations are so broad and all-encompassing that almost any matter considered by Government will fall foul of those exceptions because we discuss those matters in our daily dealings with the European Community. If those matters are considered in that forum or are leaked abroad, the full weight of the criminal law—two years' imprisonment—can befall the leaker.
  The Home Secretary recognised the most serious point in his opening speech. His proposals prevent those who are conscious of iniquity in the public service from disclosing that information. The Bill makes it a crime to reveal crime. I do not see how that can stand. I hope that another place will reconsider that. The arguments have been deployed extensively in this place, but they were not answered extensively. We look to the Lords, including some of the Law Lords who sat on the "Spycatcher" case—such defenders of our free speech—to bring to the consideration of these matters an objectivity which the Home Secretary, wrapped up in the net of secrecy which the Government cast over all their doings, cannot.
  If the Home Secretary is right, I cannot see why he finds it necessary so to misrepresent the provisions of the Bill as he has misrepresented them now. I need not repeat the quotations from The Daily Telegraph of Saturday. Those words merely compounded the Home Secretary's frequent misrepresentation of the nature, purpose and effect of this Bill. He has referred constantly to the serious-damage tests that must be applied before the sanction of the criminal law is invoked. He knows—we have debated the matter extensively—how to import that concept, which he says he embraces, into the Bill. We had the benefit of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who was on the Franks committee, reminding us—if we needed to be reminded—that that was the very nub of the test that Franks had applied as long ago as 1972.
  We have failed to persuade the Home Secretary that those words should appear in the Bill. I hope that they will appear when it comes back from another place. At least they would cut down the all-embracing, all-encompassing impact of this widely drafted clamp-down on our freedom of speech.
  This has been something of a charade on the part of the Home Secretary—the pretence that this is a liberalising

  1087
  measure. As he has acknowledged, the provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act have rarely been invoked; in fact, that part of the Act could almost be regarded as having fallen into desuetude. This new piece of legislation, if it goes through, will be used to try to bottle up information whose disclosure might be in the public interest—matters concerning, for example, the public safety, the public weal, matters that concern the Father of the House, to whose amendment the right hon. Gentleman gave no adequate answer.
  This is a constitutional measure meriting more than six days' debate in this House. Cutting down our freedom of speech merits more than six days' consideration, and that is why the House has taken so badly the Home Secretary's pretence that it is a liberalising measure. It is nothing of the kind; it curtails our liberties, and it will do his reputation no good. I believe that it will be in vain because it is fundamentally opposed to the provisions of article 10 of the European convention. Certainly the view that was expressed in the "Spycatcher" case by more than one of their Lordships is an indication that if these issues come before the European Court this measure will be struck down as being inappropriate and quite out of conformity with our international commitments. Their Lordships have a heavy and important task. It should have fallen to this elected House to ensure that the task was completed. Alas, it is not so.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: This will be a short speech, as time is limited. I voted against the Government's three-line Whip when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) introduced his private Member's Bill. Since the introduction of this Bill I have supported it at every stage, and it may be helpful to my hon. Friends—those who are still not in agreement with the Bill—if I tell them why my mind is so made up.
  Under the present law, the prosecution has only to prove that an unauthorised disclosure of information gained in the course of certain employment has taken place. Thus, for instance, a clerk working at the Department of Social Security office in Stockton-on-Tees commits an offence if he or she discloses the colour of the carpet in that office. All information, no matter how trivial, is classified, and the consequences of disclosure are a dire thing, a criminal offence.
  For that reason, overhaul of the legislation was long overdue. My hon. Friend's Bill was a good attempt at reform. Without it, and without the rebellion that supported it, the Government might have been tempted to do as all Governments have done—found the balance of convenience in favour of doing nothing. We might pose to ourselves the question that Abraham Lincoln posed to Congress:
  "Must a Government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"
  I believe not, and I believe that this Bill is evidence of that.
  The Bill is a liberal measure and is to be welcomed for that reason. Under the Bill, a jury can convict only when it has been persuaded that a disclosure has caused specified harm or is likely to cause such harm. For that very reason, there is no need of an overriding defence of prior publication or public interest. If no harm is done, or the benefit outweighs the harm, the jury should not convict.
  1088
  The Bill will effectively protect the nation's secrets while opening up a significant new province of information to the public. It is consistent with the principle of rolling back the frontiers of the state and curbing the power of the Executive, which so many Conservative Members hold to be clear and central planks of our policy. The final resolution in a matter of degree is always a difficult process. There are those who say that it should be more restrictive and those who say that it should be more liberal. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the provisions of the Bill explained to an uncomplicated and sceptical public. The Bill, if not perfect, is a good measure, and should therefore be supported.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Foot: Only an hon. Member who had attended so few of our debates over the past few days could have reached the conclusions reached by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I prefer to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). Those on the Government Front Bench looked uneasy under his questioning, not only because of the way in which he was led to vote for Second Reading but because of the questions that he is still posing, to which he has still got no answers. Even if those on the Government Front Bench and some of those on the Government Back Benches do not heed what the right hon. Gentleman said—credit belongs to those who do heed it—many will study what the right hon. Gentleman said. By the time the Bill gets to the other place, there may be an answer to his question.
  The Home Secretary went over the history of attempts to deal with measures such as this. If I remember correctly, he said, "We have a chance collectively to get it right". He might have said that at the beginning of our debates, but he cannot seriously mean it at the end of them. I say that as one who has listened to pretty well every sentence uttered during the Bill's proceedings. Some of the debates have been curtailed in a manner that is an offence to the House of Commons. Many provisions have been pushed through in a manner that is utterly abhorrent, particularly when we are dealing with a Bill that carries such large implications for the future. By any comparison and by any reckoning, the way that the Bill has been pushed through is a disgrace to the House of Commons, to the Government, and to those in this place who have tolerated the passage of such matters through the House by such means.
  Major questions have not been resolved, and the Home Secretary cannot pretend that they have been. For example, there are all the matters associated with the supposed claim of lifelong confidentiality, implied at the beginning of the Bill, about which the questions of the right hon. Member for Pavilion are so pertinent and about which many other questions have been asked. If the Bill had been law when Winston Churchill wrote his memoirs, they could not have been produced in anything like the form in which they were presented to the nation. If the Home Secretary has an answer to that point, which has been made so often, he should have given it to us.
  The effects of the Bill deriving from this provision will alter the relationship between the Executive and Parliament, and affect our democracy and how information may be given to the British nation. All these points are touched on in the question posed by the right

  1089
  hon. Member for Pavilion, to which he has had no answer. We have discussed premature disclosure. I hope that we have made some dent in the Home Secretary's certainty.
  I fully acknowledge that this is a serious matter for the newspapers of this country. I thought that we were to get from the right hon. Gentleman an idea of how to get a compromise that will work. If he was serious in what he said at the end of his speech about wanting a collective settlement of the matter, that is one aspect in which he should have searched for it. Of course, if the Government had considered our debates and taken account of what hon. Members have said, we could have had a compromise between the demand of those who say that there should be no claim of premature disclosure and those who argue at the opposite extreme.
  All responsible editors in Fleet street who have talked about these matters could have had a clause which protected the defence and rights of this country but which still protected, as far as we possibly can, the right to print information, to print the facts, and to print them in a way that must take account of what has been published before. Otherwise what would happen to the judgment in the "Spycatcher" case?
  As the Home Secretary said, the "Spycatcher" conclusion was one reason for the Bill. Throughout our discussions, the Government have failed to meet the argument about the conclusions of the "Spycatcher" case and the reason the judges concluded that they must decide against the Government. They said that it would be madness and folly for them to say that it was wrong for newspapers to publish what had been published all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that the conclusion of the "Spycatcher" case is that all that must be restored to the position that prevailed before. The Minister has accepted not the majority of judges but the minority of judges in that case.
  After all our debates, that is a monstrous way for the House of Commons to deal with a serious matter. Like many hon. Members, I have much faith in the other place. This is one occasion when our counterparts can come to the rescue not of the Government—they are not worth saving—but of the country. I hope that our colleagues in another place will examine these matters in great detail. I hope that they will look at all the clauses that have been truncated in discussion here, take account of the way in which the Government have sought to deny full debate, and send back to the House a reputable Bill that can do what the Government have said that they want to do, which is to have a collective discussion in the House of Commons and the country about how we should deal with it.
  The opportunity for a collective discussion has been forfeited by the guillotine, the form of the Bill, and the way in which the Prime Minister forced on the right hon. Gentleman the detailed clauses—the "Spycatcher" clauses—of the Bill. The combination of clause 1 and the other clauses dealing with disclosure mean that this is a much more ferociously anti-liberal Bill than the measures that prevailed before. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House of Commons, and that is what the other place should throw out.
  9.49 pm
  Mr. Gorst: Among the central features of the Government's argument is that, to quote the words of the Minister of State in the press this morning, the Bill
  "vastly reduces the scope of the criminal law."
  If that is the Government's view, it misses the point—either because it is tantamount to arguing that a change from bad to bad is better than no change at all, or that, having made a change, it must be a change for the better.
  In truth, there has indeed been a change—a change both for the better and for the worse. Although the Bill vastly reduces the scope for successful prosecutions, it sows a whole range of new doubts as to what may or may not be published, thereby inhibiting without prohibiting. So instead of the draconian and obnoxious clarity of the previous Official Secrets Act, we shall have a new regime of uncertainty. That confusion and doubt will have the effect of suppressing publication of unquantifiable amounts of information which were previously entirely legitimate. A handful of daring editors may decide to publish and be damned, but for every courageous or reckless challenge there are likely to be a hundred—perhaps a thousand-timid and cautious decisions to spike the story and be spared.
  Some people in Government circles may be happy to argue—even perhaps with a modicum of justification—that tighter security will flow from this legal form of stealthy deterrence, and that may well be so, but that is not the only consideration for Parliament. We have to weigh one unproven benefit against several evident disadvantages—disadvantages which are not obviously justified by commensurate gains. The Government have argued for drawing a line in the wrong place—they have erred in favour of stringency where freedom of expression is both defensible and essential. When Governments curtail the flow of information, they are tampering with the raw material of democracy. No democracy can survive in a vacuum of ignorance—for its survival it must feed on facts and information. Democratic electorates do not need just the good news—they must be able to censure the mediocre and the inefficient and to castigate the evil.
  There is no dispute that some categories of information must not—perhaps may never—be revealed, but every attempt to restrict information requires close examination. The Bill has not been given the careful and sceptical scrutiny that is called for. Ministers may have been courteous and patient in their answers—there have, indeed, been plenty of answers—but time and again it has seemed that the argument between those who have taken the Government view and those who have thought differently was essentially about exactly where the line should properly be drawn. On the one hand, one has asked what constitutes a justifiable exposure of information. On the other, the question has been what should be a culpable and punishable revelation. To permit or to prohibit, that has been the question. Whether it is in the public interest to have the record straight, or, by so doing, harm it. For my part, I come down on the side of freedom of expression. I am against the imposition of a regime of stealthy suppression and I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  9.53 pm
  Ms. Abbott: We have heard the Secretary of State in the Chamber and on the radio define the Bill as a great reforming measure. He has talked especially about how the Bill has limited and narrowed the scope of the existing legislation. Unlike the hon. Member for Southport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stockton."]—the hon. Member for Stockton who, not having attended most of the Committee stage, came with his speech already drafted by the Whips, I want to say succinctly and in my own words that it will not do for the Secretary of State to boast that the Bill is a great reforming measure. In the first place, his boast that he has dropped the idea of ministerial certificates will not wash because, although the Bill contains no mention of ministerial certificates on information, by the notion of notified people, it introduces ministerial certificates on people. The notion of ministerial certificates on information has been exchanged for certificates on people.
  It will not do to boast that the Bill is a reforming measure when it introduces the notion of lifelong confidentiality that Mr. Justice Lawson described as something which could not be achieved this side of the Iron Curtain. It will not do to boast that this Bill is a reforming measure because it narrows the number of offences covered since, under the 1911 Act, there were no fewer than 2,314 offences with which people could be charged. Therefore, it is hardly likely that the Bill would widen the scope of the 1911 Act.
  The content and the manner in which the Bill has been forced through has revealed a Government careless of power. They will win tonight, but, as one of their hon. Friends has said, they will win by the exercise of an ignorant majority.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), made reference to the hon. Member for Stockton and I would like to make it clear that she was referring to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). Upon being referred to, that hon. Gentleman made a two-fingered gesture in her direction. I disassociate myself from that gesture, but associate myself with the remarks that my hon. Friend was justified in making.
  Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you that no such gesture was made—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Cook rose—
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it is five minutes to 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Buchan: Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker. You know me of old, Mr. Speaker, and I also saw that gesture and was offended by it.
  Mr. Devlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assure you and the House that no such gesture was made.
  Mr. John Patten rose—
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see it and the hon. Gentleman said that he made no such gesture—
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the House. I cannot ask an hon. Member to withdraw something that I did not see myself and if he has denied having made such a gesture. Mr. John Patten
  Mr. Buchan rose—
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall hear the point of order, but I warn the hon. Gentleman that it is now three minutes to 10 o'clock.
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your acceptance of his denial, Mr. Speaker, you are assuming—almost declaring—that some of us are lying. With respect, we are speaking the truth and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) should honourably withdraw the gesture that he made.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot be in a position of adjudicating on a matter when I did not see what happened. The hon. Gentleman has denied that he made that gesture and we must take his word for it.
  9.57 pm
  Mr. John Patten: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) should seek to waste the time of the House. It is characteristic of his approach during our debates on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) seems to have forgotten everything she was taught in the Home Office when she was a civil servant. She has forgotten the great width of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and has failed to understand the considerable narrowings of the law that my right hon. Friend's Bill introduces.
  Of course, debates have been heated and detailed because the protection of official information inevitably raises extremely difficult questions of principle and practice. The debates in Committee, on Second Reading, on Report and on Third Reading have illustrated that.
  It is not surprising, given such debates, that previous Governments have found it much easier to soldier on rather than attempt to grasp the nettle of legislation. We have made such a contribution in our traditional role as a radical and reforming Government. We have grasped the nettle and the Bill offers the answers. On such a contentious issue we certainly did not expect unanimity from all sides of the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) criticised us for going too far in drawing up the Bill. We certainly expected to be assailed with general arguments and specific concerns. We have attempted to answer those concerns, but the Bill leaves the House in such a shape that it entirely deserves the support which it has received. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), to whom I rarely turn for a text, said in an earlier intervention that was meant to be unhelpful to the Government that the Bill would last for a generation. But it will last for considerably longer than a generation.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the Resolutions this day to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 195.

  Division No. 113]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Amos, Alan

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dunn, Bob

  Ashby, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Atkinson, David

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Favell, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Beggs, Roy

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Benyon, W.

  Forth, Eric

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottom ley, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gow, Ian

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Brazier, Julian

  Green way, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright, Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Grist, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Burt, Alistair

  Hannam, John

  Butcher, John

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

  Butler, Chris

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hayes, Jerry

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heddle, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Churchill, Mr

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Colvin, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon John

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  1094

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Irvine, Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Irving, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Jack, Michael

  Paice, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Janman, Tim

  Patnick, Irvine

  Jessel, Toby

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Key, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Powell, William (Corby)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Price, Sir David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raffan, Keith

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knapman, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Redwood, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Renton, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knox, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lang, Ian

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Latham, Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rost, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lilley, Peter

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Ryder, Richard

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lord, Michael

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Scott, Nicholas

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shersby, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sims, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Madel, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mills, Iain

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mudd, David

  Tracey, Richard

  Neale, Gerrard

  Tredinnick, David

  Needham, Richard

  Trippier, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  1095

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waller, Gary

  Wood, Timothy

  Ward, John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wheeler, John

  Whitney, Ray

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dixon, Don

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dobson, Frank

  Alton, David

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Donald

  Douglas, Dick

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Barron, Kevin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Battle, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fearn, Ronald

  Beith, A. J.

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Flannery, Martin

  Blair, Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bradley, Keith

  Foster, Derek

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Fraser, John

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Buchan, Norman

  Galbraith, Sam

  Buckley, George J.

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cartwright, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gorst, John

  Clay, Bob

  Gould, Bryan

  Clelland, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hardy, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cryer, Bob

  Haynes, Frank

  Cummings, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Darling, Alistair

  Henderson, Doug

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hinchliffe, David

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

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  1096

  Holland, Stuart

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Howells, Geraint

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Radice, Giles

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Redmond, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Ingram, Adam

  Reid, Dr John

  Janner, Greville

  Richardson, Jo

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Kennedy, Charles

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lamond, James

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Salmond, Alex

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum A.

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

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  McLeish, Henry

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  McTaggart, Bob

  Strang, Gavin

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Turner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Vaz, Keith

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wall, Pat

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wallace, James

  Martlew, Eric

  Walley, Joan

  Maxton, John

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Meale, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Michael, Alun

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliott

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

  O'Brien, William

  Mr. Allen McKay.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  London Regional Transport
  10.13 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move,
  That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved.
  The Government take no pleasure in the increased levy for 1989–90. The increase is, in cash terms, nearly 50 per cent. above the current year's levy. I regret that this large increase is necessary, but necessary it is, for reasons that I shall explain. However, before doing so, I should like to set the proposed levy in its proper context.
  Although the increase in cash terms over the current year is nearly 50 per cent. in real terms, next year's levy will still be nearly 30 per cent. less than the first levy in 1985–86 and only slightly larger than last year's levy.
  London local authorities will not welcome the increased levy, but London cannot claim to have been hard done by. Next year's rate support grant settlement is generous to London, taking the authorities together. They will receive £175 million more grant, which represents an increase of 11·2 per cent. on the 1988–89 rate support grant. That will enable London local authorities to reduce rates by an average of 3 per cent. even after the LRT levy increase, if they spend in line with the proposed expenditure provision.
  Some will doubtless argue that the increase should be borne by the Exchequer. I see no case for that. In increasing the levy in line with the increase in the grant requirement, we are maintaining the balance between the ratepayer and the taxpayer, which has existed since before LRT was set up in 1984. Just because the grant requirement has increased, there is no reason to expect taxpayers to bear a larger part of the burden. Ratepayers in London will benefit far more from the increased investment than the majority of taxpayers, who rarely use the system.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Portillo: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that it is still the case that the proportion of the cost of London Regional Transport borne by the taxpayer is much less than the equivalent proportions borne by taxpayers in other capital cities such as Paris? Does he agree that we still ask ratepayers and travellers in London to pay a higher proportion than their equivalents pay in capital cities in other western European countries?
  Mr. Portillo: There are a limited number of places from which the money can come. It can come from farepayers or from taxpayers, and in this country taxation is in two forms—local taxation and national taxation. I believe that the balance between those three is about right. In particular, the balance between taxpayers and ratepayers of approximately 33 per cent. and 66 per cent. is appropriate.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the Minister is on that point, does he accept that Londoners
  1098
  are extremely badly treated in that the new investment on the rail, Tube and bus networks, to which he has referred, will be borne largely by the fare-paying passengers in London, whereas the huge amount of road building that he is planning for the capital will be borne by central Government expenditure and will benefit only the 18 per cent. of the travelling population who commute in and out of London by car, because the majority go by public transport for which they will have to pay increased fares to pay for improvements in the service?
  Mr. Portillo: Most Londoners are big users of the roads even if a large number commute into central London by railway. The amount spent on roads is very much less than is collected in taxation from road users. Again, that is a perfectly defensible position.
  Others may ask why the increased investment expenditure should not be funded by borrowing rather than through an increased grant and levy. The normal rule is that investment should be financed through borrowing rather than by grant only if the undertaking will be sufficiently profitable to enable both principal and interest to be repaid. Otherwise the industry would be saddled with an increasing burden of debt. London Regional Transport is not yet in a profit-making position. Debt financing would not, therefore, be appropriate.
  I have said that I regret the need for an increase in the levy, but I have pleasure in reminding the House that the levy under discussion will be the last. To seek to continue some form of levy after the abolition of the current rating system would violate the principle of a uniform national non-domestic rate. To continue a levy on community chargepayers would produce an unjustifiable complication to the system, given that domestic ratepayers contribute only about one quarter of LRT's grant. The new needs assessment and needs grant system will take account of the fact that London local authorities will not be responsible for funding public transport in London. That will ensure that London community chargepayers are not unfairly advantaged compared with chargepayers elsewhere.
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I can see an argument that the cost of the levy should fall on the users of the Underground through their fares, on taxpayers in general or on certain groups of ratepayers, but I cannot see the argument that ratepayers' contribution should be tied to the boundaries of Greater London. If my hon. Friend looks at a map of the London Underground, he will see that its centre of gravity is well to the north of the river Thames. Why should ratepayers in places such as Twickenham, Bromley, Beckenham, Croydon or Kingston, where there is no Underground, pay for it through their rates while people outside Greater London, such as those in Watford, Chesham or Amersham, where there is an Underground service, not pay anything for it through their rates?
  Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the payment of taxation and the benefits derived therefrom rarely coincide exactly between the people who pay the taxes and those who derive the benefits. There are considerable benefits from LRT other than just the Underground system. There are bus services all over London, and last year an operating loss was made by London Buses Ltd. In general, the facilities of LRT contribute to the well-being of the capital as a whole and it is appropriate that ratepayers should make some

  1099
  contribution. However, I readily agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a distribution between ratepayers, taxpayers and fare payers to achieve the fairest result.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I would not disagree with the last point that the Minister made. We argue that London ratepayers are being asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of that burden. London should be treated differently. For example, there are the tourists who use LRT and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out, all those from outside the Greater London area who use the transportation system in the London area. Why should London ratepayers have to subsidise all those other groups of people?
  Mr. Portillo: I must be hearing things. I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) say recently that there should be free transport in London. If he is now concerned about tourists and people from outside London, how will he recover the money from them if he wants a free transport system in London?
  LRT is facing a number of major challenges. The need to respond quickly and effectively to the Fennell report is uppermost in all our minds, and Underground passengers are well aware of the widespread inconvenience caused by the need to get on with the work of replacement and renewal.
  Coping with the massive and continuing growth in demand on the Underground must also be given a high priority, as must responding to the rapid pace of the development in the docklands. LRT is also restructuring London Buses Ltd into smaller companies able to compete with each other and to respond more flexibly to the needs of their customers.
  Action is in hand on all those fronts. Next year, LRT plans to invest £441 million, of which about £280 million will be funded by the increased grant. The balance will be funded by LRT, including £71 million from property sales and developers' contributions of £61 million to the Docklands light railway.
  LRT's response to the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire was published earlier this month. I believe that it represents a serious and responsible reaction to the tragedy. LRT has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations made by Mr. Fennell which apply to it, and many of them have already been implemented. The House will welcome that. The Government, for their part, have made it clear to LRT that the highest priority should be given to ensuring that the chances of a similar disaster occurring are reduced to the absolute minimum. To that end, we have made it plain that finance will not be a barrier to the implementation of the Fennell report.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the Minister's comments about finance not standing in the way, may I ask him to explain why, since that time, automatic barriers have gone up at a large number of stations? Is he aware that these present a serious risk in the event of evacuation during a fire? Will he consider the possibility of open stations and much greater penalties if people do not carry tickets on the London Underground?
  Mr. Portillo: Mr. Fennell made some comments about the Underground ticketing system. He said, for example, that the system should be reviewed by London Underground in conjunction with the railway inspectorate
  1100
  and the London fire brigade. The railway inspectorate and the London fire brigade had already reviewed the Underground ticketing system and had approved it for installation, although subsequently—in November of last year—the London fire brigade made a number of detailed points which London Underground is now addressing.
  In addition, and in the spirit of the Fennell report. I asked London Underground to appoint consultants to review the Underground ticketing system to make sure that no point had been missed, and those consultants are now at work because London Underground readily agreed to my suggestion.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: How can the Minister explain the appointment of those consultants when, in answer to a question that I put to him recently, he said that another 118 automatic exit barriers are being installed? How can there be a genuine process of consultation if the barriers continue to be installed in any case?
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. It is not a consultation process, but a review by consultants, to determine whether the system is safe and whether, by chance, London fire brigade or the railway inspectorate have overlooked anything. The Fennell report makes no recommendation that the installation of automatic exit barriers should be stopped. Mr. Fennell simply asked that that aspect should be reviewed by London fire brigade and the railway inspectorate. That has already been done. In addition, to comply with the spirit of the report, we have asked for the view of consultants.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister will appreciate that there is a great deal of concern about Underground safety, particularly the new barriers. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), would it not be better to halt the installation programme until the consultants have reported? If the consultants recommend, as I believe that they might, that automatic barriers would be a hazard in the rapid evacuation of a station, increased costs will be avoided. There is much concern among the travelling public that, in the event of another disaster such as King's Cross, barriers would make it possible to evacuate a station quickly.
  Mr. Portillo: I have nothing to add to my earlier remarks. Mr. Fennell did not recommend such a course of action. Both the fire brigade and the railway inspectorate have considered the barriers and approved them for installation. The appointment of the consultants is an extra layer of safety that has been applied at my request, and their report will be produced shortly. I see no reason to stop the installation of barriers in the meantime. We shall learn the consultants' views in due course.
  In the current financial year, we have agreed to increase LRT's external finance limit by £54 million, half of which is to allow for additional spending on safety measures. Looking to the future, the public expenditure White Paper makes full provision for the increased safety spending sought by LRT—a total of £266 million over the next three years. Of that, some £80 million will need to be spent next year.
  Coping with the massive and continuing growth in demand is the second major challenge facing the Underground. Since 1982, use of the Underground has increased by about 80 per cent, and it is still rising, which is putting the system under considerable strain. Action is

  1101
  being taken both to provide short-term relief and to develop long-term solutions. Investment in the Underground is currently at record levels. Next year it will be even higher at £299 million, which is double the 1984–85 level in real terms. That includes substantial investment to relieve congestion as well as to renew and modernise the system.
  However, there is even more that must be done. It was for this reason that we set up the central London rail study last March, with an urgent remit to develop a strategy to improve London's rail services and to provide for the forecast increase in demand to the end of the century. The report of the study was published in January. It proposes a major upgrading programme costing some £1·5 billion to make the best use of the existing Underground and Network SouthEast together with one of two alternative packages of two new lines in tunnels under London. I commend that report as a major contribution to the debate on how to improve London's rail services. The need for action in this area is urgent, and we intend to move forward as quickly as possible. We are currently seeking views on the report. At the same time, further work is being carried out in preparation for decisions on whether to go ahead later this year.
  The new Docklands light railway has played a vital part in stimulating the development of the Isle of Dogs. It is currently being upgraded and extended to Bank. This will increase its capacity threefold. But the success of the docklands is such that additional rail capacity will almost certainly be needed to supplement the light railway. The east London rail study is currently looking at the options in parallel with the final phase of the central London rail study. Subject to the outcome of the study and the negotiation of satisfactory contributions from the developers involved, I hope that it will be possible this autumn to deposit a Bill seeking the necessary powers to build a new line.
  LRT has taken significant steps to improve London's bus services, but there is a limit to what can be achieved whilst London Buses remains in a monolithic form. It is currently being restructured into 11 local companies. As they will be much smaller concerns, they will be closer to their customers and able to respond more flexibly to their needs. They will also be free to compete with each other. The result will be a better service for the customer and a smaller bill for the taxpayer.
  I am sure that the House will agree that increased investment is required to improve London's public transport. But there is no such thing as a free ride, and the increased investment has to be paid for. Our guiding principle is that passengers should have the services they want and are prepared to pay for. However, although LRT will no longer require revenue support, it cannot finance the large investment programme required from its own resources. It cannot increase its income as quickly as investment needs to increase. This means that the grant and the levy must rise. I cannot expect any increase to be popular, but, as a London Member myself, I feel strongly that Londoners are very aware of the need for new investment and, indeed, would believe us to be negligent if we did not provide it.
  The improvement in LRT's revenues means that it can invest getting on for twice as much in the Underground
  1102
  next year in real terms as in 1985–86, with a levy which in real terms is about 30 per cent, lower than in that year. It is in that spirit that I commend the draft order to the House.
  10.28 pm
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on recognising the Government's past mistakes and welcome him to the ranks of those who believe that public transport needs more, not less, Government support? After years of striving to reduce public subsidy to London's transport system, the Minister has at last had to accept reality. LRT cannot be run as a profit-making machine. Even the increase in the grant which he is making, to £286·6 million, fails to provide for the real needs of London transport as perceived by Londoners and London Labour Members.
  The Minister has given two reasons for the increase: first, to finance the improvements necessary to deal with increased passenger demand, and, secondly, to finance the recommendations in the Fennell report. I will return to both points in due course but, first, let me remind the Minister of his predecessors' views on public subsidy.
  In 1985 the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said:
  "our policies, which have already begun to deliver substantial savings for London ratepayers…are beginning to bear fruit. The outlook is that those savings will increase."—[Official Report, 12 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 291.]
  We have, however, a levy increased by 50 per cent. In 1986 the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said that LRT's aim was to secure better services and an improved passenger environment by reducing costs in all areas. He said:
  "Cost cutting is the key to LRT's success."—[Official Report, 28 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 902.]
  Ever since LRT was delivered into the hands of the Government all the talk has been of unit costs and savings. The word "safety" did not pass the lips of the responsible Minister once in 1985, 1986 or 1987. Even last year after the King's Cross fire, the Minister boasted that the burden on London's ratepayers was being halved over three years. Not surprisingly, though, on that occasion he said that safety was paramount in all that London Underground did.
  It took the loss of 31 lives to make the Government act. Yet the need for new investment to deal with the increase in passenger traffic and the continuing decline in rolling stock and rail network were apparent long before that tragedy. According to the Government's own figures, set out in the central rail study and quoted by the Minister tonight, the number of passengers using the Underground rose from 305,000 in 1980 to 415,000 in 1988. By 1987 many of the central London lines were already badly overcrowded, and the forecasts show that that overcrowding will continue to be a problem.
  The increase in the use of the Tube and the chronic overcrowding are putting huge strains on the system, which is clearly suffering from the under-investment of recent years. If, however, the Government had maintained public financial support at an adequate level, a start might have been made on alleviating overcrowding, and the Government would not now be seeking such a dramatic hike in the rates levy. More important, safety would not have been put at risk through the cost-cutting and privatisation measures that the Government have forced on LRT.

  1103
  Opposition Members strongly support public investment to improve safety standards, but we cannot approve of the mess that the Government have made of LRT funding and the cavalier way in which they now seek to pass the major burden on to the ratepayer. Londoners are having to pay twice over, first through the rates and then through the fares. In case the Minister has conveniently forgotten, fares last month went up by an average of 12·4 per cent., more than double the rate of inflation. The Minister is content for Londoners to pay more and more, despite the unprecedented level of public dissatisfaction with the services available.
  Public transport users in London want higher staffing levels, yet staff numbers have gone down by 15,000 in five years. They want more transport police, yet—despite constantly increasing crime levels—numbers were allowed to fall until the Guardian Angels shamed the Minister into action. Most of all, people want to feel safe. Of course we welcome the allocation of money to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report, but without a debate on that report we can hardly be satisfied that the Government have learned the lessons.
  I remind the Minister that in his report Mr. Fennell said that while it was
  "clear on the evidence of Sir Keith that his Board did have proper regard to efficiency and economy…they did not impose the same criteria when it came to safety of operation".
  Let me ask the Minister again: when do the Government intend to make time for a debate on the Fennell report? Will he explain tonight what conclusions he draws from the following statement in the report:
  "There was a feeling among London Underground managers that the financial climate would rule out proposals to increase spending in certain areas"?
  Has that financial climate changed? I think not.
  The Minister could help us further by telling us when he intends to announce LRT's new objectives. Does he not share our concern that the LRT business plan predicts a further 2 per cent, increase in use of the Underground, but a 4 per cent, fall in bus use? Surely he ought to be looking for ways of maximising the use of bus services, given the chaos caused by the increasing use of private cars and the degree of overcrowding on the Underground.
  Will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that existing objectives are being met? Just two weeks ago two Underground stations had no lifts or escalators in use, 11 had a reduced lift service and 48 had at least one escalator out of action. Altogether about a quarter of all stations
  1104
  were defective in terms of access or exit. Such circumstances are clearly dangerous, given the volume of passengers using the services and the numbers of incidents involving the fire brigade—which occur frequently.
  I understand that between 1 December last year and the present date 253 fires have been reported in the Tube network, 53 serious enough to need the action of the fire brigade. I appreciate that there has been a change in reporting procedures and all incidents are now properly reported. None the less, those figures must be a cause for serious concern, particularly when we consider the new barriers which have been referred to this evening.
  Tonight the Minister seeks, in his own words, to raise the levy on ratepayers to increase spending on safety measures following the King's Cross fire and to provide for higher investment to modernise the system and to increase its capacity. We endorse all those objectives, but they will not be completed in one year. The safety measures money is being spread over three years. This year ratepayers are being asked to contribute a dramatically increased amount, but the Minister has acknowledged that there will be a different story next year. With the poll tax there will no longer be a rate contribution towards the running of LRT. However, the contribution for 1989–90 is approximately £188 million.
  Where will the extra money come from? I have asked LRT and it believes that it will come from the Exchequer. The Minister may be glad to grab that 65 per cent, from the ratepayers in 1989–90, but he will have to think again. We have no doubt that meeting the safety recommendations in the Fennell report and investing to improve London's public transport system demands a very substantial commitment from public funds. Will the Minister make it clear that he has accepted that, not just for 1989–90, when the King's Cross disaster is still fresh in our minds, but as an ongoing responsibility? The alternative, which would be consistent with the philosophy being pursued by the Government prior to the Fennell report, would be to load the Government's responsibility for investment on to the fare-paying passengers and to push LRT further down the road to putting profitability before passenger interests. That is what LRT users fear and what Opposition Members believe will happen.
  The Government's about-turn on LRT funding tonight demonstrates that the House can have no confidence in the Government's ability to give proper support to the public transport system of this capital city.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. John Hunt: My hon. Friend the Minister will know that the terms of the order will cause considerable dismay and unhappiness in the London borough of Bromley. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will concede that over the years Bromley council has established a much-envied reputation for prudent spending and good housekeeping. However, by increasing the LRT levy by 50 per cent. this order will undoubtedly have a most damaging impact on our local rate calculations. It represents an additional burden for Bromley;ratepayers of some £1·5 million and there is a similar pattern throughout the Greater London area. Unexpected external levies of this kind cause despair to those who carry the burden of looking after borough finances.
  In the case of Bromley, despite my hon. Friend the Minister's remarks about the rate support grant this year, this levy comes on top of a grant settlement some £4 million lower than we had been led to expect and on top of an increase of 14·4 per cent. in the Metropolitan police precept. For Bromley's civic leaders, this levy is the proverbial last straw.
  No doubt many of my hon. Friends will recall that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has said that he expects rate rises of not more than 2 per cent. this year, yet the LRT levy alone represents a 2 per cent. rate rise in Bromley. One is bound to question whether my right hon. Friend was aware of the impact of the LRT levy when he made his rate statement. If he was, he should in fairness have excluded the London boroughs from his general assessment, in view of the additional levy that they will have to bear. That is why there is a real sense of grievance and injustice in my borough and, I am sure, in many other London boroughs.
  To draw another comparison, it is extraordinary that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has been arguing that the cost of environmental improvements in the water supply should be paid for gradually over a period of years, whereas the improvements required by LRT have to be met out of one year's revenue. Even acknowledging the point about profitability, there seems to be an element of inconsistency.
  My hon. Friend the Minister and I have been corresponding on this subject. In his reply of 6 February he rightly said that the increased investment in safety measures and modernisation for the Underground network must be paid for—no one would quarrel with that—but in defending the levy and its function of maintaining a balance between central and local government funding my hon. Friend wrote:
  "I see no reason to alter the balance now and certainly no case for shifting the burden more onto taxpayers, the majority of whom only use LRT services very rarely."
  He made that point again today. I suggest that that argument can be extended to support Bromley's case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse') said in his telling intervention, areas such as Bromley and Twickenham do not enjoy any Underground service so our ratepayers have to carry part of the burden of providing the service mainly for other people. That is part of the reason for the resentment of the levy in boroughs such as Bromley.
  1106
  I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of our concern and pay heed to the strong feelings in Bromley council and many other councils in outer London, and I hope that he will be able to offer us some hope and reassurance.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) with whom I have some sympathy—although, remembering the famous court judgment of some years ago, what has happened may have turned out to be poetic justice for Bromley's councillors, if not its ratepayers.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that a 50 per cent. rate increase is steep. Will the Minister now intervene to tell us why he pretended that the rise was not one of 50 per cent? That claim took my breath away, and if he does not believe that he made it, he should read Hansard tomorrow.
  On top of the 50 per cent. increase, fares have gone up by twice the rate of inflation. At the start of this year they rose by 12 per cent., which compares with a cost-of-living increase of about 6 per cent. The Government, who are proud to say that they are against inflation, have deliberately inflated fares—and rate support—in London. I do not see how the Prime Minister, herself a London Member, can square that with her policies—
  Mr. Corbyn: She does not use the Tube.
  Mr. Spearing: I was thinking of asking the right hon. Lady a question about the fact that passengers travelling from Finchley Central have to pay 50p to go between one stop and the next. Perhaps people in Finchley can afford that. If my constituents go from West Ham or Plaistow station to St. Andrew's hospital at Bromley-by-Bow, they have to pay 50p. If one is taking two or three people who do not have a travelcard, it costs £2 before you know where you are. That is wrong. There should be a fair scale of relatively reasonable fares for short stops for shopping or visiting hospitals in the suburban areas. To ask ordinary people to pay 50p for one stop is ridiculous.
  It might be said that people could take the bus, but while there sometimes are bus services in the right direction, more often there are not. Trains can carry large numbers of people economically. Furthermore, the Minister said that the Government would get rid of the monolithic system of bus services in London so that it could serve the customer better. I see him nodding his head. Is he not aware that the London General Omnibus Co., which was the major supplier from about 1910 onwards, was a large single organisation? From 1933 onwards, with the agreement of both parties—the system was brought in by Herbert Morrison and continued by the Tories who succeeded him—we had a London Passenger Transport Board which was just that. I am not going to say that it was perfect, but the system was much better than what we shall get, which is 11 different firms, competing with each other, and facing competition from others. In the rest of the country in the 1930s, buses and men ran themselves into the dust, and competition and safety did not go together. I fear that we shall get that in London.
  A few months ago, there was a strike at West Ham garage. The men had already been asked to drive longer distances over longer hours for the same pay. They would not put up with it. That strike is a harbinger. LRT—or is it London Buses Ltd.: I am not sure who is in charge—has

  1107
  announced that it will get rid of all London wage bargaining. That is for only one purpose—to reduce the wages bit by hit because of competition. This is what Tory Members voted for when they voted for the London Regional Transport Act 1984. They also voted for these higher rates.
  There will probably be more minibuses. They are all right, but they will be in competition. Some of the routes are changing over immediately, and I do not think that they will be more efficient. What was one of the finest transport systems in the world will be broken up. I see the hon. Member for Eltham ( Mr. Bottomley) is shaking his head.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Spearing: I withdraw that. The Minister was not disagreeing with what I said. He will remember that a lot of his constituency transport is based on the old London county council tramways, which formed one of the best municipal services in the world.
  We are all agreed on the need for safety, but the Government pay only lip service to it. At the time of the Clapham crash, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what was happening in the signal department of the London underground system. I understand that LRT has gone in for the bidding process. I wrote to the Minister for Public Transport, and he replied to me on 25 January, saying:
  "I understand, nevertheless, that the control of signalling equipment procedures remains as strict as ever under the new arrangements and that safety standards are in no way compromised."
  However, the financial climate under which the signalling staff of LRT work has changed. The term "financial climate" was very much to the fore in the Fennell report.
  A change in the long-standing arrangements for organising the signalling of the London Underground can only disrupt what has been there before and bring safety into question. I do not understand how introducing these methods of internal bidding can maintain the same systems of safety. The Minister may have his reasons for maintaining his position, but the climate is now different.
  I have argued with LRT about the single manning of the old Tube trains. I am leaving out the Victoria line because that was purpose built. Is it right that there should be only one person aboard a Tube train? I think not. Time and again, I have disagreed with London Underground when it has said that the leap-frogging safety procedure on one-person-operated lines is safe. I hope that no accident arises from that continuing risk.
  Let us consider station staffing, particularly in the light of the Fennell recommendations. Fennell said that there must be emergency procedures at every station. I should have thought that, if there is an emergency at a station, the first thing that one would ask is how many people should be there. According to the Fennell report, it was stated that, for safety reasons, there must be a minimum number of personnel at each station. That is where we start. I fear that there is a tendency for London Underground to allocate a certain number of people and then say, "Given that number of people, let us work out the emergency procedure." If that is so, it is wrong. It is, to quote that famous phrase, the wrong financial climate in which to encourage safety.
  1108
  I hope that the House will be able to debate the Fennell inquiry, as there was a major lacuna in the report. As I recall it, Mr. Fennell did not take any evidence about the influence of the financial regime on safety and the
  operation of the railway. He specifically said that he would not take evidence on it. Yet, in his conclusion, he said that
  he did not receive any evidence that suggested that the financial climate had a bearing upon the disaster.
  That is my understanding of the matter. No doubt, the Minister, Mr. Fennell, or London Transport will correct me if I am wrong. I have every reason to believe that there was no opportunity for that evidence to be laid. Matters surrounding the Fennell inquiry must be cleared up once and for all, and, I hope, before the debate takes place.Perhaps that is one of the reasons for the reluctance to mount it.
  All hon. Members, particularly hon. Ladies, know why Londoners are dissatisfied with the reduction in station staffing. Yet, even after the Fennell inquiry and the King's Cross disaster, London Underground is now introducing a scheme called "action stations", which is a reduction of staff in some outer stations. Those stations may not be underground, but we must remember what happened on the Bedford line not long ago. The reduction of staffing beyond a point of wisdom encourages people to be up to no good. A note that I have received today from London Underground contains weasel words. It states:
  "The 'Action Stations' scheme for outer London stations is presently the subject of an adjudication by the Wages Board."
  In other words, there has been an industrial dispute. It
  goes on:
  "Both the trade unions and ourselves await their judgment. We will then consider how to proceed. This scheme involves fewer, more flexible, more responsive and better motivated staff. No compulsory redundancies are envisaged. The aim is to provide a better service to the passenger and a more satisfactory job for staff."
  That covers up a reduction in staff, which is extraordinary in the current climate. How are we to get better-motivated staff by cutting numbers? I suppose that it is just about possible, but certainly not in the current climate.
  I move on from "action stations", because it deals with outer-London areas, to what I understand was a possible scheme for central London. London Underground went on:
  "There is no intention to replicate Action Stations scheme in Central London. No 'plan' to change station staffing arrangements there exists. However we constantly review our procedures against the yardstick of what passengers expect in terms of service. Station staffing arrangements are no different in this respect."
  I can tell London Underground and the Minister what the
  public expect. They expect more staff in central London stations. They expect them to be back to the sort of standards that we had not long ago before the cuts. That is what the public expect and what I believe the House requires.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Millions of Londoners are waking up to the reality that more and more roads in the urban environment are not the answer to the problems of traffic in London. The problems of traffic are caused by an unprecedented demand in rail,Tube and road use, coupled with a further massive demand in the use of aeroplanes. Those are the symptoms
  of a healthy and expanding economy. In the Greater

  1109
  London area there is almost full employment and many individuals have higher disposable incomes. The massive switch to public transport is due not only to the healthy economy, which has been the result of the Government's efforts, but to the saner policies of London Regional Transport in recent years as well as the Government's policies towards LRT.
  I fully accept that there are people around the Greater London area who feel that the local subsidy is unfair. I accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) said, that the Bromley ratepayers have felt over the years that they have been beleaguered by London Transport, and those feelings culminated in the famous court case. That court case was probably the tip of the iceberg. It showed dissatisfaction and bewilderment with the policies of London Transport as run by the GLC. In recent years it has ceased to be a political football, which I believe is one of the reasons why more and more people are using the service. I can understand, however, why the people of Bromley feel hard done by. They are ill served by the great network which is LRT, and it appears that they will be ill served by any increases in service. Nevertheless, a growing service will eventually reach all parts of London, and I hope that it will be a substitute for increased car use.
  In talking about subsidy, we must remember that, of revenue expenditure on LRT, 75 per cent. of bus expenditure and 85 per cent. of Tube expenditure this year comes from fares, so those who use the system are actually paying a high proportion of the costs involved. The balance comes from the levy. The majority of the remaining expenditure for capital investment comes for capital investment, from the levy and the balance from the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne asked what is so urgent about the capital expenditure planned for the next two or three years. Frankly, I know of nothing that is more urgent than to maintain the safety of 2·5 million people travelling every day. I do not believe that we can compromise with safety. The Fennell report ordered urgent action, which meant urgent costs. I believe that the incurring of those costs is for the benefit of all and that we must pay them. In addition, we must pay to improve the service to maintain the extra numbers of people who choose to use London Regional Transport every day. Underground services have been increased in a way that we never thought possible. The purchase of 16 additional trains at a cost of £45 million is bound to ease the overcrowding that we now have on five lines.
  Why is there overcrowding? Is it because we have cut services, as the GLC in its dying throes said that we would? On the contrary, we have increased services. It is because of increased demand—and increased demand must be met by increased expenditure.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanley: I have only a short time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be making his own excellent speech in due course.
  Overall, a 5 per cent. increase in the level of service on the Underground is planned for next year. That will be achieved partly by increasing the number of scheduled trains and partly by reducing train cancellations. Better management will have—and is already having—a positive
  1110
  effect on the success of LRT today. Bus services must become more reliable, trains less crowded and average waiting times shorter. Unless that happens, demand for car use will increase and that is the way to disaster. People already complain about the unacceptable congestion on inner London roads. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic is present. He knows that I believe that there must be an acceptable level of misery on London roads because improved traffic flow would merely suck in more and more cars, causing greater traffic density and further blockages. We need to increase bus and Underground use.
  It has been said that fares have increased by double the rate of inflation, but even after allowing for inflation LRT fares have fallen well behind London wages since 1980 and in that respect are no higher than they were then. One must not match fare inflation with general inflation, pick out a particular statistic and then claim that we are hard done by.
  London Buses is the Cinderella of the LRT network. During the GLC abolition campaign posters went up saying, "Come on in No. 9—your time is up." The No. 9 bus serves the northern part of my constituency. I am proud to say that it is still running despite the problems with Hammersmith bridge and I use it regularly, although, of course, it could be better.
  Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman uses Hammersmith bridge?
  Mr. Hanley: Yes, I use it regularly, so perhaps I am partly to blame for the damage.
  The London bus network has been maintained and during the past few years there have been no major route cuts. Frequent midibus services operate around London, which are extremely popular, and in those areas where they operate more people choose to travel by bus than ever before. Bus miles have increased and are planned to increase by a further 4 per cent. in the coming year.
  One poster used during the GLC abolition campaign said that pensioners would lose their concessionary fares, but that has not happened. I remember that in Committee the majority of Conservative Members present voted in favour of concessionary fares and subsequently the Government agreed not merely to accept concessionary fares for a short time but to entrench them in statute to protect London pensioners in a way never contemplated by the Labour party.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanley: No.
  I remember the misery of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) when he realised that London pensioners would be grateful to the Government and that the Government were about to reverse the lie that had been put about by the GLC scaremongers.
  London Buses had established CareLink between main line stations and has converted all its AirBuses so that they are equipped for wheelchairs. Dial-a-Ride facilities have increased dramatically and a further £1 million invested last year means that £7 million has been invested in the service. Since 1985–86, investment in that service has increased by more than 40 per cent.
  Why are buses still considered unattractive alternatives to the Underground? It is because of illegal parking. My

  1111
  hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport must grasp this nettle quickly. We need to ensure that local authorities are better funded so that they can deal with illegal parking. We must have a better parking warden system and everything must be done on the major routes to end such parking, which is the major cause of delays to London's buses.
  There are now 4,100 one-person operated buses and 600 Routemasters. The OPOs have not been universally popular and I am glad that LRT has been sensitive enough to retain Routemasters where they have a clear advantage over the OPOs. But the OPOs are more reliable than Routemasters because only one member of staff is needed before they are taken out, they are warmer because the doors close and they are safer because people do not drop off the back of the bus as they used to do in the old days. London Buses thus maintains a healthy network and a healthy list of equipment.
  In regard to investment in LRT this year, £236 million will go to London Underground, £70 million to Docklands, but only £25 million to buses. Yet 80 per cent. of cars crossing London bridges contain only one person. That must be mad. Clearly people travelling in cars should be encouraged to travel in vehicles carrying many more people. If they need to be encouraged by ticketing, road pricing or fining, so be it, but the best way to encourage them would be to have even more attractive, flexible and fluid routing on London Buses.
  Finally, we have deregulation throughout the country, but we do not have deregulation in London. A date in the 1990s has been set. I believe that London Buses deserves and needs a fixed date to be able to work towards deregulation in London.
  Demand on London Regional Transport fell by 25 per cent. in the late 1970s and early 1980s under the GLC, and, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) has said, it has risen by 50 per cent. in the past few years. The hon. Lady, while agreeing with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, again used transport and the deaths of individuals as a political football. She misquoted the Fennell report which states:
  "There is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to LRT was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards".
  In other words, it is not because the Government have not invested— it was partly because of failures at every level in London Regional Transport, which have now been put right, but the main reason for the fire was a genuine accident, although that may be unpalatable to those looking for a political scapegoat.
  I am proud of the Government's investment in London Regional Transport. I believe that ratepayers in London want an ever better system and that the proportion of ratepayers' and central taxpayers' money spent on transport is basically fair. Nobody wants to pay more rates, but the system benefits mainly Londoners and Londoners should be proud to pay for it.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not complain that the subsidy this year has increased by 50 per cent. That is because the subsidy has been considerably less during the past two years. But the subsidy of nearly £290 million this year is less than the subsidy in 1986 which was £295 million or in 1985 when it was £325 million.
  1112
  I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and I disagree with the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). It is the King's Cross fire which has produced the extra subsidy from the taxpayer and the ratepayer. If the Minister does not accept that, I quote back at him part of his own letter to London Members of Parliament earlier this month, much of which he repeated tonight:
  "There are 2 main reasons why the grant to LRT and the associated levy on London's ratepayers needs to be increased in 1989–90:"
  The first
  "is increased spending on safety measures following the King's Cross fire".
  He goes on to explain that:
  "The Government has made full provisions for the £266 million sought by LRT for this purpose over the next 3 years and of this some £80 million will fall in 1989–90."
  Only now have the Government recognised that safety and
  security have to be paid for and it is disgraceful that that was not recognised in the past. Therefore, I do not believe that the public in London will complain that more taxpayers' and ratepayers' money has to be contributed towards it. The Department of Transport's statistics confirm that revenue support in 1987–88 was only a third of the support of 10 years ago. Central Government have been regularly reducing revenue and ratepayer support rather than increasing it. That this year a small alteration in this pattern has taken place is almost entirely because of the King's Cross fire.
  It appears from LRT's business plan, however, that the support is still not enough. First, it was calculated that inflation would be 4 per cent., and it seems that it is now more likely to be 7 or 8 per cent. Secondly, LRT states that the costs of safety improvements may be subject to underestimates. Thirdly, it says that the costs of the outcome of the central London rail study have not been taken adequately into account. Those are sums for the future and sums for now. The probability is that even LRT's needs, as it has assessed them, will not be met. As a result, we shall not be coping with passenger demand adequately. We appreciate that that demand is increasing, and that is good because passenger transport should have substantially greater use, but the possibility is admitted in the business plan that no visible improvements will be made to customer service, even with the increased sum that is to be granted.
  The reality is that passengers are being made to pay. They have just been asked to pay, on average, 12·5 per cent. more in fares. Many passengers are paying a substantially greater increase than that. Those who use monthly travel cards for the central and inner zones have to pay nearly 19 per cent. more per year than hitherto. The Government are still saying, however, even with the increase in grant this year, that it is principally passengers who should meet the cost of improvements. Even capital investment will have to be paid for by the passengers. Central London rail study implications and east London rail study implications are likely to be funded substantially by passengers.
  I think that the Minister will confirm that passengers contribute more than two thirds of the cost of travelling or LRT. Between them, the taxpayer and the ratepayer contribute less than a third, which is in turn divided two thirds to the ratepayer and one third to the taxpayer. I have only one appropriate comparison but there are others. In Paris, passengers pay 34 per cent. of the cost of

  1113
  travel. That is more as it should be. If the capital has a good transport system, the nation is well served. The capital has to work well, and to work well it must travel well. That is an argument that the Government have always used.
  It is also inappropriate for the Government to claim that there is adequate investment when in all their plans and projections they look increasingly to the private sector for that investment. The same policy does not apply to the road system. Announcements have been made of improvements to the A13 and the north circular, for example. The roads are enjoying substantial public sector investment but the railways, the Underground system and the buses are not. I endorse the argument of the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes that the buses especially are still the Cinderella service. I ask the Minister seriously to take into account that buses are not receiving anything like the investment that is needed in London.
  Some areas of London are not served by the Underground system. Areas such as my constituency are not generally served by it. Southwark is an area that relies almost entirely on the buses, but it is the Underground system, because of the King's Cross disaster, which is receiving the greatest share of increased subsidy and investment, not the buses.
  There is also not sufficient strategic planning for LRT. If the Government are seeking increasingly to cut public subsidy and to look to the private sector, new facilities will be built and provided that the private sector wishes to fund. That is not the way strategically to plan London's transport. I do not begrudge some of the potential initiatives. I am not against the proposal of a line from Waterloo to the Isle of Dogs to be funded privately, or partly privately, but that is not strategic planning. That is responding to a specific interest by a specific private sector developer.
  Against this background, congestion will worsen. Congestion is self-generating. The Tube platforms become full and the train doors cannot shut as too many passengers try to enter the carriages. The delays are longer and there are therefore fewer trains, so more passengers wait on the platforms. Above ground, buses go slowly, then cars pile up and then the roads become full, so people decide that they will not go by bus because the buses go slower and the average speed is reduced. The whole process is cyclical. We must cut through the traditional reduction of the role of public transport.
  The situation will also become far worse with the implications of the Channel tunnel. As passengers disgorge at Waterloo, King's Cross, Stratford or wherever, there will be 5 million, 10 million or 15 million extra passengers and we clearly must have the capacity to deal with them. The increase in the use of public transport in London by people outside London, as well as the development in the East End, means that we need substantial public investment now if our capital city is not to grind to a halt in all respects in the 1990s.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall finish in a moment, so I shall not give way because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  1114
  The Government have no strategic planning. The central London rail study reports one week and the east London rail study is commissioned the next. In places such as my constituency, we still have poor public transport. It is no good having as the answers a little bit of investment one year, a central London rail study to deal with central London congestion and an east London rail study to deal with prospective growth in the East End in the next. Many parts of London are not affected by those area planning projects. South-east London, which has been a transport white hole for a long time, hardly benefits at all according to any of those plans. We really need to have a better, coherent, integrated transport policy for London. That will require—in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as the capital city—substantially increased public investment. It is no good saying that we have 50 per cent. more investment this year and to be apologetic about it. The Government should not be apologetic. We need the investment. The taxpayer and the ratepayer should be asked to pay and will willingly pay if they see the benefits of that investment in the capital's daily transport service.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: The levy and the debate are about the level, the standard and the safety of the service. Many hon. Members have referred to safety, as is right. "Salus populi suprema lex"—people's safety is the highest law—is the old legal maxim. That is right in the context of the Fennell inquiry and report into the King's Cross fire. No hon. Member would begrudge the money being spent to put right some of the dangers that have been identified. I welcome the steps that have been taken to put that right. My questions relate to how that is to be paid for, who pays and who benefits.
  A great irony arises from the fact that within the past year we have had two transport disasters within the London boroughs area. One was at King's Cross and the other at Clapham junction, in my own constituency. The irony relates to the inquiry that is looking into the Clapham junction disaster and will come up with recommendations. Each of them will, I hope, be agreed by the House and put into practice by the powers that be. But they will not be a burden on the ratepayers of London, but spread across the taxpayers of the country. To a considerable extent, the King's Cross recommendations are to be a burden exclusively on the London ratepayers. Sixty-six per cent. of the costs of safety measures will be a burden on London ratepayers, yet the people using London transport come from a wider area, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out.
  If one stands any morning at Waterloo station, one sees people coming in from Reading and Reigate, Epsom and Esher and pouring down the holes in the ground. Of course, if they go on the Drain to the City, they are on a British Rail line which is paid for by the taxpayer, but on any other line they pay the same fare as the Londoners travelling, but benefit from the extra subsidy that Londoners are paying through their rates towards the cost of the Underground and bus services. That is what some of us feel is a little hard to swallow. But even if I swallow hard and say that that is acceptable on the ground of safety, when I look at the figures—£190 million increasing to £287 million and a rate levy of 6p in the pound to 9p in the pound—I realise that that is a 50 per cent. increase in the cost to my constituents. Fifty per cent. and there has

  1115
  been no warning, no consultation, no explanation and no justification. If local authorities wanted to increase rates by 50 per cent. the whole House would rightly go mad.
  Many of my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), have suggested that there are good reasons for major investment and I do not disagree with that, but if we are to have a 50 per cent. increase in the levy, I want to see something approaching a 50 per cent. increase in the service. However, all that London Regional Transport boasts in its plans is a 5 per cent. improvement in its Underground service and a 5 per cent. increase in the bus mileages to be covered in the coming year. And, lo and behold, it also boasts that no major routes will be withdrawn. Although I am sure that we are all pleased about that, that is not quite the 50 per cent. increase for which we had hoped.
  Of course, major routes are to cross London and go out to docklands and so on, but 90 per cent. of the area that I represent does not have an Underground service. As anyone who travels through it knows, it is the place where one starts to slow down when driving into work. It is the area in which we want to get people off the roads and on to public transport, but we cannot put them on the Underground because there is no Underground link connecting with Clapham junction. That is something on which I should like London Regional Transport to come forward with plans. I do not ask for it to happen tomorrow or under this year's plan but only that it should come about in at least a few years' time so that hon. Members can look ahead and say to our constituents and commuters, "Yes, there is a plan and in the course of time there will be schemes to link the Chelsea-Hackney line to Clapham junction so that we can then link it further south."
  I do have one little Underground line in my constituency. It is the black line, in fact the southern end of the Northern line. All the reports that I have been reading have stated that that is the one bit of the Northern line that cannot be improved. However, it could be improved if we could take some of the passengers off it. If one took the link down to Clapham junction and extended it to the southern end of the Northern line, one could improve even that line and make life more bearable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes painted a happy picture of his borough with buses all over the place, although I gather that people occasionally fall off the back of them. My hon. Friend is proud of the No. 9 bus. All I can say to him is that if he comes across a No. 9, perhaps he will send it back to Battersea because we do not see them very often there.
  I want a better bus service. I want one that is flexible enough to cope with the occasional disaster like the closing of Battersea bridge so that buses can be fed and people can walk across the bridge to board a bus at the other side. That does not happen at the moment. The buses are sent all round the park and people have to walk half a mile to get a bus to get to their jobs. I want a bus service that is flexible enough to allow Hoppa buses to cope with the developing areas of my part of London and buses that can go down those streets where the Routemasters and the one-person-operated buses cannot get because of low bridges.
  Tonight I am issuing a challenge not to the Government, but to London Regional Transport. I challenge its officials to get from behind their desks in
  1116
  Broadway and look at their map. If they do so, they will see a wiggly blue line at the bottom. It is not the English channel; it is the wiggly blue line beyond which London Regional Transport rarely travels. It is the boundary of the river Thames. All that I ask is that the second, the lower, the southern half of London is given a chance in the investment made by London Regional Transport, especially in Underground services, but also in bus services. If London Regional Transport puts us on its drawing board, we shall put it back on our giving list next Christmas for an increase in the levy.
  11.28 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is right that the increase in the levy is not justified. I oppose the 50 per cent. increase imposed upon London ratepayers to pay for an unaccountable Tory-run quango. I say "Tory-run" because the new chairman is a failed Tory candidate, carrying out the same failed Tory transport policies as his predecessors. The Government are presiding over an increasingly run-down, deteriorating and dangerous service for which London commuters and travellers are being asked to pay more and more.
  I draw attention, on behalf of the bus users in my constituency, to the new yellow bus fare zone that has been imposed across Leyton. I wrote to LRT about it and was told in a letter that the extra zone
  "is not restricted to passengers from your constituency …. I recognise the fact that they have enjoyed relatively low-priced travel for some years in the past."
  LRT could have fooled my constituents that it was low-priced travel, although they enjoyed that brief period when the GLC cut fares substantially, before the Government blocked that move and increased the fares again. The letter went on:
  "I recognise that that will be of little consolation now to those who have had to pay what is effectively a 'catching-up' rise this time. I am afraid that these changes are necessary if we are to meet our financial targets."
  Those targets were, of course, imposed by the Government. We are talking in this case not just about a 12·5 per cent. fare rise imposed by LRT on top of the annual inflation increase, but an additional rise for local residents who cross that yellow zone line. It means that residents of Leyton pay four times for worse services as staff are sacked and roads become increasingly congested. Under the levy order they are having to pay a rates increase of 50 per cent., a 12·5 per cent. fare rise and an additional amount for the yellow zone. I protest most vigorously about that.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and I, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Newham, North (Mr. Banks), served in 1984 on the Standing Committee which considered what became the London Regional Transport (Amendment) Act 1985. We fought that measure line by line and everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton predicted has come to pass. He predicted that the Government's proposals would result in a worse service and higher fares, leading to the sort of problems and chaos that now exist. He was far-sighted in 1984 and he is right again tonight.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend can intervene whenever he likes if he compliments me in that way.
  I wish that my

  1117
  predictions had not become reality. London's travellers would benefit if we did not have a regime which imposed those sort of burdens on them.
  Like many Londoners, I regard the new automatic barriers at Underground stations as unsafe, especially after the King's Cross fire, and inconvenient, particularly for women with prams and people carrying luggage. The Minister referred to consultants having been appointed to look into the matter. Who are they? Nobody has heard of Mott McDonald. Perhaps they have been used by LRT to do a little whitewash job in the past, and now they are being used for a big whitewash job. Even while that exercise is in progress, 118 barriers are being installed and other stations are having exits blocked. It looks very much like a PR fraud and I warn the Minister that we will be watching the situation closely.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I commend my hon. Friend for campaigning so vigorously against the ludicrous barriers that are now being installed in the London Underground system. They seem to have been designed by a man carrying nothing but a newspaper under his arm. People carrying packages in both hands find it virtually impossible to pass through. They were designed by a cretin and LRT must think we are cretins if it believes we are going to carry on using them.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and represents the view of London travellers.
  The Minister should have the decency to require of London Regional Transport publication of the fire and health and safety reports for every station where automatic barriers are installed. We have a right to know whether those stations are safe, and what the fire and safety experts have to say about them. That information would contribute to the public debate, and might allow changes to be made. It is immoral of the Government not to publish those reports.
  Last week, I asked for a speedy answer to my question about the cost of installing automatic barriers. I hoped to receive that answer by today, but I suspect that I shall receive it tomorrow—long after this debate has ended. I suspect that the cost of installing that wasteful system runs into millions of pounds—and London ratepayers will be charged 50 per cent. of that expense. What a scandal that is.
  A "World in Action" programme a couple of weeks ago described going into the Underground as being like a descent into hell. But apart from the discomfort, there is danger there—with many serious accidents and even death a likely consequence of the overcrowding which has been caused by underinvestment and the lack of co-ordinated planning over the years.
  Another element in overcrowding is the Government's employment policy. They have sold out to the land and property speculators in the suburbs, so that factories that used to provide local employment have closed down, with the people who used to work there being forced to travel to London to work. As Government policy contributes to overcrowding, the Government ought to pay to overcome it, and not compel London ratepayers to do so.
  Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to give the Government credit for re-equipping the Central line, which serves his constituency, at a cost of £700 million.
  Mr. Cohen: I give the Government credit for nothing in respect of their transport policy. It has not been particularly good for the Central line. The hon. Gentleman should have used his minute to talk about the escalators at Walthamstow Central station, which have not operated for months on end.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will my hon. Friend reflect not only on the Government's delay in making much-needed improvements to the Central line, but the total absence of any progress in improving the Northern line—which is the real Cinderella of the system?
  Mr. Cohen: There are problems facing all lines, as they suffer from chronic underinvestment over the years, for which the Government must take responsibility.
  The order concerns ratepayers, and the Conservatives should be known as the party of high rates. That is what they are. They have cut rate support grant by about £24 billion, forcing rates up in borough after borough. On 15 February, the House discussed business rates, and the newspapers carried headlines such as
  "Ridley defends steep rate rises".
  Some businesses face a 193 per cent. increase in their rates over five years.
  Mr. Corbyn: In addition to the Conservatives being known as the party of high rates, they should he known as the Government of central diktat. London local authorities have lost the opportunity to make any serious decisions on planning issues. Once a year, we are allowed to spend one and a half hours in the middle of the night debating a vital issue such as transport. That makes a nonsense of democracy and of participatory planning.
  Mr. Cohen: I agree completely that we do not get a proper opportunity to make London Regional Transport accountable.
  The Tories are the party of high rates. Putting 50 per cent. on to the burden for ratepayers is conclusive proof of that. Even the leader of Bromley council, Mr. Barkway, said that the move was absolutely outrageous. There is fury in all camps. How can the Government make a statement that the rates can only go up by 2 per cent.? The Department of the Environment is clearly not aware of what the Department of Transport is planning. How can the Government allow this to go on without consultation? It shows the fraud that the Government have perpetrated on ratepayers over the years.
  Conservative party members in my borough went out with hard-pressed ratepayers to demonstrate when the rates were forced up a couple of years ago because of the huge penalties imposed by the Government. They sponsored demonstrations in many cases. Yet here we have Conservative Members supporting rate rises. The Conservatives are the party of high rates. They should not be allowed to get away with such hypocrisy.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Can my hon. Friend imagine what the position would have been if the Greater London council had gone for a 50 per cent. increase? The debate would not have been reduced to one and a half hours at this time of night; it would have been blasted across all the newspapers

  1119
  —not just the London newspapers but the national newspapers. This is what has replaced the GLC and democratic debate. It is a load of rubbish and a farce. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out in his speech, which I hope will last at least another three minutes.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made a good point.
  The director of finance in Waltham Forest has said that the rise will mean that ratepayers will have to contribute an additional £980,000. One reason, suggested perhaps cynically, is that 1989 is the last opportunity for London ratepayers to be asked to contribute towards LRT's costs, as no levy is to be made in the future. The Government are soaking London ratepayers when they can get away with it. Next year they will soak poll tax payers, albeit in a different way. They will take away the grant from local authorities and the poll tax will be higher and higher.
  The Government have pretended that it is a question of safety, but safety has been a low priority for the Government year after year. That was clear in the wake of the King's Cross fire. The Government have not been putting in a proper contribution. They are still not contributing enough to make up for the years of cuts and neglect of London's transport system.
  The Tories should be known as an anti-ratepayer and an anti-public transport party in London. That is why I oppose the levy. It is an imposition that should not be put on London ratepayers on top of the recent fare increases. We need more than one short debate to make that known to the people. Transport will become a vital issue in local elections and in the next general election. It will be a contributory factor in sweeping the Government out of office. It will be one of the few things that moves the Government. If the transport system—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business):—
  The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 10.

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Amos, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Ashby, David

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Eggar, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fallon, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Favell, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Forth, Eric

  Bowls, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Brazier, Julian

  Franks, Cecil

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butler, Chris

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gregory, Conal

  1120

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Portillo, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Harris, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Hayward, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shersby, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Jack, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Summerson, Hugo

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knapman, Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Knowles, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Waller, Gary

  Maclean, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wheeler, John

  Mans, Keith

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Maples, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Mills, Iain

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Neubert, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Norris, Steve

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Mr. Alan Howarth.

  NOES

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Parry, Robert

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Clelland, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Gordon, Mildred

  Loyden, Eddie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McAllion, John

  Mr. Harry Cohen and

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft London Regional Transport (Levy) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 19th December, he approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.).

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Laganside Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 25th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  That the draft Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 14th November 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING
  That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  Question agreed to.

  Mr. Brian O'Donoghue
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor].
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Mr. James O'Donoghue is a small business man trading as J. K. Allan, which is a company involved in plumbing and electrical work. His son Brian O'Donoghue left school in 1985 and started at Kingsway technical college in Dundee on a plumbing and technical course for a City and Guilds certificate. Mr. O'Donoghue then approached the local MSC area office in Dundee for advice on assistance with training of apprentices. That was in response to an approach made by the Construction Industry Training Board, which had requested that Mr. O'Donoghue take on an apprentice electrician. He advised the board that there was not enough electrical work to justify that and to ensure that proper training would be given to an apprentice electrician, but he offered to start an apprentice plumber. That is the job that he created, and the vacancy was filled by his son.
  Mr. O'Donoghue then tried to register his son as a YTS apprentice and was advised that that was not allowed as he was in employment. However, the CITB said that grants were available if Mr. O'Donoghue's son attended technical college on the appropriate courses recognised by the CITB, which lead to a qualification as a time-served, certified plumber. Mr. O'Donoghue agreed, and his son attended college on block release. When Mr. O'Donoghue applied for the grant from the CITB he was informed that, as his son had not started his career as a YTS trainee, no grant was available apart from a single payment of £200, the grant payable to English and Welsh employers who elect not to send their apprentices on block release but to send them on day release instead.
  As no day release is available in Scotland, Mr. O'Donoghue naturally felt that this was grossly unfair. When he complained to the CITB management he was told that a special payment of £550 would be made if he continued to send his son to college.
  Mr. O'Donoghue was given two reasons for the non-YTS rule. First, on YTS the numbers of apprentices can be controlled. However, inquiries revealed that in 1985, of the 158 YTS places allocated to the Tayside region, only 101 were filled. The number of apprentice plumbers on YTS attending Kingsley college in 1985 was only six. If those figures are projected into the future, there will be a serious shortage of skilled plumbers by 1995. Indeed, the CITB chairman, Derek Gaulter, openly states that there is an acute shortage of trainees now. In his words, their numbers are
  "insufficient to meet natural wastage let alone to provide the skilful work force needed to sustain growth."
  Despite this assertion, the CITB picked out plumbing apprentices who were not on YTS in 1985 to disqualify them from grant payment from 1987 onwards. Other apprentices, such as joiners, bricklayers and plasterers, who are also covered by the CITB, are not affected.
  The second reason given was that the rule was introduced as a cost-cutting measure by the CITB. Every adult employed in the building industry is levied by the CITB. The levy is paid by the employer annually and is in the region of £70 to £95 a year per class of employee. This
  1122
  money is used to pay for all aspects of training within the industry. The board under the Industrial Training Act 1982 collects this money by Acts of Parliament.
  The recent history of the plumbing industry is that many plumbers have started their own businesses, but not paid a levy to the CITB, either because they are unaware of the levy, or their payroll is less than £15,000 a year. To counteract the loss of revenue the CITB made a decision in 1985 not to support non-YTS apprentices.
  However, due to the decline of the industry, many firms have few apprentices or trainees, but continue to pay large levies to the board. In the financial year 1987–88, the board showed a surplus of £13,548,000. The CITB has also used money that was to have been used for training purposes to buy Government stocks and bonds to the value of ?60 million. In other words, the CITB introduced the non-YTS rule simply to save money, while at the same time running a surplus of millions of pounds. My constituent and his son see the actions of the CITB over the past few years in that light.
  As the Minister knows, I raised this matter on Mr. O'Donohue's behalf as early as January 1988. The Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for the CITB, said at first that there was nothing wrong, and he would not interefere. There was persistent letter-writing and telephoning—;much of it, I admit and the Minister will confirm, done by my constituent, who has taken an extraordinary interest in his son's affairs. It is only fair to compliment Mr. O'Donehue on his determination to ensure that his son receives the support training that one would hope that one's children would receive when they go into employment.
  At first, the Minister said that there was nothing wrong, and he would not interfere, but after this series of exchanges he told me that he was not entirely satisfied with the situation, and he confirmed, in his letter of 14 June 1988, that he would be calling on the board to
  "simplify its grant system and adopt a more flexible policy for grant aid, moving the emphasis away from the particular pattern of training being followed and placing it instead upon the achievement of vocational qualifications, based upon standards of competence established by industry. In this way I hope to encourage the Board to free the training market in the industry from unnecessary complaints."
  In a further letter to Mr. O'Donoghue, the Under-Secretary confirmed his earlier decision and restated that he would not intervene but expected that conditions would change in 1990, and Mr. O'Donoghue's son would then qualify. He will then be too old. It appears that the Minister has identified a serious fault in the grants procedure, but, due to his earlier decisions, has taken no immediate action to assist my constituent, whose persistent and determined campaign on behalf of his employee highlighted the anomaly in the first instance.
  It is clear from its annual accounts that the CITB has no shortage of money, and that it discriminates not only between YTS and non-YTS young people but between England and Wales, and Scotland, as there is no day release in Scotland. Although the board is determined not to fund non-YTS youths, it will expect to be paid on those same youths when they are older, have completed their training and are working in the industry.
  When this matter was first raised, my constituent was the only employer in Scotland affected by the rule. When it was introduced, it affected another two companies and apprentices, but they quickly dropped out of employment, so until quite recently my constituent was the only

  1123
  employer affected by the decision taken by the CITB in 1985. It has taken the Minister over six months to admit that the changes need to be made, but if the rules will he wrong in 1990, they were wrong in 1985 and both Mr. O'Donoghue and his son have been badly treated. The situation will have changed only because of my constituent's determination to challenge what is clearly a harsh ruling, and his son will not benefit because by the time the changes come in, his son will be too old. It appears that, although my constituent has highlighted this matter and brought it to the Minister's attention, he stands to gain nothing from it. It certainly does not help his son.
  Mr. O'Donoghue's son may have been taken on by his father as an apprentice plumber in exactly the kind of circumstances which the existing Manpower Services Commission and CITB rules envisaged as normal for the industry, hut, for every set of rules, there are legitimate exceptions for which Ministers should be prepared to make special provision.
  Mr. O'Donoghue and his son are hard-working citizens who are endeavouring to keep in business the kind of small family company which the Government properly claim that they want to help. Mr. O'Donoghue had undertaken to provide an apprenticeship in the family business, and there should have been no problem in ensuring that he be given all possible help by the Government and other agencies to do so. Only mind-boggling bureaucratic hair-splitting can lead to a situation in which no agency would give proper support to his son's apprenticeship.
  The purpose of the Industrial Training Act 1982 was to make better provision for and to encourage adequate training of apprentices. One assumes that the CITB exists for those very purposes. Therefore, why could it not come to Brian O'Donoghue's assistance by helping to fund his training programme, as it already does for other apprentices? Mr. O'Donoghue should not have been penalised for trying to give his son a start in life, rather than allowing him to leave school and start life on the unemployment register.
  This saga, which has dragged on since 1985, ended rather tragically on 1 February 1989. My constituent's company went through a period when it required all its employees to make a contribution to the work in hand. My constituent was forced to make his son redundant. Brian O'Donoghue is now unemployed. No matter the rights and wrongs of the case, and no matter how my constituent decided to pursue this matter, the CITB may not be too happy with the way in which this employer has challenged it at every turn. It may not like the fact that that he has highlighted an anomaly in the 1985 decision—that is, that it did not leave room for the exceptions that one would normally expect.
  Through no fault of his own, Brian O'Donoghue is now unemployed. I ask the CITB to do all that it can to ensure that he does not suffer because of its decision and by the failure of his employer, who also happens to be his father, to continue to employ him and to continue to allow him time off to attend college.
  Therefore, even at this late stage, I call on the Minister to reverse his decision and use his considerable influence to release financial support for Brian O'Donoghue's continuing apprenticeship. The sums involved for a small family business such as the O'Donoghues' are minuscule, compared with the CITB's massive surplus. That is an extremely relevant point, given that the CITB's accounts for 1987 showed a surplus of more than £87 million.
  1124
  Therefore, a shortage of funds cannot be cited as the cause of the board's failure to support Mr. O'Donoghue's son. It is clear that someone at the Minister's level is required to make a decision.
  As I said, in every matter the Government have flexibility and responsibility finally to give advice and say that, for whatever reason, there are exceptions to every rule. The Minister can make that decision in the case of Brian O'Donoghue without seriously jeopardising the CITB's proposals. Given that the Minister has already identified expected changes to the CITB, it is not too much to ask him to say that he will take on board the O'Donoghues' determination to try to ensure that their son can make a useful contribution to the construction industry as a time-served plumber, and, even at this late stage, will intervene to help my constituent Brian O'Donoghue.
  12.10 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): As the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) knows, I am well aware of the case involving his constituent, Mr. James O'Donoghue, and his son Brian. As has been made clear here tonight, there has been a great deal of correspondence involving the CITB and Ministers at the Scottish Office, as well as my own Department, and meetings have also been arranged to allow Mr. O'Donoghue to put his case to the Construction Industry Training Board and to my own officials here in London.
  Before I comment on the particular details of Mr. O'Donoghue's case, I think it would be helpful to the House if I outlined the relationship that exists between the Government and the Construction Industry Training Board.
  The CITB is a statutory body, established under legislation now consolidated in the Industrial Training Act 1982. It exists to encourage adequate training to appropriate standards in the construction industry throughout Great Britain. The chairman and members of the board are appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment—in most cases after consultation with employer organisations, unions or educational interests in the industry.
  The board's main source of income is the levy it raises from employers in the industry. Each year, the board has to present its levy proposals to the Training Commission for approval. The commission then passes the proposals to Ministers for consideration, and, if we are content, we bring them before the House for approval. So the board's main source of income comes from the industry; it does not come from Government. It is therefore right that the industry, not Government, should decide how that money should be spent, and in particular on the nature of the grant scheme which the board should support.
  The board has therefore established a system of sectoral committees in which representatives of the industry—employer and employees—discuss the skill and training needs of their industry and determine the detail of the grant scheme that they wish to finance from their levy income. Their proposals are put to the full board and then, if approved, to the Training Commission. The CITB is not required to present their grant scheme to Ministers for approval.

  1125
  That is an important point. Although the CITB is a statutory body, it is very much in control of the industry, and it is for the industry to determine the detail of its grant support for construction training. It would not be right—and the House will, I think, agree with me on this—for Government to impose a specific grant scheme upon the board. It is the employers' money which is being spent through the board's grant scheme, and it is therefore right and proper that the details of that grant scheme should be determined by the employers, through the board's committee structure. What the Government want to see is less regulation in training, not more; less central direction and more emphasis on commitment from employers at the local level, sectoral and national levels, to investment in training for their own business success.
  Turning to the particular case involving Mr. O'Donoghue and the lengthy correspondence which has resulted, I can perhaps help by making two main points. First, to reinforce what I hope I have already made clear, the rules are formulated by the industry itself, not by Government.
  I have made it consistently clear to the board—and for that matter to Mr. O'Donoghue—that I would like to see some changes in some of the conditions imposed by the board in the past upon eligibility for grants—for example, the emphasis upon registration with joint industry bodies or the following of particular and inflexible patterns of training. I can tell the House that I am confident that the board's scheme for 1989–90 will be far more flexible and more accessible.
  Obviously, I cannot say tonight what the implications of that will be for Mr. O'Donoghue. But he would be well advised to keep in close contact with the board on this. I would also point out—and I underline, in effect, what the hon. Gentleman has said—that Mr. O'Donoghue did receive a grant in 1987 of £200 to which he was entitled under the scheme in operation at that time. My second point is that, as I understand it, Mr. O'Donoghue's son's eligibility for grant support resulted from his apparent decision not to allow his son to participate in YTS.
  1126
  The youth training scheme is the preferred method of entry into plumbing, because the board's mechanical engineering services committee feels that it assures the quality of training necessary to achieve the standards of competence required in the industry. Mr. O'Donoghue's decision on YTS effectively placed him outside the rules and so made his son ineligible for grant support.
  I can only regret Mr. O'Donoghue's decision and must confess that I am at a loss to know why he chose not to take advantage of the funding available for quality training through YTS. Be that as it may, that was his choice and, as I and my officials have consistently told him, I do not have—and neither should I have—the power to require the CITB to alter the rules of its grant scheme to suit his particular whims.
  What I hope I have been able to do tonight is, at least, satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I strongly suspect that nothing I have said will satisfy Mr. O'Donoghue for one moment. Everything I have said has been said to him on numerous occasions in meetings, correspondence, and telephone conversations not only with me, but with my officials and CITB officials. Not only has considerable ministerial time been devoted to this case, but the CITB chairman has been able to give me his personal assurance that a great deal of time and consideration has been given to this case by the board.
  In short, I have no doubt that Mr. O'Donoghue has been treated fairly and correctly, and while my acquaintance with Mr. O'Donoghue leads me to believe that he will not be convinced of that, I would like to think that I have been able to satisfy the House.
  The hon. Gentleman has suggested—it was implicit in his remarks, but has been explicitly suggested by Mr. O'Donoghue on many occasions—that, in some way, the board has operated improperly when it comes to the question of its investments. Under the 1982 Act an ITB must obtain the Training Commission's approval for all of its investments. To the best of my knowledge, that procedure was fully adhered to in this case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State during his recent visit to Baghdad raised with the Iraqi Foreign Minister the reported use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces and the reported repression of the Kurdish population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 20 February to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). I also discussed the position of the Kurdish population of Iraq and human rights in the country during my visit.

  CSCE
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming CSCE forum on information in London, including the membership of the British delegation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Information Forum is part of the Helsinki process and will deal with flows of information between East and West. Lord Rees-Mogg will lead the British delegation. We are currently considering the composition of the remainder of the delegation.

  Council of Ministers (Voting)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, by meeting, date, and policy issue those occasions where the European Community Council of Ministers has reached a decision binding on all by qualified majority vote; and if he will break down the votes cast for and against by member state on each occasion.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 19 October 1988.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have ever discussed at an official level with the Federal Republic of Germany, the implications of their declaration on the application of the European Community treaties to Berlin, Cmnd. 455, for German reunification.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Discussions between the Three Allied Powers (the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and France) and the Federal Republic of Germany relating to the application of the European Community Treaties to Berlin take place from time to time in the context of Allied rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole.

  EC Treaties (Protocols)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which the United Kingdom has been responsible as principal originator for the addition of protocols to the treaties upon which the European Community is founded, with reasons given for the action.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There have been none.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have, at any time in the past 10 years, discussed at an official level with the Federal Republic of Germany alone, or together with other states, the issue of German reunification.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made clear, in contacts with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, our view that real and permanent stability in Europe will be difficult to achieve so long as the German nation is divided against its will.

  German Reunification
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government policy towards the reunification of Germany.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As my right hon. and learned Friend told my hon. Friend, the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), on 8 February, successive British Governments have taken it as axiomatic that real and permanent stability in Europe will he difficult to achieve so long as the German nation is divided against its will.

  EC (Nationality Discrimination)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rules on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality have been adopted by the Council to give effect to article 7 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Treaty provisions on nondiscrimination have been embodied in many Community instruments since 1957. Detailed information is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  EC Economic and Social Committee
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the current names, age and categories of United Kingdom members of the European Community Economic and Social Committee.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following is the information requested:

  Group 1 (Employers):

  Mr. Ian Campbell CVO (66),

  Miss E. G. Dodd (63),

  Mr. K. J. Gardner FRSC (65),

  Mr. C. A. Hancock (53),

  Mr. J. A. de Normann (66),

  Mr. W. G. Poeton (62),

  Mr. K. M. Tamlin (60),

  Mr. F. G. Whitworth (63);

  Group 2 (Employees):

  619

  Mr. J. R. Boddy MBE (66),

  Mr. Campbell Christie (52),

  Mr. E. A. B. Hammond OBE (59),

  Mr. T. Jenkins (42),

  Miss A. Maddocks (61),

  Mr. A. R. Smith (59),

  Mr. L. J. Smith OBE (65);

  Group 3 (Various Interests):

  Mr. W. Aspinall (46),

  Professor W. Black (62),

  Mrs S. Flather JP (55),

  Mr. R. J. Moreland (47),

  Dr. A. Robinson (52),

  Mr. G. Spiers (59),

  Dr. P Storie-Pugh CBE, MC, TD, DL (69),

  Mr. M. P. Strauss (60),

  Mrs A. Williams MBE (60).

  EC (Enlargement)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the further enlargement of the European Community.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We share in the consensus amongst member states that at least until 1992 the priority for the Community must be consolidation—in particular the completion of the single market and the full absorption of Spain and Portugal—not enlargement.

  EC (Membership)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many states have formaly indicated a wish to enter into dialogue with the European Community with a view to ultimately becoming members.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Only one country, Turkey, has a formal application to join the European Community on the table. Morocco applied to join the Community in 1987, but the Council of Ministers took the view that this application should not be pursued. Norway completed accession negotiations in 1972, but did not in the event join the Community.

  EC Treaties
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who may submit new protocols to the treaties upon which the European Community has its legal foundation; and what is the procedure for their assessment and final acceptance.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The procedure for amendments to the Treaty of Rome is laid down in article 236 of that Treaty. Similar provisions appear in article 204 of the Treaty establishing the EAEC and in article 96 of the Treaty establishing the ECSC.

  Kampuchea
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government, as a member of the United Nations Security Council, will press for an international peace settlement on Kampuchea.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are already working for a peaceful settlement in Cambodia. We welcome current developments towards that goal.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Bangladesh on human rights issues.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have made clear to the Bangladesh Government the concern felt in this country about human rights issues. They were discussed most recently during the visit of President Ershad. Some hon. Members had the opportunity to raise these issues with President Ershad on 15 February.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 20 February.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 20 February. Much of the day was taken up with discussion in the framework of political co-operation of relations with Iran in the light of the threats against Mr. Salman Rushdie. My right hon. and learned Friend has already reported to the House on this.

  The Council again discussed the dispute with the United States over the EC directive banning imports of meat from animals treated with hormones. The Commission reported agreement with the United States Administration of the establishment of a high-level group to find ways of resolving the dispute within 75 days. To the extent that United States suppliers send hormone-free meat to the EC, United States retaliatory measures would meanwhile be reduced. In view of this progress the Council took no decision to implement counter-retaliation. The Council adopted a regulation requiring national controls on the export of eight key chemical weapons precursors. This followed agreement at the EPC ministerial meeting on 14 February on the case for such a regulation. Though we already have strict controls on these and other CW precursors, the Government welcome this action.

  The Presidency reported on the outcome of the first substantive EC/ACP ministerial negotiating meeting on the renewal of the Lomé convention, which was held in Brazzaville on 16/17 February, and attended by my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development.

  The Council adopted negotiating mandates for trade and co-operation agreements with Poland and Bulgaria, discussed the Community's relations with Eastern Europe; and agreed a Community position for the San Jose V meeting on 27/28 February with the Central American states in San Pedro Sula, Honduras.

  The Council discussed proposals introduced by the Netherlands Foreign Minister for improving coordination between the Community and the Council of Europe. This will be further discussed at the March Foreign Affairs Council.

  An EC/Tunisia Cooperation Council was held in the margins of the Council.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there have been any recent changes in the amount of meat and bone meal exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no evidence of any changes in such exports.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether there have been any recent changes in the amount of meat and bone meal imported into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  I have no evidence of any changes in such imports.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show the amounts of meat and bone meal imported into and exported from Northern Ireland, with the countries of origin and destination, in each of the last 12 months or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information available from Customs and Excise records relates only to trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and is as follows:

  Imports and exports of meat and bone meal

  1988

  To Northern Ireland Tonnes

  From Northern Ireland Tonnes

  January

  2,252

  149

  February

  2,373

  250

  March

  2,757

  391

  April

  2,118

  142

  May

  1,966

  233

  June

  2,272

  174

  July

  1,776

  153

  August

  2,668

  102

  September

  5,227

  87

  October

  2,160

  278

  November

  1,263

  272

  December

  1,285

  323

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether any persons convicted of fraud have been employed (1) directly or (2) as consultants by the Industrial Development Board.

  Mr. Viggers
  I am not aware of any consultant or person directly employed by IDB who was convicted of fraud.

  School Meals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on school meals for each year between 1978–79 and the latest date available, in current and constant prices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Net expenditure on school meals and milk is as follows:622

  Financialyear

  Cash£000

  At 1987–88prices £000

  1978–79

  17,031

  34,761

  1979–80

  19,670

  34,537

  1980–81

  18,088

  26,813

  1981–82

  17,381

  23,455

  1982–83

  19,152

  24,121

  1983–84

  21,572

  25,986

  1984–85

  22,417

  25,704

  1985–86

  24,739

  26,913

  1986–87

  25,580

  26,929

  1987–88

  23,950

  23,950

  Note: Expenditure figures for school meals and milk are not recorded separately.

  Emergency Provisions
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987 to be available.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

WALES

  Water Industry
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has had any indication of the European Commission's view of the Government's proposal to restrict any one shareholding in the privatised water industry in Wales to 15 per cent.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 20 February at column 456

  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those trunk road schemes in Wales on which he anticipates public inquiries being held during the current year with, where known, the likely date of the inquiry.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information is as follows:

  Schemes in respect of which an Inquiry date has been fixed:—

  Scheme

  Date

  A5 Ty-Nant to Dinmael Improvement (Clwyd)

  24–27 January

  A55 Rhuallt Hill Improvement (Clwyd)

  7–17 February

  M4/A4042 Brynglas Tunnels/Malpas Road Relief Scheme (Gwent)

  Commenced 14 February

  A458/A453 Welshpool Relief Roads (Powys)

  Commencing 4 April

  Schemes in respect of which Inquiries are anticipated but no dates yet fixed:

  Scheme

  A465

  Aberdulais to Glynneath Improvement (West Glamorgan)

  A487

  Caernarfon to South of Port Dinorwic Improvement (Gwynedd)

  A4042

  Penperlleni Bypass (Gwent)

  A487

  Pont Seiont to Bontnewydd Improvement (Gwynedd)

  A494

  Mold Bypass (Clwyd)

  A4060

  Pentrebach to Mountain Hare Improvement (Mid Glamorgan)

  A470

  Llanbynmair Improvement (Powys)

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital Formation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the present levels of gross domestic fixed capital formation in Wales; and what is the percentage change over(a) 1988 and (b) the period 1978–79 in both cash and real terms, and expressed in real terms as a percentage of gross domestic product on equivalent industries.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest figure for gross domestic fixed capital formation for selected industry groups1 in Wales is £1,505 million in 1986. Comparable figures are not available for 1978–79.

  Note:

  1 The selected industry groups making up the total are: Agriculture; Forestry and Fishing; Energy and Water Supply; Manufacturing; Transport and Communications and Dwellings.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average gross domestic product per head in Wales in each year since 1979, in real terms.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is as follows:

  GDP/Head at 1987 Prices1

  Year

  £

  1979

  4,440

  1980

  4,234

  1981

  4,115

  1982

  4,305

  1983

  4,467

  1984

  4,325

  1985

  4,719

  1986

  4,893

  21987

  4,991

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  1 These figures have been deflated to 1987 prices using United Kingdom deflators as these are not available on a regional basis.

  2 Provisional data.

  Wages
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average weekly wage of(a) full-time and (b) part-time workers for Wales for (i) males and (ii) females.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In April 1988 the average gross weekly earnings of full-time adult males and females on adult rates of pay in Wales were £217·80 and £150·30 respectively. The figure for part-time females was £58·70. Data for part-time males is not available.

  Income Statistics
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of people in each income quintile in Wales; and how many(a) families with children, (b) single-parent families, (c) pensioners and (d) disabled people are in each income quintile.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Information by income quintile is not available.

  School Meals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on school meals for each year between 1978–79 and the latest date available, in current and constant prices.
  624
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure on school meals and milk for the period requested is given in the following table:

  School meals and milk—net current expenditure

  Year

  Cash (£000)

  1986–87 prices (£000)

  1978–79

  24,673

  48,089

  1979–80

  26,066

  43,472

  1980–81

  23,455

  33,026

  1981–82

  24,303

  31,152

  1982–83

  27,008

  32,311

  1983–84

  27,772

  31,778

  1984–85

  29,745

  32,396

  1985–86

  28,535

  29,487

  1986–87

  29,601

  29,601

  11987–88

  30,219

  28,704

  1 Data is provisional

  Note.—Net current expenditure is defined as current expenditure net of non-grant income (eg sales, fees and charges).

  Home Improvement Grant
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each Welsh district council for each of the past 10 years(a) the number of home improvement grant applications, (b) the number approved, (c) the total value of the grants applied for, (d) the total value of the grants approved, (e) the percentage that (d) represents of (c) and (f) the total allocation to each authority in each year; and if he will make a statement regarding the likely effect of the proposed charges in the Local Government and Housing Bill on home improvement grants.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what a typical ward sister would pay in each Welsh district(a) in rates, (b) in community charge and (c) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in the proportions of 80–20, respectively, if she lived in a typical house paying at present average rates for the district.

  Mr. Grist
  Illustrative community charge figures and average domestic rates for each Welsh district were published in the Official Report on 29 July 1988 at column 656–58. I have made no detailed estimates of the impact of a system of capital value rates and local income tax in Wales.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if there is to be any change to the cash limit for class XVII vote 2 for the current financial year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Yes. The cash limit on class XVII vote 2 is to be reduced from £76,700,000 to £76,525,000 by a reduction of £175,000 in the grant-in-aid provision for the Development Board for Rural Wales. This will enable me to make a corresponding sum available from spare housing subsidy provision in the demand-led class XVII vote 3 to pay a grant to the DBRW under section 11 of the
  625
  Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 towards the cost of making an immediate start on a programme of housing maintenance at Newtown in Powys.

  Examinations Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number of children sitting(a) CSE exams, (b) o-level exams and (c) A-level exams in each local education authority in Wales as a percentage of the total number in the relevant year groups in each authority for the latest available year in which these examinations were sat;

  (2) if he will list by each local education authority in Wales the total number of children achieving (a) CSE grades 2–5, (b) o-level grades A-C and CSE grade 1, and (c) A-level grades A to E as a percentage of the total

  School Leavers 1986–87—Maintained schools only

  Percentages

  Attempting1

  Achieving2

  Total Leavers

  CSE

  'O' Level

  'A' Level

  Lower Grades3

  Higher Grades4

  'A' Level Pass

  Clwyd

  6,260

  88

  84

  16

  87

  56

  15

  Dyfed

  4,675

  75

  78

  21

  75

  56

  19

  Gwent

  6,660

  81

  72

  15

  76

  48

  12

  Gwynedd

  3,725

  82

  80

  16

  82

  56

  14

  Mid Glamorgan

  8,835

  72

  71

  16

  67

  48

  15

  Powys

  1,685

  88

  84

  20

  86

  51

  16

  South Glamorgan

  5,730

  79

  76

  23

  72

  53

  21

  West Glamorgan

  5,200

  81

  82

  13

  78

  55

  12

  Wales

  42,770

  80

  77

  17

  76

  52

  15

  1A candidate attempting more than one type of examination is counted under each type.

  2 Those leavers who gain results in more than one of the categories shown are counted more than once, under each qualification achieved.

  3'O' level grades D-E, CSE grades 2–5.

  4'O* level grades A-C, CSE grade 1

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Polar Platform Satellite
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the European Space Agency concerning United Kingdom industrial participation in the polar platform satellite.

  Mr. Atkins
  The European Space Agency and its member states are currently reviewing alternative concepts for the polar platform in the light of studies led by British Aerospace and Matra respectively. The United Kingdom will be seeking the most cost-effective solution consistent with our objective of securing the progressive commercialisation of earth observation. British industry can expect to play a leading role in the development of whichever platform is selected to meet this end.

  Liquidations
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what regulations govern the time limits within which liquidations of companies and businesses must be completed.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no statutory time limits within which a liquidation must be completed but the insolvency rules 1986 provide that when the liquidator in an insolvent liquidation has realised such of the company's assets as he can without needlessly protracting the liquidation he shall declare a dividend, if funds are available for that purpose.626
  number of pupils in the relevant year group in each authority, for the latest available year in which these examinations were sat.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: The information is not available in the form requested. It is impossible to identify a relevant year group for each type of examination. Pupils take CSE and o-level examinations in years 4 to 5 and all years of the 6th form. In 1986–87 the number of pupils attempting such exams exceeded the number of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year (5th formers). Similarly pupils take A-levels in the first, second and third years of the 6th form. The following table is based on a survey of 1987 school leavers. It shows the number of pupils attempting and achieving success in examinations as a percentage of all those who left school. The results will be subject to some sampling errors.

  Franchise Businesses
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pursuant to his answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Devon, North if he will make it his policy to collect statistical and other details on franchise businesses; if he will establish a franchise unit within his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I am not persuaded that the Government need such data and I am not clear what would be the objectives of a franchise unit.

  British Aerospace (Contract)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what efforts were made to ensure that the £10 million worth of contracts arising from the construction of the British Aerospace air combat manoeuvering platform went to British fabrication yards.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs during oral questions on 15 February 1989 Official Report column 299 and reiterate that it is not for Government to interfere in the commercial decisions of companies.

  Takeover Bids
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of which takeover bids his Department received three deputations of hon. Members in 1988.
  627
  Mr. Atkins
  Ministers in this Department met approximately 10 deputations of hon. Members in 1988 about takeover bids which included Nestle's bid for Rowntree, Goodman Fielder Wattie's bid for Ranks Hovis McDougall, and Elders IXL's bid for Scottish & Newcastle Breweries.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if, pursuant to his answer of 15 February, he will give further details of the consideration given to early-day motions on takeover bids;

  (2) what weight he gives to the number of hon. Members who have signed an early-day motion on a takeover bid.

  Mr. Atkins
  Due consideration is of course given to all early-day motions. However, the weight attributed to that consideration may vary.

  Furniture (Foam Insulation)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to inform furniture retailers of the new foam insulation regulations coming into force on 1 March.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 1,500 copies of the draft regulations were sent out on 1 March 1988. I then relied upon the usual channels of communication. The final regulations were submitted to Parliament in July, and interested parties were informed. These included the media generally, the trade press, local authority trading standards departments and all relevant trade associations. I am advised that the foam suppliers in particular have been meticulous in advising their customers about how their products comply with the new legal requirements. Guidance notes for the trade, which take account of initial reactions to the regulations, are being prepared and will be widely distributed soon.

  I have not written to every furniture retailer in the country. The Department does not have a list of all such retailers' names and addresses.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what provisions(a) Royal Mail (Letters), (b) Royal Mail (Parcels) and (c) Post Office (Counters) make to accommodate safely registered disabled persons in workplaces; and if there are safe areas of work specifically reserved for their disabled employees;

  (2) how many people who are profoundly deaf are currently employed by Royal Mail (Letters) within the grade of postman/postwoman;

  (3) what is the number of people employed by the Royal Mail (Letters) on permanent sorting duties whose normal mobility is restricted by having to use a wheelchair;

  (4) what is the number of people currently employed by the Post Office within (a) Royal Mail (Letters), (b) Royal Mail (Parcels) and (c) Post Office (Counters);

  (5) what is the number of people currently employed by the Post office within (a) Royal Mail (Letters), (b) Royal Mail (Parcels) and (c) Post Office (Counters) who are registered as disabled within the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958;

  (6) what numbers of people employed by Royal Mail (Letters) within the grade of (a) postmen, postwomen, (b) postmen, postwomen higher grade, (c) postal assistant,
  628
  (d) postal officer, (e) postal executive class D, (f) postal executive class C, (g) postal executive class B, (h) postal executive class A, (i) doorkeepers and (j) cleaners are registered as disabled within the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958;

  (7) what are the numbers of people employed by Royal Mail (Letters) in the grades of postal executive class C and above; and how many of the total are (a) women, (b) of ethnic minority origin and (c) registered as disabled;

  (8) if he will list the number of persons who are currently entered in the register of disabled persons within the terms of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts 1944 and 1958 who have applied for employment with (a) Royal Mail (Letters), (b) Royal Mail (Parcels) and (c) Post Office (Counters) during (i) 1984, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1986, (iv) 1987 and (v) 1988; and how many of these applicants were subsequently employed.

  Mr. Forth
  Questions of employment in the letters, parcels and counters businesses of the Post Office, including employment of different categories of people and facilities provided for them, are a matter for the Post Office. I am asking the Post Office to contact the hon. Member about these questions.

  Domestic Animals (Pelts and Skins)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to introduce the separate logging of the quantities of exported dog pelts and cat skins.

  Mr. Forth
  No. There is insufficient trade to justify separate monitoring of such goods.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will raise in the European Council of Ministers the need for arrangements to be in place before 1992 to prevent knitwear imports from Third world countries entering the Federal Republic of Germany through the German Democratic Republic and purporting to be manufactured in COMECON countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: Under the terms of inner German trade, goods originating in the German Democratic Republic may enter the Federal Republic of Germany free of import duty. This arrangement does not apply to other member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). The Federal authorities monitor consignments of textiles to ensure compliance with the origin requirements, and United Kingdom officials will shortly review these and other procedures with the Economics Ministry in Bonn to minimise the risk of abuse of inner German trade in the run-up to 1992 and beyond. If my hon. Friend is aware of any specific cases arousing concern I should be grateful if he would bring them to my attention.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any proposals for the reform of the process of house purchase and the practice of estate agents.
  629
  The Attorney-General
  So far as reform of the process of house purchase is concerned, improvements in practice are needed rather than legislation and I welcome the work of the professions and the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission in this area. The practice of estate agents is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I understand that consultations are continuing with estate agents' representatives and other interested groups.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Government Stocks
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list Government stocks which have sinking funds and are likely to be redeemed ahead of the final date for repayment; and whether he is obliged to redeem such stocks as soon as the sinking fund is sufficient to repay them.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: There are two United Kingdom Government securities with sinking funds:
  3½ per cent. conversion loan (denominated in sterling); and Fifteen year 8 7/8 per cent. Bonds due 1993 (denominated in $ US).

  In addition, guaranteed 4½ per cent. Bonds and Irish Free State 4½ Land Bonds, have a Government guarantee and sinking funds.

  Terms and conditions of these securities are set out in their prospectuses. It is not the Government's practice to comment on any discretion the prospectus may afford.

  Child Benefit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the increased revenue in 1988–89 if(a) the personal income tax allowances, (b) mortgage interest, (c) superannuation and personal pension contributions and (d) self-employed retirement annuity premiums were restricted to basic rate tax; by how much child benefit could be increased if all the extra revenue were used for this purpose; what would be the redistributive effects, by family type and income decile; and how many working families with children would be lifted off entitlement to family credit.

  Mr. Lawson
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Almost two-thirds of those who would pay more tax as a result of restricting personal allowances and other tax reliefs to the basic rate currently pay tax at the basic rate only: those near the top of the basic rate band would be pushed into paying tax at the higher rate. About 3½ million single people and married couples would pay more income tax: of those, about 2¼ million currently pay tax at the basic rate only.

  Revised estimates of the direct revenue yield in 1988–89 if the allowances and reliefs had been restricted to the basic rate are:

  £ million

  a. Personal allowances

  1,160

  b. Mortgage interest relief

  330

  c. Employees' superannuation and personal pension contributions

  200

  d. Retirement annuity relief1

  100

  630
  1 Including relief for retirement annuity payments made by employees.

  Note: These estimates are based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes. No account is taken of, possible behavioural changes or the effect on receipts of capital gains tax.

  The yield arising from making the changes (a) to (d) simultaneously is £2,100 million, somewhat more than the sum of the yields from the four changes separately, since even more basic rate taxpayers would become higher rate payers. If all this were used to increase child benefit, it could be raised by about £4·40 a week in a full year and at 1988–89 prices. This assumes that child allowances in income support would be unchanged, with child benefit, as now, fully deductible from income support payments; and that there would be compensating reduction in the child additions for family credit.

  Estimates of the effect on family credit case-load are very uncertain. On the basis of the assumptions in "Impact of reformed structure of income-related benefits" (October 1987), the case-load might he reduced by about a third, (around 150,000 families).

  The tables show the combined effect, analysed by type of tax unit and income decile, of the net revenue yield or costs from restricting the allowances and reliefs to the basic rate and increasing child benefit.

  (a) gain to Net effect by type of tax unit tax unit ( + ), loss to tax unit ( - )

  £ million

  With children

  Without children

  Total

  Single

  + 90

  - 210

  - 120

  Married one earner

  + 280

  - 230

  + 50

  Married two earners

  + 770

  - 700

  + 70

  Total

  + 1,140

  -1,140

  0

  (b) Net effect by decile of total income1 gain to tax unit ( + ). loss to lax unit ( - )

  Decile

  £ million

  Lowest

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  4

  + 20

  5

  + 40

  6

  + 120

  7

  + 290

  8

  + 470

  9

  + 500

  Highest

  -1,440

  Total

  0

  1 Deciles of income have been defined in terms of total income, including non-taxable benefits, but before the additional £4–40 per week of child benefit. Income has not been adjusted to equivalence levels to take account of the need of different types of tax units.

  2 Under £5 million.

  The gains in the lower deciles from the increase in child benefit are negligible since the families with children in them will generally be entitled to income support or family credit. The increase in child benefit would therefore, in most cases, be offset by a corresponding reduction in income-related benefits.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Lomé 4
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he is able to make to the World Development Movement's charter for Lomé 4, in particular its requirement that Lomé 4 should assist the poorest farmers, support environmentally suitable development, reduce child mortality and improve other key health indicators and assess the impact of all projects on women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I welcome the charter's emphasis on support for the poorest, on improvement in environmental monitoring and assessment, on assistance to the health sector and on ensuring that the interests of women are properly taken into account. These are issues to which we attach great importance.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of British bilateral aid to Bangladesh is undertaken by representatives of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Eggar
  Our aid is monitored through regular visits by Overseas Development Administration staff, from both London and our south east Asia development division in Bangkok. The aid section of the British High Commission in Dhaka is responsible for day-to-day oversight of the programme.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Support Grant
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the education support grant guidelines for 1989–90.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend announced on 15 December 1988 the allocations to individual LEAs of expenditure to be supported through ESGs in 1989–90. My right hon. Friend yesterday met representatives of the local authority associations for preliminary discussions about the content and scale of the 1990–91 programme. He will be announcing shortly a list of proposed activities for support in 1990–91 in the light of yesterday's discussions.

  School Leavers
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children leave school before they are aged 16 years.

  Mr. Butcher
  It is estimated that, in England, during the academic year 1986–87, some 107,000 pupils left school before their 16th birthday.

  Zidovudine
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will receive copies of all reports given by the independent data and safety monitoring committee to the chairmen of the 632
  MRC/INSERM co-ordinating committee of the trial on the benefits of zidovudine for healthy people who are HIV positive; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 7 February, Official Report, column 608, how many participants have been enrolled to date in the Medical Research Council trial on the benefits of zidovudine for healthy people who are HIV positive in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) France.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend does not expect to receive copies of such reports; the conduct of the trial is a matter for the Medical Research Council and INSERM. the number of participants enrolled on the trial up to 15 February 1989 was 218 in the United Kingdom and 84 in France.

  University Lecturers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 750, if he will express the figures contained in his answer as a percentage of total university lecturing staff for each of the years 1980 to 1987.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information on lecturers leaving universities in Great Britain to take up employment or study abroad as a percentage of lecturers in post in the previous year is as follows:

  Non-clinical

  Clinical

  All

  1980

  0·7

  1·8

  0·8

  1981

  0·6

  1·4

  0·6

  1982

  0·6

  1·4

  0·7

  1983

  0·4

  2·1

  0·5

  1984

  0·5

  1·0

  0·5

  1985

  0·4

  1·1

  0·5

  1986

  0·6

  1·2

  0·6

  1987

  0·5

  1·0

  0·6

  GCSE
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about advice available to students on choosing subjects for the GCSE examination.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Schools are best placed to advise their pupils on choosing appropriate subjects at GCSE. In addition to giving pupils individual advice, many schools issue guidance booklets on their GCSE choices. DES publicity recommends that parents should make sure that their children take English, maths and science at GCSE.

  Animals (Experiments)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which university laboratories concerned with animal experimentation use animals not bred specifically for this purpose; and who supplies the animals concerned.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  School Meals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing the
  633
  expenditure on school meals for each year between 1978–79 and the latest date available, in current and constant prices.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information is given in the table:

  Net expenditure on school meals and milk1—England

  Cash Terms £ million

  1986–87 Real Terms2 £ million

  1978–79

  388

  756

  1979–80

  422

  704

  1980–81

  397

  559

  1981–82

  397

  509

  1982–83

  411

  492

  1983–84

  427

  489

  1984–85

  432

  471

  1985–86

  435

  450

  1986–87

  459

  459

  1 Net expenditure includes the salaries and wages of staff engaged in the preparation and supervision of the meal, the cost of food and overheads less the income received from pupils and adults who pay for their meals. It does not include any capital or capital financing costs. The figures include the costs of the school milk service which have not been collected separately since 1981–82.

  2 The cash figures for the earlier years have been repriced to 1986–87 real terms using the gross domestic products (market prices) deflator.

  Universities and Polytechnics
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to increase the financial independence of universities and polytechnics.

  Mr. Jackson
  Under the Education Reform Act, polytechnics in England are being re-established as institutions independent of local education authorities, with funding from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Following the Act, there is a wide-ranging debate on the funding of higher education which the Government want to see develop and mature further. However, we are actively considering the possibility of some shift in the flow of public funds from the grants to be disbursed by the higher education funding councils towards students' fees met under the mandatory awards arrangements.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information has been given by his Department or by those acting on its behalf, directly or indirectly, to journalists or others, which has specified in respect of complaints relating to the conduct of ballots for grant-maintained schools, the names of the local education authority concerned and the nature of the complaint; when; by whom; and to whom.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  When asked about concerns relating to the conduct of ballots my Department has referred to reports which have appeared in the media.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what decisions he has made on the applications which he has received for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have today informed the governing bodies of Skegness grammar school, Lincolnshire and Audenshaw high school, Tameside that I have approved their proposals that their schools should become grant-maintained from September 1989.

  Teachers (Shortages)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the measures which have been taken by Her Majesty's Government since 1985 in respect of teacher shortages; what was the total cost of each measure; and if he will make a statement on their effect.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The table shows the principal measures taken since the introduction of our action programme on teacher shortages in 1986, and their costs to date.

  Measures

  Total cost £ million

  (i) Bursary scheme for trainee teachers in maths, physics, CDT

  6·381

  (ii) Support for LEAs in-service training in shortage subjects in order to upgrade teachers' skills and conversion of teachers in other subjects to maths, physics and CDT

  35·5

  (iii) Support for new initiatives in higher education institutions and the Open University for new types of initial and in-service training provision, including distance learning packs and more flexible training arrangements

  6·4

  (iv) TASC (Teaching as a Career) Unit to promote teaching as a career and improve recruitment practices among local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions

  0·725

  (v) TASC advertising and publicity campaigns

  1·179

  (vi) Production of video teaching programmes by the BBC, Thames TV and Yorkshire TV for in-service training use

  0·435

  (vii) Pump priming support for local initiatives to improve supply in shortage subjects

  0·050

  (viii) Taster courses for mature people and others to encourage entry or return to teaching

  0·040

  (ix) Regional conferences with the Scientific Technology Regional Organisation (SATRO) on how industry can help to alleviate shortages

  0·010

  It is too early to make a definitive assessment of the effectiveness of the action programme. We have commissioned an independent evaluation of all our teacher shortage initiatives from the University of Bath. The first report of the findings of that study was published last June and is available in the Library. A final reort is due this autumn. I am, however, satisfied that our action programme is effective.

  The bursary has been successful in reversing the decline in recruitment to initial teacher training courses in shortage subjects. Recruitment to maths, physics and CDT has increased by 27·8 per cent., 24·9 per cent. and 38·2 per cent. since 1986. The fall in vacancy figures suggests that our measures generally are having an impact on shortages.

  Residential Special Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has yet decided upon arrangements for the future administration of the Inner London Education Authority's residential special schools located outside Inner London.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received the report of the working party that he set up last year to consider the future of ILEA's residential special schools located outside Inner London. A copy has been placed in the Library.
  635
  With the agreement of the inner London boroughs, the report recommends an allocation of the schools to the inner London boroughs, which will become responsible for their maintenance. It also recommends that the boroughs should agree on co-ordinating arrangements for planning and policy issues relating to the schools.

  My right hon. Friend accepts that the recommendations on the allocation of schools provide a secure basis for the future maintenance of these establishments, within the new framework of education in inner London. His final decisions on allocation will be taken in the light of boroughs development plans, which are to be published by the end of this month. He will moreover, wish to consider further the boroughs' proposals for co-ordinating arrangements for these schools. In view of the specalist nature of these schools he is concerned that there should be sound and workable arrangements for ensuring that the future planning and management of these schools will be on a rational and coherent basis. Before taking a final view on that matter the Secretary of State will wish to review the boroughs' proposed arrangements for voluntary coordination and is accordingly inviting the Inner London education advisory committee to inform him of the outcome of its discussions on this subject.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by his Department to eradicate the circulation of racist literature to black prisoners.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Prison department's race relations policy statement, and other guidance issued to governors, makes it abundantly clear that racist language and literature will not be tolerated. Any governor who becomes aware that racist literature is being circulated in his or her establishment would be expected, with the assistance of the establishment's race relations liaison officer, to ensure that the matter is fully investigated and that, wherever possible, those responsible for its circulation are identified and dealt with appropriately.

  AIDS
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the Government's policy on the confidentiality of a person's HIV status in United Kingdom prisons; if he will outline who is told when a person is diagnosed HIV antibody positive or with AIDS and for what reasons; and what measures are taken regarding a HIV antibody positive prisoner and for what reasons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The importance of preserving medical confidentiality has been stressed in guidance on the management of prisoners with HIV infection which has been issued to governors, medical officers and prison service staff in England and Wales. However, the Department considers that it has a duty to ensure, on grounds of health and safety, that staff with an operational need to know are informed of the presence and identity of prisoners who are a potential risk to them and to other prisoners.

  We have, therefore, established a system under which such members of staff are informed of prisoners who are
  636
  subject to viral infectivity restrictions (VIR). Since such restrictions, which are at the discretion of the medical officer but will usually determine the prisoner's living accommodation and may limit access to certain regime activities, may be applied to prisoners with HIV or other infective conditions disclosure of VIR status does not entail disclosing a diagnosis.

  Practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Local Government
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was paid to local authorities under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The amount of grant paid under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 to local authorities in respect of each of the last 10 years for which information is available is given in the table. Grant is paid at the rate of 75 per cent. of an authority's eligible expenditure. Figures for 1987–88 are not yet available as a number of authorities have not yet submitted audited claims.

  Year

  Grant

  1977–78

  24,656,387

  1978–79

  28,273,873

  1979–80

  34,481,552

  1980–81

  45,767,083

  1981–82

  54,754,571

  1982–83

  65,305,918

  1983–84

  174,017,662

  1984–85

  172,819,943

  1985–86

  180,808,402

  1986–87

  187,177,400

  1 Provisional figure.

  NACRO
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials from his Department have acted as observers on the council of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and its network of advisory committees since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Home Office observers

  NACRO council

  NACRO advisory committees

  1979–80

  1

  5

  1980–81

  1

  7

  1981–82

  1

  8

  1982–83

  1

  7

  1983–84

  1

  8

  1984–85

  1

  11

  1985–86

  1

  10

  1986–87

  1

  11

  1987–88

  1

  8

  Parole System
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had on the Carlisle report on the parole system; and if he will make a statement.
  637
  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of representations. We have asked interested individuals and organisations to send us their comments by 10 March. We shall then consider the recommendations carefully in the light of the responses we have received.

  Probation Officers
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Office if he will provide the age and service profile of senior probation officers and their position on the salary scale; and what would be the cost of abolishing the first five salary incremental points.

  Mr. John Patten
  The 1,066 senior probation officers in post in April 1988 were distributed across the salary scale as follows:

  Point on scale

  Percentage of SPOS

  1

  4

  2

  4

  3

  8

  4

  8

  5

  9

  6

  8

  7

  5

  8

  4

  9

  3

  10

  47

  If all officers on points one to five were moved to point six, the cost would be £380,000 in the first year—excluding any consequential increase for officers already at or above point six. Information on the age and service profile of senior probation officers is not available centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, if available at all.

  Paddy Armstrong
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what medical attention has been offered to Paddy Armstrong, currently being held in Her Majesty's Prison, Gartree; and if he will make a statement on his medical condition.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Specific clinical information pertaining to individual prisoners is confidential and is not normally disclosed. I have no information which suggests that Mr. Armstrong's general medical condition is other than satisfactory.

  Gerard Conlon
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what medical attention has been offered to Gerard Conlon, currently being held in Her Majesty's Prison, Long Lartin; and if he will make a statement concerning his medical condition.

  Total admissions of passengers excluding those exempt from requiring entry clearance1 by certain nationalities and ports in 1988

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  August

  September

  Heathrow

  India

  7,900

  7,100

  7,400

  5,200

  14,100

  15,600

  Pakistan

  3,600

  3,100

  3,900

  4,900

  8,100

  6,600

  Bangladesh

  900

  800

  1,100

  1,300

  1,800

  1,400

  Ghana

  1,100

  1,100

  1,200

  1,200

  2,200

  2,200

  Nigeria

  4,700

  4,700

  3,500

  1,200

  6,500

  7,200

  638
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Specific clinical information pertaining to individual prisoners is confidential and is not normally disclosed. I have no information which suggests that Mr. Conlon's general medical condition is other than satisfactory.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Gerard Conlon, currently being held in Her Majesty's Prison, Long Lartin, has been moved since first being held in 1974.

  Mr. Dougals Hogg
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Cat Theft
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he intends to take
  following the evidence on cat thefts contained in the recent

  Petwatch special report, a copy of which he has been sent;

  (2) which police forces record reported losses of cats.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  It is for the chief officers to decide how reports of stolen or missing property are recorded. We are not persuaded that the information contained in the National Petwatch report necessitates any new action on cat theft.

  Refugees
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to extend the scope of section II of the Local Government Act 1966 to include within its remit non-commonwealth refugees.

  Mr. John Patten
  The possibility of legislative changes, which would be necessary if the scope of the grant under section II of the Local Government Act 1966 were to be extended to cover communities from outside the Commonwealth, was within the terms of reference of the scrutiny of the grant system which my right hon. Friend announced in reply to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on 26 May 1988 at column 279. My right hon. Friend is at present studying the report of the scrutiny.

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate for each week in 1988 the number of passengers arriving at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Dover holding entry clearance and arriving from each of (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) Bangladesh, (iv) Ghana and (v) Nigeria.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: The available information is compiled only on a monthly basis and relates to total admissions of passengers excluding those exempt from requiring entry clearance. The data available for 1988 is given in the following table.
  639

  Nationality

  January

  February

  March

  April

  August

  September

  Gatwick

  India

  500

  500

  800

  400

  1,600

  1,400

  Pakistan

  500

  400

  400

  600

  1,100

  1,000

  Bangladesh

  40

  30

  40

  20

  90

  70

  Ghana

  300

  200

  300

  200

  500

  600

  Nigeria

  2,700

  1,700

  2,000

  1,000

  3,700

  3,600

  Dover

  India

  140

  140

  170

  380

  1,510

  920

  Pakistan

  130

  100

  130

  190

  650

  350

  Bangladesh

  20

  20

  10

  60

  120

  70

  Ghana

  20

  30

  30

  30

  90

  80

  Nigeria

  50

  40

  60

  50

  130

  110

  1 Provisional estimates, reasons. Estimates for May, June and July are not yet available due to delays in the counting of landing cards for technical reasons

PRIME MINISTER

  Residents (Registration)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the minimum and maximum number of separate registers in which residents of the United Kingdom are given separate numbers; and if she can estimate the cost and number of people needed to maintain all such registers.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

  General Hershad
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings she has had with General Hershad, President of Bangladesh; and what subjects were discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  I had talks with, and gave dinner for, President Ershad on 16 February. The talks covered both bilateral and regional issues.

ENERGY

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian on 20 January,Official Report, column 343, he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Advisory Council on Research and Development at which the decision was made concerning the closure of the offshore wave energy programme.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  A copy of a summary of the main conclusions and recommendations of the Advisory Council on Research and Development on the wave energy programme was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 27 April 1982.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made by his Department in the consideration of the potential of offshore wind power during the past seven years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The technical potential of offshore wind power has been estimated at around 140 Twh/year at 640
  an expected cost of electricity in the range 4…2– 7…4 p/kWh. These estimates are based on collaborative studies which were jointly funded by my Department and the CEGB, and have taken into account constraints imposed by other offshore activities. The extent to which any of this resource could be economically exploited will be the subject of further work.

  The United Kingdom has also participated in an International Energy Agency (IEA) study of offshore wind energy conversion systems which considered the technical and economic problems of exploiting this resource.

  Electricity Supply System (Merseyside and North-West)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the estimated value of the electricity supply system covering(a) Merseyside and (b) the north-west.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the electricity supply industry. I shall ask the chairman of the Merseyside and North Wales and the North Western Electricity boards to write to the hon. Member.

  Safe Integrated Reactor
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the proposed Anglo-American consortium plans for a safe integrated reactor.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has informed my Department of its interest in developing a 300MWe reactor as a member of the SIR consortium. The consortium's proposals are at an early stage and I shall be kept informed of developments.

  Foreign Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list by year, port and tonnage the amount of foreign coal imported into England and Wales for the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The information requested is as follows:
  641

  Port

  Quantity (000 tonnes)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Middlesbrough

  1,447

  2,352

  2,610

  2,501

  2,878

  Port Talbot

  2,023

  1,834

  1,558

  1,958

  1,997

  Immingham

  225

  615

  1,349

  669

  999

  London (including Tilbury)

  239

  1,515

  404

  538

  743

  Medway

  120

  723

  661

  556

  565

  Sunderland

  23

  88

  243

  198

  418

  Trent

  11,415

  1963

  778

  335

  386

  Hartlepool

  8

  101

  295

  354

  314

  Cardiff

  —

  113

  247

  222

  294

  Goole

  73

  48

  36

  236

  286

  Kings Lynn

  1

  1

  —

  117

  117

  Newport (Gwent)

  32

  181

  83

  5

  116

  Portsmouth

  205

  210

  7

  59

  92

  Swansea

  —

  5

  —

  —

  92

  Grimsby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  88

  Avonmouth

  16

  78

  96

  60

  86

  Colchester

  554

  326

  196

  91

  71

  Liverpool

  38

  371

  143

  65

  31

  Exeter

  134

  70

  14

  10

  18

  Others

  280

  412

  136

  147

  146

  Total

  6,835

  10,006

  8,856

  8,122

  9,739

  1 Imports recorded under port of Scunthorpe.

  Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Source: HM Customs and Excise (port of entry basis).

  Nuclear Power Generation (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has regarding the likely growth of nuclear power generation in the three counties of Yorkshire over the next 15 years.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend has received no application from the CEGB for consent to construct any nuclear power station in Yorkshire. It is for the CEGB to decide whether and when to apply for consent to construct any new power station.

  Yorkshire Coalfields (Employment)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list his latest estimate of the level of employment in British Coal in the Yorkshire coalfields in 1990 and 1995.

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

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proposals are being considered for customer rights following the privatisation of electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Electricity Bill currently before Parliament will create many new customer rights, including an improved right to an electricity supply, protection for consumers who get their electricity from a landlord, protection for the elderly and disabled, help for those having difficulty paying bills and a new system of guaranteed standards of performance with automatic compensation for failures to meet these standards. The director general of electricity supply will have a statutory duty to protect the interests of the consumer, and the new regional consumers' committees will provide him with lay advice on consumer issues.

  Wood Crops
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what steps(a) he has taken and (b) he will take to promote the use of arable wood crops or wood chips as a fuelstock for conversion into electricity.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Investigation of the economic prospects for the use of wood crops and wood chip as a fuelstock has formed part of my Department's research, development and demonstration programmes on biofuels for the past decade and just over £1.5 million has been spent in this area.

  Projects so far have looked at the potential for harvesting, processing, storing and transporting of fuel wood as well as investigations of novel systems such as integrated or whole tree harvesting and also combustion trials. In addition, we have supported studies of short rotation energy forestry including the establishment arid development of trial plots and coppice harvesting techniques as well as the possible environmental impact.

  Our intention for the future programme is laid out in energy paper 55, copies of which are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Within my Department's plans for electricity privatisation, wood crops or wood chip will be eligible to contribute towards the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Energy Act 1983
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what arrangements he proposes to succeed the provisions of sections 5 and 7 of the Energy Act 1983 as they apply in England and Wales.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Our privatisation proposals are designed to increase competition in generation by bringing new entrants into the market. We have not, however, overlooked those independent generators who a re currently supplying area boards.

  We appreciate that there are existing projects where investments have been advanced against the backdrop of the 1983 Energy Act and the obligation under the Act on

  643
  area boards to purchase independently-produced electricity. We wish to ensure that the changes brought about by privatisation do not disadvantage those who have invested in generating plant as a result of the Act and who are currently selling to area boards under its terms. I am therefore pleased to announce that area board chairmen in England and Wales have agreed to transitional arrangements which will safeguard those generators, and leave them no worse off in revenue income terms than at present. Similar arrangements have been agreed in Scotland.

  I can therefore confirm that generators who have entered into arrangements with the area boards to supply electricity since the 1983 Act will, if they choose, be able to continue those arrangements for a five-year transitional period. The boards will maintain energy and capacity payments at comparable levels to those available under the Act. This is a significant commitment by the boards to independent generators and it will assist those whose decisions on plant investment have been influenced by the existence of the provisions of the Energy Act in planning for the future.

  Employment training—Stars and leavers September to December 1988

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Region

  Starts

  Leavers

  Starts

  Leavers

  Starts

  Leavers

  Starts

  Leavers

  South East

  1,633

  —

  2,050

  —

  1,987

  —

  1,707

  —

  London

  2,503

  —

  3,057

  —

  3,110

  —

  2,406

  —

  South West

  1,076

  —

  1,724

  —

  2,023

  —

  1,742

  —

  West Midlands

  2,470

  —

  3,733

  —

  3,829

  —

  3,303

  —

  East Midlands and Eastern

  1,771

  —

  2,728

  —

  2,860

  —

  2,202

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,974

  —

  4,523

  —

  5,509

  —

  4,402

  —

  North West

  3,029

  —

  4,962

  —

  5,544

  —

  4,145

  —

  Northern

  2,395

  —

  3,219

  —

  3,546

  —

  2,895

  —

  Wales

  1,381

  —

  1,967

  —

  2,649

  —

  2,172

  —

  Scotland

  2,331

  —

  3,120

  —

  4,045

  —

  3,894

  —

  Great Britain

  21,462

  1,000

  31,083

  5,000

  35,202

  7,000

  28,867

  7,000

  Note:

  The leaves figure are estimated and to trainees who not transferred from privious programmes

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is(a) the number entering employment training each month, (b) the number of trainees entering practical experience placements each month, (c) the number leaving employment training each month and (d) the reasons given for leaving each month by trainees on (i) a national and (ii) an area office basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. The following tables give the number entering employment training each month nationally and by area. Information on the number entering practical placements is not collected. The number leaving employment training is currently only available for Great Britain as a whole and is estimated. Regional and area breakdowns of this information will be available from April of this year. Data on the reasons given by trainees for

  Monthly totals: September 1988 to January 1989

  Area

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  106

  207

  156

  182

  320

  Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  230

  309

  243

  224

  300

  Essex

  155

  246

  326

  286

  355

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  444

  488

  457

  423

  444

  Kent

  259

  429

  475

  336

  503

  Sussex

  218

  241

  224

  188

  259

  Surrey

  121

  131

  106

  68

  125

  North London

  730

  565

  602

  533

  655

  644
  It would be inconsistent with the general thrust of privatising the industry to enshrine in legislation a permanent protection for Energy Act generators. It would also be wrong in principle to extend their transitional arrangements to those who invested in capacity and were supplying area boards before the passage of the 1983 Act.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons have(a) joined and (b) dropped out from the employment training programme each month since the scheme began, both in each region and nationally.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is given in the table. The number of employment training leavers includes early leavers and those who have completed their training. The figure is estimated and is only available nationally.

  leaving employment training is not currently available but it will be obtained from follow up surveys. The first results should be available by the end of the year.

  Employment training-Stars and leavers Table 1

  Monthly totals: September 1988 to January 1989 Great Britain

  Starts

  Leavers1

  September

  21,462

  1,000

  October

  31,083

  5,000

  November

  35,202

  7,000

  December

  28,867

  7,000

  January

  36,698

  2—

  1 The leavers figures are estimated and relate to trainees who were not transferred from previous programmes.

  2 Leavers figures for January are not yet available.

  645

  Area

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  West London

  165

  258

  372

  198

  302

  East London

  268

  382

  432

  329

  488

  South London

  116

  202

  216

  179

  404

  Inner London North

  820

  1,159

  948

  712

  1,314

  Inner London South

  404

  491

  540

  454

  639

  Avon

  156

  329

  385

  339

  437

  Devon and Cornwall

  494

  783

  1,003

  833

  1,178

  Somerset and Dorset

  193

  355

  326

  363

  259

  Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  232

  257

  309

  207

  274

  Birmingham and Solihull

  465

  1,190

  1,237

  1,051

  1,377

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  334

  378

  448

  320

  423

  Dudley and Sandwell

  480

  521

  444

  436

  705

  The Marches

  318

  419

  448

  489

  558

  Staffordshire

  383

  589

  640

  552

  681

  Wolverhampton and Walsall

  490

  636

  612

  455

  576

  Derbyshire

  358

  594

  620

  386

  540

  Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire

  212

  373

  376

  286

  382

  Leicestershire and Northants

  274

  472

  465

  358

  534

  Nottingham

  356

  643

  659

  501

  762

  Norfolk and Suffolk

  403

  460

  544

  466

  500

  Lincolnshire

  168

  186

  196

  205

  232

  Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees

  454

  706

  1,135

  873

  877

  Sheffield and Rotherham

  679

  1,187

  1,310

  1,079

  1.268

  Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster

  513

  788

  1,123

  867

  1,188

  Humberside

  975

  1,127

  949

  828

  1,060

  Leeds/North Yorkshire

  353

  715

  992

  755

  1,059

  Manchester East

  363

  596

  660

  426

  477

  Manchester Central

  545

  738

  899

  608

  828

  Manchester North

  323

  541

  646

  523

  602

  Cheshire

  463

  897

  697

  451

  605

  Lancashire

  599

  891

  882

  797

  960

  Merseyside

  619

  1,137

  1,477

  1,132

  1,694

  Cumbria

  117

  162

  283

  208

  290

  North Tyne

  353

  455

  707

  613

  789

  South Tyne

  706

  1,003

  997

  884

  977

  Durham

  618

  857

  804

  596

  797

  Cleveland

  718

  904

  1,138

  802

  1,074

  Wrexham

  277

  430

  491

  520

  606

  Swansea

  479

  586

  945

  698

  819

  Cardiff

  432

  683

  885

  687

  1,017

  Gwent

  193

  268

  329

  267

  458

  Central and Fife

  344

  337

  497

  478

  514

  Grampian and Tayside

  398

  382

  617

  380

  453

  Lothian and Borders

  394

  683

  787

  679

  601

  Glasgow City

  476

  574

  704

  740

  733

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  153

  286

  417

  552

  392

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  306

  303

  373

  442

  961

  Lanarkshire

  214

  483

  576

  537

  452

  Highlands and Islands

  46

  72

  84

  86

  121

  Note Figures may not tally with those previously published due to retrospective adjustments at area level.

  YTS
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for.Employment if he will publish for 1988 and to date, for the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire(a) the number of filled places in YTS by training.

  Table 1 YTS agreed and filled places in Doncaster local authority district January to July 1988

  January Agreed

  1988 Filled

  February Agreed

  1988 Filled

  March Agreed

  1988 Filled

  April Agreed

  1988 Filled

  May Figreed

  1988 Filled

  June Agreed

  1988 Filled

  July Agreed

  1988 Filled

  Administrative and clerical occupations

  814

  235

  814

  248

  814

  255

  814

  265

  796

  274

  804

  359

  830

  443

  Creative, educational and recreational service occupations

  204

  58

  204

  64

  204

  68

  216

  70

  216

  79

  200

  98

  200

  115

  Health, community personal service occupations

  446

  118

  446

  119

  446

  120

  403

  124

  395

  132

  343

  193

  343

  254

  Selling and storage occupations

  858

  163

  858

  172

  858

  180

  847

  195

  796

  206

  837

  286

  837

  327

  Scientific occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Catering and food preparation and processing occupations

  167

  24

  167

  24

  167

  24

  167

  25

  167

  32

  177

  48

  177

  53

  Agricultural and related occupations

  348

  62

  348

  64

  348

  65

  345

  70

  345

  71

  179

  103

  179

  113

  Fishing occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  646
  occupational classification and (b) the number of contracted places in YTS by training occupational classifications.

  Mr. Cope
  Information is not separately available for Doncaster and Mexborough. The following tables give figures for the local authority district of Doncaster which includes Doncaster, Mexborough and Thorne.
  647

  January Agreed

  1988 Filled

  February Agreed

  1988 Filled

  March Agreed

  1988 Filled

  April Agreed

  1988 Filled

  May Agreed

  1988 Filled

  June Agreed

  1988 Filled

  July Agreed

  1988 Filled

  Transport operating occupations

  14

  8

  14

  8

  14

  8

  14

  8

  14

  14

  31

  14

  31

  14

  Construction and civil engineering occupations

  298

  105

  298

  107

  298

  109

  256

  113

  216

  130

  232

  156

  232

  167

  Mining, oil extraction and quarrying occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Electrical and electronic engineering occupations

  79

  20

  79

  20

  79

  21

  79

  21

  79

  21

  80

  31

  70

  33

  Mechanical engineering, and metal production and processing occupations

  454

  107

  454

  110

  454

  110

  404

  116

  404

  125

  347

  152

  347

  178

  Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  374

  90

  374

  92

  374

  92

  373

  96

  373

  103

  290

  145

  290

  171

  Non-metal processing occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  16

  0

  16

  0

  16

  1

  Printing occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  157

  26

  157

  27

  157

  29

  156

  35

  148

  36

  98

  52

  98

  61

  Security service occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Others

  129

  2,108

  129

  1,991

  129

  1,902

  163

  1,834

  223

  1,754

  352

  1,712

  352

  1,448

  TOTAL

  4,342

  3,124

  4,342

  3,046

  4,342

  2,983

  4,253

  2,972

  4,188

  2,977

  3,986

  3,349

  4,002

  3,378

  Note Filled places marginally exceed agreed places on a number of occasions because Managing agents can exceed agreed places by 10 per cent. when required.

  Table 2

  YTS agreed and filled places in Doncaster local authority district September 1988 to January 1989

  August Agreed

  1988 Filled

  September Agreed

  1988 Filled

  October Agreed

  1988 Filled

  November Agreed

  1988 Filled

  December Agreed

  1988 Filled

  January Agreed

  1989 Filled

  Administrative and clerical occupations

  830

  505

  830

  594

  823

  643

  823

  685

  823

  704

  823

  726

  Creative, educational and recreational service occupations

  200

  146

  200

  171

  200

  184

  200

  205

  200

  212

  200

  237

  Health, community and personal service occupations

  343

  271

  343

  297

  343

  314

  343

  337

  343

  347

  343

  356

  Selling and storage occupations

  837

  370

  837

  425

  832

  474

  832

  516

  832

  539

  832

  592

  Scientific occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Catering, food preparation and processing occupations

  177

  55

  177

  63

  177

  68

  177

  74

  177

  75

  177

  78

  Agricultural and related occupations

  179

  118

  179

  133

  179

  139

  179

  148

  179

  149

  179

  154

  Fishing occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Transport operating occupations

  3

  14

  31

  14

  31

  14

  31

  14

  31

  14

  31

  14

  Construction and civil Engineering occupations

  232

  184

  232

  225

  232

  232

  232

  245

  232

  240

  232

  239

  Mining, oil extraction and quarrying occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Electrical and electronic engineering occupations

  70

  33

  70

  46

  70

  47

  70

  49

  70

  49

  70

  51

  Mechanical engineering, and metal production and processing occupations

  347

  199

  347

  246

  347

  266

  369

  275

  369

  280

  369

  285

  Motor vehicle repair and maintenance occupations

  290

  187

  290

  193

  290

  197

  290

  198

  290

  199

  290

  202

  Non-Metal processing occupations

  16

  1

  16

  2

  16

  8

  16

  8

  16

  10

  16

  10

  Printing occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clothing and textiles manufacturing occupations

  98

  70

  98

  73

  98

  74

  98

  76

  98

  77

  98

  81

  Security service occupations

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Others

  352

  1,171

  391

  888

  403

  648

  403

  496

  403

  343

  403

  268

  TOTAL

  3,974

  3,324

  4,041

  3,370

  4,041

  3,308

  4,063

  3,326

  4,063

  3,238

  4,063

  3,293

  Notes:

  1. Filled places marginally exceed agreed places on a number of occasions because Managing Agents can exceed agreed places by 10 per cent. when required.

  2. The 'Others' Filled Places for August to November 1988 are overstated because the correct TOC was unknown at the time of computer input. Efforts to obtain correct classification have resulted in the data becoming more accurate as the year progressed.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many companies have been convicted of offences under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in each of the last five years for 648
  which records are available; how many and what percentage were convicted and acquitted, respectively; and what penalties were imposed on those convicted;

  (2) how many individuals have been convicted of offences under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in each of the last five years for which records are

  649
  available; how many and what percentage were convicted and acquitted, respectively; and what penalties were imposed on those convicted.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Centrally available statistics from the records of the Health and Safety Executive's factory and

  Informations laid under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act Great Britain

  HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates Result

  Local authorities

  Fines

  Informations laid

  Conviction

  Withdrawn

  Dismissed

  Not known

  Lowest1

  Highest

  Average

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  1983

  Number

  345

  276

  22

  28

  19

  50

  3000

  363

  168

  131

  Percentage

  100

  80

  6

  8

  6

  100

  78

  1984

  Number

  328

  275

  24

  24

  5

  20

  12,000

  424

  189

  170

  Percentage

  100

  84

  7

  7

  2

  100

  90

  1985

  Number

  378

  309

  23

  33

  13

  50

  30,000

  618

  142

  124

  Percentage

  100

  82

  6

  9

  3

  100

  87

  1986 Q1

  Number

  85

  74

  2

  7

  2

  25

  2,000

  582

  2—

  2—

  Percentage

  100

  88

  2

  8

  2

  1986–87

  Number

  295

  238

  24

  23

  10

  25

  5,500

  653

  208

  170

  Percentage

  100

  81

  8

  8

  3

  100

  82

  1987–883

  Number

  333

  261

  25

  31

  16

  50

  250,000

  1,609

  2—

  2—

  Percentage

  100

  78

  8

  9

  5

  1 Excludes cases which resulted in conviction but there was no fine.

  2 Not available.

  3 Provisional.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many companies have been convicted of offences under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in each of the last five years for which records are available; how many and what percentage were convicted and acquitted, respectively; and what penalties were imposed on those convicted;

  (2) how many individuals have been convicted of offences under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in each of the last five years for which records are

  Informations laid under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act Great Britain Great Britian

  HSE's factory and agricultural inspectorates Result

  Local authorities

  Fines

  Informations laid

  Conviction

  Withdrawn

  Dismissed

  Not known

  Lowest1

  Highest

  Average

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  1983

  Number

  140

  115

  7

  15

  3

  40

  2,500

  338

  49

  39

  Percentage

  100

  82

  5

  11

  2

  100

  80

  1984

  Number

  150

  121

  13

  12

  4

  100

  10,000

  493

  40

  35

  Percentage

  100

  81

  9

  8

  2

  100

  88

  1985

  Number

  162

  120

  25

  15

  2

  50

  8,000

  589

  44

  41

  Percentage

  100

  74

  16

  9

  1

  100

  93

  1986 Q1

  Number

  63

  53

  4

  3

  3

  100

  1,250

  404

  2—

  2—

  Percentage

  100

  84

  6

  5

  5

  1986–87

  Number

  186

  135

  21

  22

  8

  50

  5,000

  585

  83

  68

  Percentage

  100

  73

  11

  12

  4

  100

  82

  1987–883

  Number

  195

  158

  16

  7

  14

  20

  500,000

  3,731

  2—

  2—

  Percentage

  100

  81

  8

  4

  7

  1 Excludes cases which resulted in conviction but where there was no fine.

  2 Not available.

  3 Provisional.

  650

  agriculture inspectorates and of local authorities which
  include almost all the relevant proceedings are given in the table these.do.not.distinguish.between companies and individuals but the large majority of proceeding are against companies

  available; how many and what percentage were convicted and acquitted, respectively; and what penalties were imposed on those convicted.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Centrally available statistics from the records of the Health and Safety Executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates and of local authorities which include almost all the relevant proceedings are given in the table. These do not distinguish between companies and individuals but the large majority of proceedings are against companies.
  651
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many individual employees were convicted under section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in each of the last five years for which records are available; how many and what percentage were convicted and acquitted, respectively; and what penalties were imposed on those convicted.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Two individual employees have been prosecuted under section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in the last five years—one in 1987 and one in 1985. Both were convicted. The sentences were a £200 fine and a conditional discharge.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what percentage of the national average wage the national minimum wage is in(a)France,(b) Netherlands, (c) Spain, (d) Portugal and (e) Luxembourg.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The following is the latest available information:France 58 per cent.; Netherlands (October 1987) 58 per cent.; Spain (December 1987) 40 per cent.; Portugal (March 1988) 63 per cent.; Luxembourg (December 1988) 30 per cent.

  The percentages are based on different datum points and coverage: they are not, therefore, directly related and cannot be taken as a comparative measure between the different countries.

  Benefit Claims (Merseyside)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people had unemployment benefit claims disallowed by adjudication officers, in the adjudication area covering Merseyside, on the ground that claimants were not available for work, in each quarter since 1986; and what was the number of claims disallowed as a percentage of total claims.

  Mr. Lee
  The table shows, over the period for which figures are available, the number of persons whose entitlement to unemployment benefit was disallowed because they were considered not to be available for work for the area requested.

  Information requested on the number of claims disallowed as a percentage of the total claims made is not available.

  Quarter ending

  Number disallowed

  31 March 1986

  193

  30 June 1986

  173

  30 September 1986

  292

  31 December 1986

  272

  31 March 1987

  246

  30 June 1987

  183

  30 September 1987

  244

  31 December 1987

  209

  31 March 1988

  186

  30 June 1988

  160

  Training
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest information available on the number of people who transferred from the 652
  community programme to employment training; and what is this figure as a percentage of community programme participants.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To the end of December 1988, the latest date for which information is available, it is estimated that about 9,000 people had transferred from the community programme to employment training. This is about 5 per cent. of the number on the community programme at 31 August 1988. These figures exclude people who transferred to employment training after completing their work on the community programme.

  Horseracing (Safety)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many serious accidents at work have occurred at(a) horseracing and (b) equestrian establishments; and how many workers have been permanently disabled in each case for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information relating to accidents at horse racing and equestrian establishments is not separately recorded.

  Information on workers permanently disabled as a result of such accidents is not recorded.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many visits have been made by Health and Safety Executive inspectors to(a) horseracing and (b) equestrian establishments in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information is not separately recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  YTS
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been YTS trainees in(a) the agricultural industry and (b) the horse industry in each of the last five years; how many were involved in accidents in each year; and if he will give a breakdown of the accidents according to severity.

  Mr. Cope
  Figures of the number of individual trainees experiencing YTS in the agriculture and horse industries in each of the last five years are not available in this form.

  Information on fatal, major and minor accidents in the agricultural and the horse industry before 1988 is not available.

  Information for 1988 is as follows:

  1988 Equestrian accidents1

  Fatal

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Total number reported to the Training Agency

  None

  20

  61

  Number which would not have been reported to HSE

  None

  2

  5

  1988 Agricultural accidents1

  Fatal

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Total number reported to the Training Agency

  None

  48

  183

  Number which would not have been reported to HSE

  None

  8

  28

  653
  1 Training Agency accident figures for YTS have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed people. However, the Agency's figures include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the Executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 From 1 April 1986 major injuries have been classified according to severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  Health and Safety (Agriculture)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the degree of involvement of trade union representatives in health and safety in the agricultural industry; and how many establishments have trade union safety representatives.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Trade union representatives take part in discussions on health and safety issues in the agricultural industry through the Health and Safety Commission's agriculture industry advisory committee and its working parties, and directly with agricultural employers. A survey carried out by the Health and Safety Executive in 1979 found that trade union-appointed safety representatives were present in only 1 per cent. of agricultural establishments. However, as only about 30 per cent. of such establishments have one or more regular employees, this figure covered about 15 per cent of agricultual employees. The Executive is currently updating its 1979 findings by means of a new survey.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will introduce legislation to enforce the appointment of appropriate trade union safety representatives in the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 allow recognised trades unions to appoint safety representatives in agriculture and in other industries. Trades union are not obliged to appoint safety representatives, nor are employers obliged to recognise trades unions. This is a matter for negotiation between unions and the employers concerned.

  Fraud Investigators
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) from what date it is intended to deploy any fraud investigators at the Borough unemployment benefit office;

  (2) where are the fraud investigators, to be based at the Borough unemployment benefit office, currently based;

  (3) whether fraud investigators to be based at the Borough unemployment benefit office will have access to case files in other local unemployment benefit offices; which other local offices will be visited by the fraud investigators; and for what periods;

  (4) when fraud investigators are based at the Borough unemployment benefit office, how cases will be selected for investigation.

  Mr. Lee
  There is no intention to employ investigators at Borough unemployment benefit office in addition to those already operating there to deal with local fraud cases. As has always been the practice, cases are referred to 654
  investigators because evidence of suspected fraud has come to light including through such means as observation on signing days and investigations with employers.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many fraud investigators are employed in each regional office covering the Greater London area;

  (2) what targets are set by regional offices for individual investigators or teams of investigators.

  Mr. Lee
  There are 109 investigators and no targets are set for these investigators by regional office.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many fraud investigators reporting to the south-east regional office are operating from or are expected to operate from the Borough unemployment benefit office at Keyworth house;

  (2) why fraud investigators are employed at a regional level; and what is their relationship with fraud staff employed at an area level.

  Mr. Lee
  The new inner London fraud team has been set up to investigate the hidden economy in London. It will concentrate on investigating fraud at the place of employment to identify those people who are working and also claiming unemployment benefit. Investigation of individual cases of fraud will be dealt with by existing sector fraud teams who may refer particular cases to the inner London fraud team if, for example, an employer is found to be employing a number of benefit recipients. None of the inner London fraud team will operate from Keyworth house.

  Tourism
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effects of different per capita rates of public spending on tourism in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]Government per capita support for tourism through the national tourist boards and the Highlands and Islands development board in 1987–88 was as follows:

  Funding

  Average expenditure per head of population

  £

  £

  England

  23,335,000

  0·5

  Scotland

  17,211,000

  3·4

  Wales

  8,625,000

  3·0

  Northern Ireland

  4,813,000

  3·1

  In addition, the Government provide a wide range of other forms of assistance in support of tourism-related industries. However, differences in the composition of public expenditure in different parts of the United Kingdom mean that information on the effect of this could not realistically be obtained.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time jobs (i) male and (ii) female there were in March 1979 and

  655
  March 1989 in the (a) industrial (b) nursing (c) agriculture and fishing and (d) service sectors in the (i) United Kingdom and (ii) Scotland.

  Mr. Lee
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The available information is given in table A and table B for March 1979 and September 1988 (the latest date for which figures are available) and relates to employees in

  Table A Full-time and part-time employees in employment United Kingdom

  Thousands

  March 1979

  September 1988

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  All industries and services (divisions 0–9)1

  13,401

  9,522

  12,001

  10,204

  of which:

  Production industries (divisions 1–4)1

  5,736

  2,232

  3,952

  1,631

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels (class 11)12

  287

  12

  122

  4

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing (division 0)1

  291

  84

  252

  90

  Service industries (divisions 6–9)1

  6,268

  7,101

  6,899

  8,362

  1 Division or Class of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  2 Estimates below national level are subject to considerable estimation error due to the relatively small number of employees in the industry in each English region, Scotland and Wales.

  Table B Full-time and part-time employees in employment Scotland

  Thousands

  March 1979

  September 1988

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  All industries and services (divisions 0–9)1

  1,190

  558

  316

  874

  992

  504

  389

  893

  of which:

  Production industries (divisions 1–4)1

  477

  168

  30

  198

  293

  114

  21

  135

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels (class 11) 12

  26

  1

  3

  1

  6

  3

  3

  3

  Agriculture, forestry and fishing (division 0)1

  41

  4

  3

  7

  24

  2

  2

  4

  Service industries (division 6–9)1

  532

  379

  279

  658

  545

  382

  362

  744

  1 Division or Class of the 1980 Standard Industrial Classification.

  2 Estimates below national level are subject to considerable estimation error due to the relatively small number of employees in the industry in each English region, Scotland and Wales.

  3 Nil or negligible.

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Electrification)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of electrification of the Cambridge-King's Lynn railway line; what is his estimate of the average numbers of passengers travelling between Ely and King's Lynn in any day or week; and if he will publish the calculations which show the expected return on this investment over the route(a) Cambridge to Ely, (b) Ely to King's Lynn and (c) Cambridge to King's Lynn.

  Mr. Portillo
  The total cost of the project is estimated at £20·1 million, of which £11 million will be spent on the necessary infrastructure. The Department has no separate figures for passenger loadings between Ely and King's Lynn. This project was, as usual, appraised using a 7 per cent. discount rate, and was shown to be the most cost-effective way of continuing to operate this line.

  Trunk Road Schemes
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those trunk road schemes in England on 656
  employment. There are no estimates of full-time and part-time employees in employment in Northern Ireland for these dates, and therefore no estimates for the United Kingdom. The only available information about full and part-time employment in Scotland in March 1979 and September 1988 is for female employees in employment.

  Comparisons between March and September will be influenced by the effects of seasonal variation.

  which he anticipates public inquiries being held during the current year with, where known, the likely date of the inquiry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We anticipate that the following public inquiries may be held in February-March 1989, and 1989–90. An inquiry may not be necessary if all objections can be resolved after publication of draft orders.

  1. Schemes where a Public Inquiry has been announced

  Scheme

  Date

  A3

  Milford bypass

  21 March 1989

  A47

  Norwich southern bypass

  Started 21 February 1989

  A49

  Weaverham diversion

  26 April 1989

  2. Schemes where Orders have been published and a Public Inquiry may be held

  Scheme

  Date

  A5

  Telford-Shrewsbury

  April 1989

  A6

  Burton Latimer bypass

  May 1989

  A13

  Thames avenue-Wennington

  September 1989

  A13

  Wennington-Mar Dyke

  September 1989

  A65

  Gargrave bypass

  July 1989

  A339

  Basingstoke northern bypass

  June 1989

  *A435

  Alcester bypass

  April 1989

  A516

  Etwall bypass

  July 1989

  657

  3. Schemes where it is proposed to publish Orders, and where a Public Inquiry may subsequently be held

  Scheme

  M5

  widening Wardon-Strensham

  M65

  Blackburn Southern Bypass

  M66

  Denton-Middleton*

  M1-A1

  Link (6 schemes)*

  A1

  Brownieside Diversion

  A1

  Dishforth-Leeming Phase 1

  A1

  Glatton Grade Separated Junction

  A1

  Marshall Meadows Improvement

  A5

  Fazely, Two Gates and Wilnecote Bypass

  A5

  Little Brickhill Bypass

  A11

  Besthorpe-Wymondham

  A12

  Hackney Wick-M11*

  A16

  Spalding-Sutterton Improvement

  A17

  Leadenham Bypass

  A17

  Wigtoft-Sutterton Bypass

  A23

  Handcross-Pease Pottage

  A27

  Brighton Bypass Contract 4*

  A27

  Westhampnett Bypass

  A30

  Okehampton-Launceston

  A35

  Yellowham-Troytown

  A38

  Dogshead Lane Overbridge

  A39

  Wadebridge Bypass

  A40

  Gipsy Corner Junction Improvement

  A40

  Western Circus Junction Improvement

  A41

  Aston Clinton Bypass

  A41

  Bicester Bypass

  A41

  Whitchurch Bypass

  A43

  Blisworth Bypass

  A47

  East Dereham-North Tudenham

  A49

  Skewbridge at Woofferton Improvement

  A59

  Mellor Brook Bypass

  A65

  Burley Bypass*

  A66

  Bowes-County Boundary Improvement

  A69

  Haltwhistle Relief Road

  A140

  Scole Bypass

  A406

  Pope's Lane-Western Avenue Southern Section

  A423

  Southam Bypass

  A435

  Norton-Lenchwick Bypass

  A523

  Macclesfield Inner Relief Road*

  A568

  Widnes E Bypass (N)

  A590

  Dalton Bypass

  A638

  Doncaster N Bridge

  Schemes marked with an asterisk* are those where a public inquiry to establish the line has already been held, and supplementary orders, side roads orders and/or compulsory purchase orders are under consideration.

  Scheme timings are based on the latest available planning information and may be subject to change.

  A69 (Hexham)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the traffic flow on the A69 west of Hexham during the past 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  From information available traffic flows during the period are recorded as follows:

  Location

  Year

  Annual average daily flow

  Between Haydon Bridge and Bardon Mill

  1979

  5,804

  1985

  7,300

  1987

  7,705

  1988

  8,726

  Between Haydon Bridge and Hexham

  1982

  7,705

  1987

  8,308

  Cottingley Bar-Shipley Bypass (Tunnel)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proposal for a long tunnel between Cottingley Bar and the Shipley eastern bypass, submited as option B in the current public consultation exercise, has been subjected to COBA analysis; and if the will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The tunnel option, included in the recent information brochure issued by the Department, was subjected to COBA analysis.

  Relative to the other options considered, the tunnel schemes would have high constructions costs. This effects the economic return. A single carriageway scheme would have a low positive net present value, and a dual carriageway scheme would be negative. The other effects of the tunnel options were summarised in the framework shown in the brochure.

  London Traffic Model
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the total costs incurred to his Department in the development and use up until discontinuance of the London area model at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: The total cost of the development and use of the London area model, up until the decision to withdraw it from further use, was some £138,000.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the total costs incurred to his Department by the use of the London transportation studies model; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: The Department assumed responsibility for the LTS model and databases on the abolition of the GLC. Contracts for the continuation of LTS services were placed first with the London residuary body and then from May 1987 with the MVA consultancy. We intend shortly to invite tenders for a new contract.

  The total costs incurred for the period April 1986 to December 1988 were about £2·1 million. This figure covers development, maintenance and use of both the London transportation studies model and the databases associated with it.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any intentions to utilise a package of models to assist in the analysis of strategic policy options in relation to transport planning in London in view of inherent problems in any such model; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: The Department makes considerable use of mathematical transport models in its analytical work and, for London, the LTS is the principal model in use. The output from such models is only one consideration in deciding between policy options. Such models represent a much simplified view of the complex interaction between transport choices made by the individuals and the operational and financial consequences for the various transport modes. Great care has to be taken in interpreting their results.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Wages Board
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will extend the Agriculture Wages Board Order to cover private gardeners, estate workers, gamekeepers and equestrian workers;

  (2) whether grooms who work at establishments which are both equestrian and farms are covered by the agricultural wages board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10 February 1989 to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) at columns 830–31.

  Salmonella and Eggs
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer of 13 February to the hon. Member for the Western Isles,Official Report, column 94, whether he placed a copy of the joint Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Health and British Egg Industry Council working group report on salmonella and eggs in the Library at 10.45 am or 10.45 pm on Tuesday 7 February.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I placed a copy of the joint Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Health and British Egg Council working group on salmonella and eggs in the Library of the House at about 10.45 am on Tuesday 7 February 1989.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the amount of additional milk quota agreed at the Council meeting of 23 January which will accrue to United Kingdom producers; what proposals the European Economic community has for uses for the extra milk produced.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The additional amount of milk quota which will accrue to United Kingdom producers will depend on the number and size of eligible applications received. There are no proposals to divert the increased production to specific uses.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will identify the nature of the additional costs of £64 million which will result in the European Economic Community budget in consequence of the decision of 23 January to increase milk quotas by 600,000 tonnes; and if he will indicate the nature of the policy changes also adopted on 23 January which will offset £41 million of this cost.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  EC Commission estimates assume that the additional 600,000 tonnes of milk quota will give rise to a corresponding increase in Community exports of milk products, which would increase expenditure on export refunds by 99 million ecus (£64 million). An additional cost, estimated at 21 million ecus (£14 million), results from a 0·5 per cent. reduction of the milk co-responsibility levy for producers delivering 60,000 kg of milk or less. The 2 per cent. reduction of the butter intervention price yields estimated savings of 85 million ecus (£55 million).

  Food Policy
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expenditure by the European Economic Community on food policy is permitted under the February 1988 agreement on legally binding spending controls; if possible additional spending on the consequences of exceptional circumstances as determined by the Council falls to be contained within the spending controls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The financial guideline for expenditure in the guarantee section of the CAP covers all expenditure on agricultural market support and 50 per cent. of expenditure on set-aside. The guideline for 1989 is 28,624 million ecu (£18,500 million), which is 1,863 million ecu (£1,200 million) above the corresponding provision in the 1989 Community budget.

  There is no general provision which would permit expenditure to exceed the guideline in exceptional circumstances. However, there is a monetary reserve of 1,000 million ecu (£650 million) to cover additonal expenditure or savings arising from significant movements in the dollar against the ecu. If the dollar falls to such an extent that extra spending of more than 400 million ecu (£260 million) is generated, the excess amount is transferred from the reserve. Conversely savings of more than 400 million ecu resulting from a rise in the dollar are transferred from the agriculture budget into the reserve. If the dollar/ecu exchange rate maintains its current level payments into the reserve will take place in 1989.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has received from the Veterinary Products Committee concerning the safety of Monsanto's bovine somatotropin for cows; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 6 February at column 573.

  Eggs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what production standards are required for eggs to be classified as free range.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The relevant production standards are laid down in Commission regulation EEC 95/69, as amended in particular by Commission regulation EEC 1943/85.

  Feedstuffs
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the European Community states have a mandatory requirement for the sterilisation of animal feedstuffs, particularly poultry.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: In the United Kingdom animal protein intended for use in feedingstuffs is heated or otherwise treated in order to destroy salmonella organisms. We do not have precise information on requirements in other member states of the European Community. But the provisions of the EC directives on feedingstuffs require all member states to

  661
  prescribe that animal feedingstuffs may be marketed only if they are wholesome, unadulterated and of merchantable quality.

  Salmonella Enteritidis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to commission research into the epidemiology of salmonella enteritidis in free-range flocks of laying hens.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 16 February 1989]: Cultural and serological findings from the veterinary laboratory are providing epidemiological information on salmonella enteritidis in poultry. A specific research project at the central veterinary laboratory is being formulated and the results are likely to have application to all laying hens.

SCOTLAND

  Craft Enterprises
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will commission an independent study of the financial and other needs of small craft enterprises working in rural areas in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Support for the crafts industry in Scotland is provided through the Scottish Development Agency and the Highland and Islands development board. Both bodies provide a range of financial and other support to the industry in line with its support for other types of small businesses. These bodies also fund Craftpoint, a limited company providing marketing services to the crafts industry throughout Scotland. The functions of Craftpoint are shortly to be reviewed and I have asked the agencies to prepare a consultation document on the long-term strategy for the crafts industry in Scotland incorporating the findings of this review.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider increased financial support for craft industries in rural areas in Scotland, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands development board both view support for the crafts industry as a priority function and there is no evidence that viable projects are being lost through lack of funding. Decisions on the level of financial support are for the agencies to make within their overall approved budget provisions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report those powers that currently exist to provide capital or revenue grants or loans to small craft enterprises in rural areas.

  Mr. Lang
  Under the provisions of their Acts, both the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands development board have a wide range of powers which enable them to support the crafts industry through the provision of financial assistance, premises, advisory, marketing and other services.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the initiatives he has taken to promote the interests of small craft businesses in rural areas since 1979.
  662
  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands development board, together with Craftpoint, are actively involved in the promotion of the crafts industry in Scotland. For example, Craftpoint sponsors an annual highland trade fair held each year in Aviemore and the Scottish Development Agency maintains a crafts collection which is used for promotional purposes.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a catalogue of established craft enterprises in Scotland financed by central funds, to be updated on a regular basis.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Agency publishes a quarterly news sheet entitled "Crafts News" which includes a list of all crafts enterprises assisted by the agency through grant funding during the previous quarter. Information on assistance provided to crafts enterprises by the Highlands and Islands development board is not available.

  Taxi Licensing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of taxi operators' licences available for issue by Glasgow district council; how many have been issued; and how many are available for re-issue.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally. A forthcoming consultation paper on the review of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 will address, inter alia, the licensing arrangements for taxis and private hire cars.

  Rural Areas (Hospital Beds)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds there were available in hospitals in rural areas in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The information requested is not available. There is no satisfactory definition of a rural area in relation to hospitals and their catchment population.

  Rural Areas (General Practitioners)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioners there are in rural practices in Scotland at the latest date for which figures are available; and how many there were in 1979.

  Mr. Rifkind
  For statistical purposes medical practices are classified by health boards as urban, semi-urban or rural. At 1 April 1988, the date of the latest information available, the number of medical practices classified as rural was 341; at 1 October 1979 the number similarly classified was 316.

  Health Authorities (Priorities)
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will order the publication of the "Scottish Health Authorities, Review of Priorities for the Eighties and Nineties".

  Mr. Rifkind
  The SHARPEN report was published on 9 November 1988. Copies are available in the Library.

  School Meals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the expenditure on school meals for each year between 1978–79 and the latest date available, in current and constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Cash (Net expenditure) £000's

  Adjusted to 1988–89 prices using the GDP deflator £000's

  1978–79

  34,057

  74,244

  1979–80

  37,939

  70,794

  1980–81

  38,495

  60,630

  1981–82

  39,896

  57,211

  1982–83

  40,234

  53,833

  1983–84

  41,828

  53,540

  1984–85

  41,859

  50,984

  1985–86

  42,847

  49,531

  1986–87

  44,638

  49,950

  1987–88

  46,503

  49,433

  Grant-aided Colleges
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will announce the allocations of grant-in-aid for recurrent expenditure to the grant-aided colleges in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State has made the following offers of recurrent grant to the 17 grant-aided colleges for the financial year 1989–90. The offers, which are conditional on parliamentary approval of the Supply Estimates, are as follows:

  Offer 1989–90 £ million

  Per cent. increase

  Central Institutions

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  3·965

  8·0

  Dundee Institute of Technology

  7·260

  8·0

  Edinburgh College of Art

  4·223

  3·0

  Glasgow College of Technology

  12·916

  8·0

  Glasgow School of Art

  3·795

  3·0

  Napier Polytechnic of Edinburgh

  18·140

  8·0

  Paisley College of Technology

  11·054

  3·0

  Queen Margaret College

  4·591

  8·0

  Queen's College, Glasgow

  3·285

  8·0

  Robert Gordon's Institute of Technology

  12·589

  3·0

  The Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

  2·553

  3·0

  Scottish College of Textiles

  2·553

  7·5

  Colleges of Education

  Craigie

  1·570

  4·1

  Jordanhill

  10·299

  3·5

  Moray House

  7·852

  8·0

  Northern

  6·325

  3·0

  St. Andrew's

  3·828

  3·2

  Local Government (Electoral Arrangements)
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects work to begin on the next review of local government electoral arrangements in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland has a statutory duty 664
  to review the electoral arrangements for each region, islands area and district in the period of 10 to 15 years after the commission submitted its report on the initial review of each area. The commission submitted its reports on the islands areas in the period October 1976 to June 1977, on the regions in the period June 1977 to December 1978 and on the districts in the period July 1978 to April 1985.

  My right hon. and learned Friend has approved a proposal by the commission to commence as soon as practicable the next statutory review of local government electoral arrangemens in the same order as that in which the commission submitted its reports on the initial review, i.e. the islands areas, the regions and finally the districts. The review will be conducted in accordance with the rules set out in schedule 6 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

  Energy Act 1983
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he proposes to succeed the provisions of sections 5 and 7 of the Energy Act 1983 as they apply to Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government appreciate that there are existing projects in Scotland where investment has been advanced against the backdrop of the rules of the obligation to purchase contained in the Energy Act 1983. We are, therefore, keen to ensure that the changes brought about by electricity privatisation neither disadvantage those who have invested nor materially affect the working of contracts already agreed.

  The two Scottish boards have confirmed that any generator in Scotland whose decision on plant investment has been influenced by the existence of the provisions of the Energy Act 1983 in planning for the future and who has arrangements with a board to purchase electricity generated by him under the provisions of the Act will, if he chooses, be able to continue those for a five-year transitional period following privatisation. In commercial terms this is a significant commitment by the Scottish boards.

  It would be inconsistent with the general thrust of privatising the industry to enshrine in legislation a permanent protection for a specific category of generators. The guiding principle behind our proposals in this area is to ensure that all economic sources will have fair access. The commitment given by the Scottish boards complements our proposals by securing that appropriate transitional arrangements are set in place.

  Education (Parents' Views)
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list in the Official Report the full list of questions asked in the market research survey conducted by MVA consultants of parents' views on Scottish education;

  (2) what was the total cost of the survey conducted by MVA consultants of parents' views on Scottish education;

  (3) what random process was used in the selection of interviewees for the purposes of conducting the MVA survey of parents' attitudes towards Scottish education;

  (4) what was the total number of people contacted (a) per region and (b) per age group in the course of the MVA survey of parents' attitudes towards Scottish education.
  665
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 February 1989]: The main fieldwork on the recently commissioned survey of parents' views on Scottish education has not yet begun and would not be helped by releasing the list of questions before interviews take place. The consultants are an established market research organisation and are responsible for the methodology, including detailed arrangements for organising and conducting the fieldwork.

  As regards the cost of the survey, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 13 February to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) at column 43.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the speed, height and purpose of the low level flight by three jet aircraft over Whittinghame, East Lothian, at 3.35 pm on Wednesday 8 February.

  Mr. Neubert
  Three Hawk aircraft from RAF Chivenor were authorised to carry out a simulated attack exercise in the area at heights down to 250 ft and under the normal speed restrictions for the aircraft and type of sortie.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the speed, height and purpose of the low level flight by two jet aircraft over Biel, Dunbar, East Lothian, at 12.48 pm on Thursday 2 February.

  Mr. Neubert
  Two F-111 aircraft from RAF Lakenheath were authorised to carry out a routine low-level training sortie over the area at heights down to 250 ft and under the normal speed restrictions for the aircraft and type of sortie.

  YTS Training Centres
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many YTS training centres there are outside Great Britain; where these are located; who is eligible to attend them; and what is the cost per country to the Exchequer for which the most recent figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are two YTS centres overseas, one in Cyprus and one in Hong Kong. All dependants of armed forces and Civil Service personnel in both locations between the ages of 16 and 19½ years of age are eligible to attend. The current staff cost of running the centres is £32,500 per annum in Cyprus and £20,000 per annum for Hong Kong.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research contracts awarded to his Department's research establishments under the United States strategic defence initiative have been sub-contracted to United Kingdom universities and other such educational establishments; what is the total worth of these sub-contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  AWRE Burghfield
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now able to make a statement about the explosion at atomic weapons research establishment, Burghfield in December during the disposal of potentially explosive material.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: This event has been the subject of a thorough investigation and I shall write to the hon. Member in due course when I have the findings.

  Procurement Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table indicating the regional breakdown of defence procurement expenditure for each year from 1974, in percentage terms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding reply 23 January 1989]: The estimates given taken from our computer records, which include for each contract let a single "location of work" code which represents the place at which we expect most of the work to be carried out by the main contractor. These figures do not take account of the different location of subcontractors or of supplies to the main contracts. The latest estimates of regional distribution of the Ministry's United Kingdom equipment expenditure from 1983–84 onwards are as follows:

  Percentages

  Standard Region

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  North

  5

  6

  6

  8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1

  2

  3

  3

  East Midlands

  5

  4

  4½

  3

  East Anglia

  3

  3

  1½

  3

  South East

  49

  SO

  47½

  49

  South West

  14

  11

  14½

  13

  West Midlands

  4

  3

  3½

  4

  North West

  12

  12

  10

  9

  Scotland

  5

  6

  6

  5

  Wales

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Northern Ireland

  1

  1

  1½

  1

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of expenditure on equipment are available by region only from 1983–84.

  2. The estimates for 1985–86 and later years are more reliable because of a change in methodology.

  3. The figures for 1986–87 may be subject to minor revision for publication in "Statement on the Defence Estimates (Vol. 2), 1989".

HEALTH

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of expenditure on information technology he estimates will be necessary to implement the proposals in "Working for Patients"; and what provision has been made in public spending plans to meet this expenditure.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The NHS needs to invest in modern management. The precise level of the investment required in information technology will depend on the outcome of our discussions with those concerned about
  667
  the detailed implementation of the White Paper's proposals, and, where appropriate, on the outcome of any trials of new systems. The cost will not be met at the expense of plans for patient provision.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will describe his Department's principal achievements in respect of race relations and equal opportunity since May 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department is fully committed to achieving equality of opportunity throughout all its activities.

  In the employment field my Department has implemented many of the recommendations of the joint review of policies and procedures on race relations in the Civil Service (1983) and the programme of action for women (1984). The more significant initiatives on race equality which have been carried out include.

  a. the participation in the phased programme of departmental ethnic surveys of staff which was completed last year with the then DHSS response rate averaging 75 per cent.

  b. the introduction of ethnic monitoring of recruitment in 1987 when early surveys indicated a shortfall in ethnic minority recruits compared with the ethnic minority working population, and

  c. following a pilot exercise, ethnic monitoring of promotion and job allocation will be carried out this year. In addition my Department has undertaken to sponsor

  a Windsor Fellow in 1990.

  With regard to sex equality my Department has seen an increasing number of women progressing to middle and senior management grades (14 per cent. of SEOs and above are women). Encouragement is given to part-time working and job sharing with over 3 per cent. of staff (about 200) working part-time. Improved special leave provisions have specifically targeted help for single parents and those caring for elderly or infirm relatives and a "Keeping in Touch" scheme was introduced in 1988 which allows preferential reinstatement for people who have to take a break from work for domestic reasons. A holiday play scheme for the children of staff working in headquarters will run during Easter 1989 and child care provision is one of the areas being examined in a review of opportunities available to women employees in the Department.

  Turning to employment in the NHS, every opportunity has been taken to remind health authorities of their responsibilities under the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts and they have been urged to take account to implement the codes of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  My Department supports the work of the King's fund task force on racial equality and has also established the national steering group on equal opportunities for women in the NHS.

  My Department's social services inspectorate (SSI) is engaged in a programme of work to promote race equality in the provision of social services by local authority social service departments (SSDs). In 1988, the SSI issued a document of guidance on good practice for use by SSDs. Since 1987 we have funded the race equality unit at the National Institute of Social Work. The unit provides independent advice to SSDs on implementing effective race relations policy and practice. Funding to the unit will
  668
  rise from £95,000 in 1988–89 to £127,500 in 1989–90. The SSI is currently running a series of workshops focusing on the professional needs of senior women managers in SSDs.

  In the area of health care services, in 1982 my Department appointed an adviser on ethnic minority health. She had already directed the "Stop Rickets" campaign, designed to explain the nature of the disease and the role of vitamin D in its prevention through material in the major languages of the Indian sub-continent, and through meetings with members of the community. From 1984 she directed the Asian mother and baby campaign, a key feature of which was the appointment of "link-workers" to overcome the barriers of language and culture which often exist between patients from ethnic minorities and health professionals.

  My Department has provided funding for a number of voluntary organisations concerned with ethnic minority health. For example, grants to organisations working with people affected by sickle cell disease and thalassaemia and their relatives amounted in 1988–89 to £15,000 each to the Sickle Cell Society, the Organisation for Sickle Cell Anaemia Research and the Thalassaemia Society. Altogether, we have provided over £¾ million since 1984 for a variety of innovative projects to improve access to health care for ethnic minorities. A further £1 million is being provided over three years from 1988–89 to produce health promotional material in minority languages. In 1987 the Minister for Health chaired a seminar on ethnic minority health for chairmen of regional and district health authorities, and Ministers are monitoring the progress of health authorities and family practitioner committees in this area.

  In 1986 we became the first Government specifically to identify women's health within the responsibilities of a Government Minister. In addition to implementing screening programmes for breast and cervical cancers we are providing funding of almost £½ million in 1988–89 for some 20 voluntary organisations concerned with women's health. The Health Education Authority is planning to give more prominence to women's health and the maternal death rate continues to fall.

  Model guidance on equal opportunities proofing of policy proposals, recommended by the ministerial group on women's issues, covers race and sex discrimination and has been extended in my Department to include disability issues. This guidance will shortly be circulated within the Department and this will direct further attention to equal opportunities issues in all the Department's activities.

  Soft Cheese
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given by the Chief Medical Officer about the consumption of soft cheeses.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The chief medical officer at my Department issued general advice to the public about listeria in food on 10 February 1989. He also gave specific advice to pregnant women and to some patients, who are particularly vulnerable because of their illness or treatment, to avoid eating certain cheeses.

  His advice said that public attention had recently been drawn to findings of the presence of listeria monocytogenes in a number of different food products. It must be remembered that listeria is widely distributed in the environment and some exposure to this organism is

  669
  unavoidable. Indeed at any one time a number of us, perhaps as many as 1 in 20, carry this bacteria in our gut without any ill-effects.

  The disease, listeriosis, caused by infection with this organism is fortunately still quite rare. Last year 287 cases were reported, although it is certain that there were some other unreported cases. When it occurs it can give rise to a mild 'flu-like illness, although more serious cases may develop meningitis and septicaemia. Of considerable concern is the fact that in pregnant women it may also infect the developing baby and lead to miscarriage, stillbirth or severe illness in the newborn baby.

  Unlike most of the bacteria causing food-related illness that we have been used to dealing with in the past, listeria has the unusual property of being able to multiply at the sort of temperatures which may be found in refrigerators. Fortunately in most foods where it is present, it occurs at very low levels and is killed by adequate cooking.

  However, for some soft cheeses, the situation is different because the method of preparation and the time they may be kept before eating allows listeria to multiply. High numbers of listeria have been found in several varieties of soft cheeses, and a number of cases of listeriosis—both in this country and abroad—have been associated with eating heavily contaminated soft cheese.

  Because of this, having taken the best possible expert advice, the chief medical officer advises that pregnant women should avoid eating certain types of soft cheeses. It is not possible to specify precisely the cheeses in which listeria is likely to grow, but on the basis of current information these are likely to be soft ripened cheeses such as the brie, camembert, and blue vein types. On the other hand, hard cheeses such as the cheddar and cheshire types, processed cheeses, cottage cheeses and cheese spreads have not given cause for concern.

  The levels of listeria that have been found in other foods such as cooked-chilled meals and ready-to-eat poultry have usually been very low. Given the particular risks to the developing foetus the chief medical officer feels that it would be prudent for pregnant women to re-heat these types of food until they are piping hot rather than to eat them cold. Otherwise all that is necessary is for pregnant women to follow the normal, general hygiene precautions summarised here and to take care that they maintain a well-balanced diet during pregnancy.

  Other people who appear to be at special risk and should therefore follow this advice are those with underlying illness which results in impaired resistance to infection, such as patients who have had transplants, those on particular drugs which depress the immune system, and those with leukaemia or cancers of the lymphatic tissues.

  The chief medical officer also said that although the wider public have become worried about reports of listeria contamination of a variety of foods, including salads and some cooked-chilled ready-to-eat foods on sale, the evidence so far is that the amount of listeria in these foods is generally very low. Provided that the good hygiene practices recommended are followed there is no need to change the type of food regularly eaten and enjoyed.

  The general advice to the public is that listeria monocytogenes is widely distributed in the environment, for example, it has been found in vegetation, water, soil and the faeces of man and animals and therefore some exposure to this organism is unavoidable. For the average healthy member of the public the risk of becoming ill with listeriosis from eating food is very small indeed.
  670
  Nevertheless there are a number of simple precautions which the public can take which will reduce their exposures to listeria and other pathogenic bacteria:

  (i) Keep foods for as short a time as possible, follow the storage instructions carefully and observe the "best-by" and "eat-by" dates on the label;

  (ii) do not eat under-cooked poultry or meat products. Make sure you re-heat cooked-chilled meals thoroughly and according to the instructions on the label. Wash salads, fruit and vegetables that will be eaten raw;

  (iii) Make sure your refrigerator is working properly and is keeping the food in it really cold;

  (iv) Store cooked foods in the refrigerator away from raw foods and cheeses;

  (v) When re-heating food make sure it is heated until piping hot all the way through and do not re-heat more than once;

  (vi) When using a microwave oven to cook or re-heat food observe the standing times recommended by the oven manufacturer to ensure that the food attains an even temperature before it is eaten;

  (vii) Throw away left-over re-heated food. Cooked food which is not to be eaten straight away should be cooled as rapidly as possible and then stored in the refrigerator.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the localities of any unexplained clusters of cases of meningitis in the three counties of Yorkshire for 1988 and to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not available from the notifications of infectious diseases reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, as those notifications do not identify clusters.

  Sex-change Operations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of sex-change operations performed by the National Health Service for(a) male to female and (b) female to male in each area health authority of the Trent regional health authority for each of the last 20 years; and what was the cost to the Exchequer in each case.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may like to write to the chairman of the Trent regional health authority for such information as is held by the region.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reviews are taking place in the various health authorities in the Trent regional health authority of the conduct of accident and emergency services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Trent regional health authority is currently reviewing the accident and emergency services at Newark general hospital, in central Nottinghamshire and at the Montagu hospital, Mexborough, in Doncaster. Sheffield district health authority is reviewing its own accident and emergency services.

  Renal Transplants
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are awaiting renal transplant; and what is the average waiting time for such a transplant.
  671
  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom waiting list for renal transplants, as notified to the United Kingdom transplant service on 16 February 1989, was 3,521.

  Waiting time information is not readily available in the form requested. Of those waiting, 35 per cent. had been on the list for less than one year, 19 per cent. for between one and two years, 12 per cent. for between two and three years, nine per cent. for between three and four years, and 16 per cent. for more than four years. The remaining nine per cent. were not classified. The length of time a patient waits for a transplant depends on a number of factors, the principal one being how difficult it is to find a suitably matched donor organ.

  Renal Dialysis
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are provided with home dialysis treatment through the National Health Service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 30 January at columns 42–44.

  Tampons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is aware of into the link between sanitary tampon use and vaginal ulceration.

  Mr. Freeman
  Some reports of research on this matter were published in the United States of America several years ago. Vaginal ulceration was associated with the use of tampons in a small number of women but the ulcers healed when tampons were no longer used. The reports suggested various mechanisms which might have caused the ulcers.

  Cook-chill Food
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any maternity units use cook-chill food.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health authorities are responsible for the delivery of catering services which meet the needs of all their patient groups.

  We do not collect centrally information on the production of food for specific categories of patients.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals currently use cooked-chilled food; and how many hospitals are intending to use cooked-chilled food under present plans.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  We do not hold centrally information on those hospitals which provide cook-chill catering.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given to district health authorities to ensure the recognition of the problems of sufferers from myalgic encephalomyelitis and the co-ordination of their treatment.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has issued no guidance to district health authorities on myalgic encephalomyelitis.
  672
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's latest estimate of the number of persons diagnosed as suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that no information is held centrally on which to base an estimate of the number of people diagnosed as suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research programmes are supported by his Department into the problem of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and what is the the total of financial support in the current financial year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is not funding research into myalgic encephalomyelitis. The Medical Research Council is the main agency through which the Government support clinical research; it receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science.

  Rural Dispensing Arrangements
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, as part of his proposed reforms of the National Health Service, he envisages changing the present arrangements relating to rural dispensing by doctors or rural pharmacies contained in the Clothier regulations; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The proposed reforms of the NHS set out in the Government's White Paper 'Working for Patients' do not alter the principles underlying the regulations for determining the arrangements for NHS dispensing in rural areas. As a result of the changed composition and responsibilities of family practitioner comittees, however, some changes to the regulations will be necessary. We shall be putting forward detailed proposals later in the year.

  Nurses
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how many the number of nurses in the National Health Service would have to be increased or cut to achieve the number in the service in 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: The total number of nursing and midwifery staff (including agency staff) employed in the NHS in England at 30 September 1987–404,000 wholetime equivalents—would have to be reduced by 21,700 wholetime equivalents to achieve the September 1979 level adjusted to take account of the change in the working week from 40 to 37·5 hours introduced in 1980–81. Taking no account of such a reduction in the working week the reduction required would be 45,600 wholetime equivalents to reach the 358,400 employed in 1979.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire were receiving(a)

  673
  attendance allowance at (i) the higher rate and (ii) the lower rate, (b) invalid care allowance, (c) mobility allowance, (d) invalidity benefit, (e) severe disablement allowance, (f) industrial disablement pension, (g) war disablement pension, (h) retirement pension, (i) income support and (j) supplementary benefit at the latest dates for which figures are available; what are those dates; and if he will give comparable figures for five years and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that information is not available in the precise form requested. Nor are detail

  Doncaster, East

  Doncaster, West

  Mexborough2

  Wath-on-Dearne3

  (d) Invalidity Benefit1

  As at 31 January 1989

  4,461

  5,831

  2,220

  —

  As at 15 January 1985

  3,912

  4,659

  1,562

  —

  (e) Severe Disablement Allowance

  As at 31 January 1989

  701

  933

  239

  —

  As at 15 January 1985

  213

  692

  132

  —

  (i) Income Support

  As at 30 November 1988

  10,164

  12,951

  —

  7,118

  (j) Supplementary Benefit

  As at 18 November 1987

  11,712

  14,559

  —

  7,879

  As at 6 December 1983

  10,269

  12,633

  —

  7,172

  As at 27 November 1979

  5,818

  7,082

  —

  4,170

  1 Includes an unknown number of sickness benefit claimants as separate records of sickness/invalidity benefit claimants are not kept.

  2 Mexborough NIO does not deal with income support/supplementary benefit claims.

  3 Wath-on-Dearne local office deals only with income support/supplementary benefit claims.

  Note: With the exception of supplementary benefit, comparable figures for five years and 10 years ago are no longer held.

  Source: 100 per cent. count of cases in action. The figures include a small number of cases not actually in receipt of benefit. The data for 1988 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the average and maximum amounts of time taken to process claims for attendance allowance; how many of such claims go to appeal; and what are the average and maximum amounts of time taken to process such appeals in addition to the initial processing of claims.

  Mr. Scott
  The average time taken to decide new claims is currently 7·5 weeks. In the 12 months to 31 December 1988, some 56,000 decisions on new claims were reviewed. The average time taken to process a review is currently 13·3 weeks. Information about the maximum times for deciding claims of processing reviews is not available.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents in Liverpool have received overpayments of housing benefit; how much money is involved; how many appeals have been lodged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Private Retirement Homes
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount paid by his Department to support those in private homes for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.
  674
  available of the numbers of people receiving (a) attendance allowance, (b) invalid care allowance, (c) mobility allowance, (f) industrial disablement pension, (g) war disablement pension or (h) retirement pension in the Doncaster and Mexborough areas of South Yorkshire.

  The table gives the information available on the dates shown for the Department's local offices at Doncaster, East, Doncaster, West, Mexborough and Wath-on-Dearne which serve the Don Valley constituency, although their boundaries are not conterminous.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. However, relevant information in respect of independent—that is private and voluntary—homes was provided in my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 21 December 1988 at columns 304–06.

  Retirement Age (Statistics)
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people over retirement age in the United Kingdom for the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest available estimate (July 1987) is that there are approximately 10·41 million people in the United Kingdom over state pension age.

  1 Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Supplementary Benefit (Transitional Protection)
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to monitor the effects of the social security changes of April 1988; and if he is inviting views from the public.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 27 January at columns 802–03. The views expressed by members of the public are carefully considered as part of the monitoring process.

  Retail Prices Index (Error)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of those
  675
  organisations who applied for grants under the retail prices error index fund, the outcome and amounts of any awards; and if he will make a statement about the operation of the fund.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 3 May 1988 at columns 422–24 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 9 February at column 277. A list of the latest organisations to receive payments has been placed in the Library.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown by benefit of the 25 per cent. real increase in family benefits since 1978–79.

  Mr. Moore
  A breakdown by benefit of the 25 per cent. real increase in family support since 1978–79 is provided in the table.

  Since I quoted this figure to the House on 18 January 1989 at column 359 I understand that the Inland Revenue has advised DSS officials that its provisional estimate of the value of child tax allowances in 1978–79 has been revised down from £515 million to £460 million. The effect of this change is to reduce family support in real terms in 1978–89 to £6,741 million; this produces a real increase of 27·3 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1988–89.

  Family support 1978–79 to 1988–89

  £ million

  1978–79 cash

  1978–79 real

  1988–89 cash/real

  Child benefit

  1,776

  3,872

  4,522

  One parent benefit

  22

  48

  174

  Child tax allowances

  515

  1,123

  —

  Additional personal tax allowance (lone parent)

  60

  131

  165

  Family income supplement

  24

  52

  —

  Family credit

  —

  —

  422

  Maternity grant

  16

  35

  —

  Maternity allowance

  105

  229

  27

  Statutory maternity pay

  —

  —

  240

  Supplementary allowance1

  569

  1,241

  —

  Income support1

  —

  —

  2,009

  Housing benefit1 2

  60

  131

  971

  Social Fund

  —

  —

  49

  Total

  3,147

  6,861

  8,579

  1 Supplementary allowance, Income Support and Housing Benefit paid to one parent families and to people looking after elderly persons.

  2 Includes rate rebates.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to enable offices of his Department to use the information provided under the income support scheme to identify which claimants are eligible for cold weather payments and to remove the necessity for claimants to make separate claims for such payments; and if he will give an estimate of the likely effect of such action on the level of take-up.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. It would not be possible to identify income support beneficiaries eligible for cold weather payments and thereby remove the need for separate claims to be made unless the same capital limit were to be applied for both purposes.

  Disabled Child Premium
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many dependent children and young persons in households in receipt of income support are currently in receipt of the disabled child premium on the grounds of (i) receipt of attendance allowance, (ii) receipt of mobility allowance and (iii) who are or have recently been registered as blind with the local authority;

  (2) what percentage of all families in receipt of income support with dependent children and young persons those families in receipt of the disabled child premium form;

  (3) how many claimants of income support receive the disabled child premium; how many supplementary benefit claimants received additional requirements in respect of dependent children in 1987–88; and what was the average weekly amount of these additions.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested for supplementary benefit is not available and that for income support will not be available until later this year.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department is monitoring the withdrawal of additional requirements, previously paid under the supplementary benefits system, where these meet the special needs of children with acute and chronic health conditions in families on income support with a view to extending the qualifying conditions for the disabled child premium.

  Mr. Scott
  Additional requirements ceased from April 1988 when the supplementary benefit scheme was replaced by income support. The impact of the reformed system is being monitored on all groups using information provided by local offices, from the management information system, from expenditure outturn figures and other statistical sources such as the annual statistical inquiry, and the quarterly statistical inquiries. In addition the disabled child premium will be studied in the light of the OPCS reports which deal specifically with disabled children.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether transitional payments to claimants unable to qualify for income support because of the definition of remunerative work will be calculated and withdrawn in accordance with the transitional arrangement regulations 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since transitional payments made to people unable to qualify for income support because of the definition of remunerative work are discretionary, they are not subject to any regulations. Such payments are eroded by increases in income, such as earnings and other social security benefits.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) claimants who work more than 24 hours per week ceased to qualify for supplementary benefit on 6 April 1988, and (b) how many of those claimants have applied for and been awarded transitional protection under the new arrangements announced earlier this year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information about the number of claimants who ceased to qualify for benefit because they worked 24 hours or more a week was not collected. A total
  677
  of 293 people affected by the new rules applied for payments under the arrangements announced last April, of whom 123 were awarded payments. These figures include those claimants whose partners were working 24 hours or more.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is being taken in his Department's offices to identify claimants who ceased to qualify for supplementary benefit in April 1988 because of the changed definition of remunerative work for the purposes of assessing eligibility for transitional protection.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Whilst local offices were not required to trawl for cases eligible for transitional protection they have been instructed to refer cases of any former supplementary benefit recipients, which come to their attention, to the transitional protection unit (TPU).

  Two campaigns in the national press were initiated in May and July 1988 which publicised TP payments. In addition, stocks of an explanatory leaflet SB22, with attached application form, were issued to local offices, post offices and local authorities. Supplies of an information leaflet (Fig 8) were also issued to local authorities and advisory bodies which outlined the help available from the TPU.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) claimants in receipt of supplementary benefit for the year 1987–88 were (i) in receipt of housing costs for mortgage interest repayments, (ii) were working 24 hours per week or more or (iii) had a partner who was working 24 hours per week or more, and (b) if he will provide this information on the basis of weekly mortgage interest repayments of (1) less than £25, (2) £25 or more but less than £50, (3) £50 or more but less than £75, (4) £75 or more but less than £100 and (5) £100 or more.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested.

  The latest available data on the amounts included in supplementary benefit assessments for mortgage interest are shown in the table. These are derived from table 7.11 of the May 1987 annual statistical enquiry, a copy of which is in the Library. No information is available on the numbers of supplementary benefit claimants or their partners who were working 24 hours or more a week.

  Numbers of owner occupier supplementary benefit claimants with mortgage interest included in their assessments, May 1987

  Weekly amount included in Supplementary Benefit assessment for mortgage interest

  Numbers of claimants

  Nil to £25·00

  244 633

  £25·01 to £50·00

  72,520

  £50·01 to £75·00

  11,080

  £75·01 to £100·00

  3,773

  £100·01 and over

  1,801

  Total

  333,809

  Income Support and Housing Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of income support and housing benefit will have no increase in benefit in April due to receipt of transitional protection as a result of the 1988 benefit changes; and how many will receive less than the full increase.
  678
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that precise information for income support and housing benefit is not available. For income support, it is estimated that around 570,000 recipients will have no increase in benefit income in April 1989 and some 530,000 may receive less than the full increase.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there are any plans to extend entitlement to attendance allowance to children under the age of two years.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall look at this feature of the attendance allowance scheme when we consider the future of disability benefits in the light of the results of the OPCS disability surveys.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the current level of retirement pension for a single pensioner and a pensioner couple if uprated by prices or earnings, whichever was the higher, each year since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Value of Retirement Pension if increased in line earnings with prices or earnings

  Uprating date

  Single

  Couple

  November 1980

  27·45

  43·95

  November 1981

  30·75

  49·25

  November 1982

  33·30

  53·35

  November 1983

  35·80

  57·35

  November 1984

  38·15

  61·10

  November 1985

  41·50

  66·45

  July 1986

  43·80

  70·15

  April 1987

  45·75

  73·25

  April 1988

  49·35

  79·00

  Social Fund
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what additional information he proposes to place in the Library concerning the social fund budget allocations to local offices for 1989–90.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I have today placed in the Library details of the 1989–90 social fund allocations in terms of the allocations per head of income support live load in every local office on 30 November 1988, together with a note explaining the basis on which the 1989–90 allocations were made. Details of individual local office activity on the social fund during 1989–90 and a national summary will continue to be placed in the Library at monthly intervals.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Development Areas
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the governmental expenditure which has taken place in urban development areas since 1981.

  Mr. Ridley
  By the end of March 1989, the Government will have provided over £8,000 million in grant-in-aid to the English UDCs.

  Disabled People (Housing Adaptations)
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a test of resources for improvement grants for house adaptations for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Proposals for a test of resources for all improvement grants, including those for adaptations for the disabled, were published in the consultation paper "Renovation Grants: Proposed Test of Resources", issued on 9 January.

  No-Fines Houses
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on providing financial assistance to owner occupiers of former local authority properties on a no-fines type of construction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Owners of houses built before 1961, including those of no-fines construction, may be eligible for discretionary improvements grants from their local authorities. The Local Government and Housing Bill contains our proposals to reform that legislation.

  Football Clubs Membership Scheme
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of firms producing computers to discuss the proposed football club identity card scheme.

  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of firms producing computers to discuss the proposed football club identity card scheme.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of firms producing computers to discuss the proposed football identity card scheme.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of firms producing computers to discuss the proposed football club identity card scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no further plans to meet computer companies. The football membership authority, in drawing up the scheme for submission to the Secretary of State, will include its preferred choice of technology.

  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any response to the letter sent by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to hon. Members on 21 December 1988 about the proposed football identity card scheme.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any response to the letter sent by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to hon. Members on 21 December 1988 about the proposed football identity card scheme.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any responses to the 680
  letter sent by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to hon. Members on 21 December 1988 about the proposed football identity card scheme.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any response to the letter sent by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) to hon. Members on 21 December 1988 about the proposed football identity card scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received letters from four hon. Members. Two hon. Members have tabled questions before today.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on recent meetings held by the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) with the chairmen of Football League clubs.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received expressing opposition to part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received expressing opposition to part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received expressing opposition to part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received expressing opposition to part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received some 600 representations expressing opposition to the provisions of part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received to date about the Government's proposals to introduce a membership registration and identification scheme for football fans.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have received over 2,500 representations relating to the idea of a scheme.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the Association of Chief Police Officers to discuss the implications of the Football Spectators Bill.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no plans at present to meet the Association of Chief Police Officers. My officials and colleagues in the Home Office are in regular contact with the Association.

  Building Land (Prices)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the percentage
  681
  of the cost of a new house attributable to the price of the building land for each region of the country, for the years 1958, 1968, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am pleased to say that according to the latest figures for 1987 land prices in the north-west contributed one of the lowest percentages of the costs of new houses, both in the private sector and those built by local authorities. I am arranging for a table of regional figures to be placed in the Library. Figures for earlier years, back to 1977, are available in the Library.

  Reclamation Facilities
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Government will take action to ensure that reclamation facilities, such as bottle banks, are established at new supermarket sites.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The waste watch organisation, which the Department supports, works with retailers to develop recycling opportunities.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his policy with regard to the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 8 February (Official Report, columns 726–27). The Government are committed to tackling rural housing need, by enabling housing associations to provide rented accommodation in rural areas and encouraging private landlords and developers to invest in low-cost dwellings.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue new guidelines to local planning authorities on the provision of housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Chope
  New guidance is set out in the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on February 3 at columns 433–34. The local planning authorities have been notified.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received representations from a variety of organisations. The Government's response to these representations is summarised in the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 8 February at columns 726–27.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any decision as to what proportion of water authority stock will be retained by the Government at the proposed flotation of the water industry.

  Mr. Ridley
  No.
  682
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate by how much water prices will rise in the first year after privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  It is too early to anticipate the Values of the price cap ("K") which will govern water charges increases.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any recent discussions with the chairpersons of the water authorities on disconnection policy before and after privatisation of the water industry.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets chairmen of the water authorities to discuss a number of issues. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has welcomed the recent proposals announced by the water industry to revise their disconnections code of practice. These introduce important new customer safeguards and should assist in keeping disconnection to the absolute minimum of those customers who can pay but refuse to do so.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent assessment he has made of the effect of his water privatisation plans on the cost of water to the consumer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Department will carry out an assessment of each water authority's and each water company's future financial requirements in the coming months and I will then be in a position to make proposals for the price cap which will be applicable to each appointed undertaking under the Water Bill.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he can report on the reduction of use of chlorofluorocarbons; and if he will estimate the likely effect on the environment.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome to date of the proposals to deal with pollution from chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Ridley
  All sectors of British industry are being encouraged to reduce their chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons by at least 85 per cent. by the turn of the century by using alternatives, substitutes or adopting good housekeeping practices. The action of the aerosol industry alone to phase out non-essential uses of CFCs will halve total United Kingdom consumption by the end of the year. Action by the United Kingdom alone is not enough and a major objective of the "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference, which I shall chair in March, is to persuade more countries to sign up to the Montreal protocol.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department proposes to issue advice to owners of domestic appliances which contain chlorofluorocarbons who wish to ensure that chlorofluorocarbons are not released into the atmosphere.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As noted in the Government's reply to the first report from the Environment Committee, Session 1987–88, HC 270–1—Air Pollution—published in
  683
  December 1988 (Cm. 552) officials of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry are discussing the question of recovery and recycling/destruction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in redundant appliances. The Government plan to develop advice in the light of these discussions.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the use of chlorofluorocarbon in the manufacture of plastic forms of building insulation; and whether he has any evidence that manufacturers have developed alternatives to these.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have recently received a Friends of the Earth report, "Safe as Houses", about the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the insulation of buildings.

  The manufacturers of rigid polyurethane foams are developing materials which use less CFCs as blowing agents. They are also implementing measures to reduce wastage of CFCs, and evaluating ozone-friendly alternatives which should become available during the 1990s, subject to satisfactory toxicological testing. United Kingdom manufacturers of extruded polystyrene insulation board have agreed to introduce this year products which do not contain the CFCs controlled by the Montreal protocol, and to phase out products containing these substances by mid-1990.

  UK Nirex
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet with representatives of UK Nirex Ltd; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of UK Nirex Ltd; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet with representatives of UK Nirex Ltd; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of UK Nirex Ltd; and what he expects to discuss.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have no plans to meet representatives of Nirex until I have received its proposals for a radioactive waste disposal facility.

  Urban Decay
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department has taken to deal with urban decay in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has committed some £330 million in Yorkshire and Humberside this financial year, as part of the wider Government effort with the private sector and the public authorities to tackle problems of urban decay.

  Housing (Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the housing investment programme allocation awarded to Leicester city council for 1989–90.

  Mr. Trippier
  Leicester city council's housing investment programme allocation for 1989–90 will be £8,513 million. In addition, it was allocated £0·4 million to tackle run-down housing under the private sector area renewal initiative. Individual authorities have also been invited to apply for additional resources under the estate action programme and in respect of particularly heavy responsibilities under housing defects legislation.

  Research
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the stimulation of research into environmental matters by(a) his Department, (b) the proposed National Rivers Authority and (c) the water plcs following privatisation.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have today placed copies of a paper in the Libraries of both Houses setting out our proposals for environmental research following privatisation. The paper proposes that it will be for each utility company to decide on its own research needs. The need to fulfil their statutory duties and comply with regulations on water quality and pollution controls will provide the incentives for the water utilities to carry out research. The present statutory duty on the water authorities to make arrangements to carry out research will be replaced by clause 135 of the Water Bill, which places a similar duty on the National Rivers Authority. My Department will continue to manage a substantial programme of research into the water environment.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his plans for the introduction of further legislation to control air pollution.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend proposes to lay regulations shortly which will give Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution control over air pollution from a limited number of additonal works, will provide for greater public access to information about the control of air pollution from works scheduled for inspectorate control, and will give statutory force to air quality standards for smoke and sulphur dioxide, lead and nitrogen dioxide.

  We intend that the remainder of the proposals in the Government's December 1986 consultation paper on air pollution control should be implemented as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress he can report on the setting up and activities of urban development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Bristol development corporation, the tenth English urban development corporation, was set up
  685
  on 19 January. The UDCs are responsible for regenerating more than 40,000 acres, much of which was derelict or underused when they were set up. Although they are at varying stages in their lives, they are all making considerable progress and stimulating major private sector investment interest in their areas.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on changing the terms of reference of urban development corporations to provide a more precise definition of regeneration, as recommended by the third report of the Employment Committee.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend's policy is set out in the Government's response to the Employment Committee. I understand that the Committee will be publishing the response today.

  Tree Preservation Orders
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions he has made to involve interested and experienced professional bodies in the proposed review of the procedures covering tree preservation orders.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  James Batho, who is carrying out the review, is having meetings with relevant organisations, including professional bodies, in order to establish their views.

  Association of District Councils
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the officers of the Association of District Councils; and what was discussed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Association of District Councils and the other authority associations on 29 November last year. The matters discussed were the associations' responses to the consultation papers "Capital Expenditure and Finance" and "Local Authorities' Interests in Companies".

  Business Rate
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect on businesses in Manchester of the introduction of the unified business rate.

  Mr. Gummer
  The report of a preliminary survey carried out by the Inland Revenue of the effects of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation of business property, which is available in the Library, suggests that rate bills for businesses in the north west region could fall by some £310 million a year once the transition to the new system is complete. Proposals for the transition were announced by my right hon. Friend on 15 February. Separate figures for Manchester are not available. However, if the uniform business rate were introduced today, the effect would be to reduce the rate poundage paid by businesses in Manchester by 27 per cent.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect on business costs in Newcastle upon Tyne of the introduction of the unified business rate.
  686
  Mr. Gummer
  The report of a preliminary survey carried out by the Inland Revenue of the effects of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation of business property, which is available in the Library, suggests that rate bills for businesses in the northern region could fall by some £50 million a year once the transition to the new system is complete. Proposals for the transition were announced by my right hon. Friend on 15 February. Separate figures for Newcastle upon Tyne are not available. However, if the uniform business rate were introduced today, the effect would be to reduce the rate poundage paid by businesses in Newcastle upon Tyne by 21 per cent.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect on business costs in Derbyshire of the introduction of the unified business rate.

  Mr. Gummer
  The report of a preliminary survey carried out by the Inland Revenue of the effects of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation of business property, which is available in the Library, suggests that rate bills for businesses in the east midlands region could fall by some £130 million a year once the transition to the new system is complete. Proposals for the transition were announced by my right hon. Friend on 15 February. Separate figures for Derbyshire are not available. However, if the uniform business rate were introduced today, the effect would be to reduce the rate poundage paid by businesses in Derbyshire by between 25 and 31 per cent. depending on the district council area concerned.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings are vacant in the public and private sector in Liverpool; and what is the annual estimated rent and rates lost.

  Mr. Trippier
  The latest available information on vacant dwellings in both the public and private sectors was provided by Liverpool city council in its 1988 housing investment programme return (HIP 1), a copy of which is in the Library.

  The provisional figure for rent loss on vacant local authority dwellings in Liverpool in 1987–88 as reported on the authority's housing subsidy claim form was £7·4 million. Figures for rate loss on all empty dwellings in Liverpool are available in "Rent Collection Statistics 1987–88 Actuals" published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Eastbourne Waterworks Company
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he has had with the managing director of the Eastbourne Waterworks Company about the increase in its charges which came into effect on 1 January and the further increase in prospect with effect from 1 April; and if he will make a statement about charges for water made by the statutory water companies.

  Mr. Howard
  I have received a letter from Mr. C. B. G. Turner, chairman of the Eastbourne Waterworks Company indicating that he is unable to reconsider the
  687
  charges implemented from 1 January. I understand that these charges run for three months. I have therefore asked him to come and see me before his board fixes charges for the twelve months from 1 April 1989.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I meet the chairman of the Sports Council on a regular basis to discuss matters relating to the council. I expect to see him again shortly.

  Rate Support Grant (Brent)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of rate support grant for the London borough of Brent.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Brent will receive about £86·8 million block grant in 1989–90, £19·5 million (29 per cent.) more than in the current financial year after taking into account the changed arrangements for financing advanced further education.

  Planning Law
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to alter the law on planning.

  Mr. Chope
  Proposals to amend planning law are contained in the White Paper on the future of development plans which was published last month. We always keep the need for legislation under review.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in England since May 1979.

  Mr. Trippier
  From April 1979 to December 1988 an estimated 1 million tenants bought their homes from English local authorities and new towns.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the disbursal of the money from the sale of council houses.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the provisions of part IV of the Local Government and Housing Bill a local authority which sells council houses would be required to set aside part of the receipts to reduce its indebtedness. The balance would be available to the authority without restriction for new capital investment.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that the role of the Nature Conservancy Council is adequately sustained in those activities which have been or are to be transferred from the public to the private sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NCC has statutory responsibilities for nature conservation which, for the 688
  most part, are set out in the Nature Conservancy Act 1973, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Government are ready to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that the NCC is able to fulfil its responsibilities in relation to the activities of others, in both the private and public sectors.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate when tenants in housing action trust areas will be asked to vote on the establishment of housing action trusts.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 30 January to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) at column 307.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which further housing action trusts he proposes to establish.

  Mr. Trippier
  No housing action trusts have yet been established. When we have considered the consultants' reports on the six areas currently proposed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his conclusions.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the number of environmental health officers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972, it is for each local authority with responsibilities in this field to decide how many staff it is necessary for them to appoint.

  County Rates
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which is the highest and lowest precept county rate in England; and what the change has been in the precept of each of these two councils since 1981.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The highest county precept in 1988–89 is 297·5p in Derbyshire and the lowest is 185p in Hereford and Worcester. The change in precept since 1981 is 168 per cent. for Derbyshire and 64 per cent. for Hereford and Worcester.

  Football Supporters' Clubs
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet representatives of football supporters' clubs; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet representatives of football supporters' clubs; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given on 17 February to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) at column 147.

  Simplified-Planning Zones
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified-planning zones are now in operation; and if he will make a statement.
  689
  Mr. Chope
  Last year, simplified planning zones were adopted and brought into operation by Derby and Corby. Five other schemes are in preparation, as noted in the reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) at column 304.

  Tyne and Wear UDC
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will report on the progress made by the Tyne and Wear urban development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  I am pleased to report that the Tyne and Wear development corporation is making excellent progress. It has embarked on a number of major projects and has already had considerable success in encouraging the private sector to invest in Tyne and Wear.

  Grant assistance from the corporation has already helped to attract inward investment from overseas companies such as Mitsumi, Goldstar and Liebherr, securing some £13 million private sector funding and the initial creation of over 600 jobs with the potential for considerable expansion. Work is also now underway at a number of major flagship sites such as Newcastle business park, St. Peters yard, Byker and The Close, Newcastle Quayside. At the business park a 59 acre site is being developed for over 500,000 ft of high quality industrial/ commercial floorspace with the creation of 3,000 permanent jobs. Barratt Newcastle Ltd. is undertaking the development of an imaginative marina village on a 12·5 acre site at St. Peters yard and a prime site at The Close on Newcastle Quayside is being developed for a four-star hotel and offices with the creation of 400–600 permanent jobs. These three projects alone are expected to secure private sector investment of some £78 million..

  Total expenditure by Tyne and Wear development corporation since it was established in May 1987 to the end of the current financial year is forecast at £28 million with some £42·5 million private funding having been secured, 1,200 jobs created and over 200,000 sq ft of floorspace
  provided/refurbished.

  These results are very encouraging for the first two years of the corporation's life and when viewed alongside projects now underway there is no doubt that TWDC is playing a major role in bringing about an increase in business confidence and developer interest through its activities and positive promotion of the area.

  Further information is available in the annual reports of the corporation.

  Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives from the Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has not met representatives of the Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association.

  Urban Grants
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether independent valuation advice is taken when evaluating schemes for urban development grant, urban regeneration grant and city grant.
  690
  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has a team of professional appraisers including secondees from private sector firms. Where appropriate they seek the advice of the district valuer.

  Housing Revenue Accounts (London)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will identify which London boroughs have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts.

  Mr. Trippier
  Under the Housing Act 1985, local authorities are required to meet any deficit on their housing revenue accounts by a rate fund contribution (RFC) equal to the deficit. The London boroughs estimating they will make RFCs in 1988–89 are as follows:

  City of London

  Camden

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Southwark

  Tower Hamlets

  Westminster

  Barnet

  Brent

  Ealing

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Newham

  Waltham Forest

  No data for 1988–89 have yet been received from Hounslow (which made an RFC in 1987–88) or from Merton (which did not make one).

  Football League
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Football League.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 20 January.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Football League grounds he expects to visit in an official capacity in the near future.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Football League grounds he expects to visit in an official capacity in the near future.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Football League grounds he expects to visit in an official capacity in the near future.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given on 17 February to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) at column 424.

  Recycling
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning his Department's plans for future investment in recycling facilities.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage further investment in recycling facilities.
  691
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  All Government Departments with an interest in recycling, are encouraging local authorities and industry to invest in economic recycling facilities.

  Drinking Water
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the cost of full implementation of the European Economic Community directive on drinking water standards; and when he expects this directive to be fully complied with.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Water authorities are preparing investment programmes for improving water supplies in relation to water quality, pressure and reliability of supply. The full cost and phasing of the required work will be set out in prospectuses when the privatised companies are offered for sale.

  We are committed to achieving compliance with the EC drinking water directive as soon as possible. Good progress has been made and will continue to be made towards this end.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the European Commission directives on drinking water standards.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The EC drinking water directive (80/778/EEC) sets standards for 44 parameters. These are to be incorporated into regulations to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under powers contained in the Water Bill 1988. Publication of the proposed contents of the regulations and draft guidance on maintaining the quality of public water supplies was announced on 10 February. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing (Warrington and Runcorn)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of housing development within the area covered by the Warrington and Runcorn new town development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  One of the Government's objectives for Warrington and Runcorn development corporation is to promote and cater for the growth of home ownership by releasing serviced sites for housing development. The areas in which I would expect further housing development to occur include Westbrook, Bridgwater and Sandymoor. The release of housing sites for development will be continued by the Commission for the New Towns and for some time beyond the dissolution of the development corporation this September.

  Bristol UDC
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new economic activity has resulted from the work of the urban development corporation in Bristol.

  Mr. Trippier
  The setting up of Bristol development corporation was held back by a petition against it. It came into legal existence on 19 January 1989 and became the development control authority for its area on 20 February 1989. The corporation has stimulated considerable interest in its area and the inquiries it is receiving promise well for the future.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the effect on the cost of providing local government services since 1981 by means of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Gummer
  No precise figures are available but I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) on 15 February at column 278.

  Compulsory Competition
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission's findings as detailed in its report entitled "Preparing for Compulsory Competition."

  Mr. Gummer
  The Audit Commission's report "Preparing for Compulsory Competition" offers much sound guidance to local authorities on how to meet the challenges of competition introduced by the Local Government Act 1988 and achieve the savings of 20 per cent. or more that are available. We commend the report to the House and are making arrangements for a copy to be sent to all hon. Members.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to exemplify the figures for a system of local government finance based on capital value rates plus local income tax, in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, as they might apply in Merton.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to examine alternative forms on local government finance based on capital value rates plus local income tax, in the borough of Wyre.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to exemplify the figures for a system of local government finance based on capital value rates plus local income tax, in the proportions of 80:20, respectively, as they might apply in Macclesfield borough and Vale Royal borough.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to examine alternative forms of local government finance based on capital value rates plus local income tax in the London borough of Harrow.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave on 21 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice).

  Boxing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met members of the British Boxing Board of Control and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not attended any formal meetings with the British Boxing Board of Control. However, I frequently meet board members informally and at boxing events.

  Building (Outer London)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the
  Environment if he will consider new measures to assist local planning authorities to curb excessive building in the outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend issued new guidance to local planning authorities on 30 November 1988. Planning policy guidance (PPG) note 12 on local plans advises authorities of the importance of preparing and adopting local plans and that where"the pressure for development and redevelopment is such as to threaten seriously the character of an established residential area which ought to be protected"
  local authorities
  "may include density and other policies in their local plans for the areas concerned, while avoiding undue rigidity. The scale and character of new development inrelation to existing development are material considerations which should be taken into account in deciding planning applications, and the decisions of local planning authorities will be the more secure where the adopted local plan includes policies designed to protect the environmental character of particular localities."

  Where local plans are up-to-date and consistent with national and regional policies, their provisions will carry considerable weight and the Secretary of State and his inspectors will be guided by them in dealing with planning appeals.

  Water Cooling Systems
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to give environmental research officers increased resources to apply stricter monitoring of water cooling systems.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Decisions on the resources to be devoted to the work on environmental health departments are a matter for local environmental health authorities.

  Black Country UDC
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action has been taken in
  addressing problems or urban decay by the urban development corporation in the Black Country.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Black Country development corporation has continued to provide opportunities for new investment and development in its area. In particular, it has given priority to:

  1. The assembly and reclamation of land to provide sites for development;

  2. The procedures necessary as a preliminary to the construction of the Black Country spine road;

  3. Jointly with Sandwell MBC, marketing and securing a developer for the four million square feet retail and leisure proposal on the former Patent Shaft steelworks site in Wednesbury. It has also assisted by grant aid of £2·5 million, including City Grant, 35 businesses who in turn have invested £12·2 million in the area.

  For further information, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Corporation's annual report.

  Local Authorities (Conduct of Business)
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the conduct of local authority business as set out in the White Paper Cm. 433.
  694
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The House has now given a second reading to the Local Government and Housing Bill which will implement most of the proposals in the White Paper that require legislation. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on Thursday 2 February at column 357, which sets out the points on which we have revised our proposals.

  Urban Grants
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many firms who have received urban development grants and urban regeneration grants have (i) ceased trading subsequently, and (ii) required further financial assistance.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 350 projects have received or are receiving urban development grant, urban regeneration grant or city grant. None of the developers involved has ceased trading while the grant-aided project was underway. A total of 190 projects have been completed and many of these have been sold or let. It is not therefore possible to say how many firms ceased trading subsequently. However, I am aware of two cases of business projects which received urban development grant and later ceased trading.

  Urban development grant, urban regeneration grant and city grant are one-off injections of assistance given at the start of a project. The developer then proceeds at his own risk and cannot get second instalments of grant if the project performs below expectations.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made, in addressing problems of urban decay, by the urban development corporation in docklands.

  Mr. Trippier
  Impressive progress. LDDC continues to breathe new life into docklands. More than £4 billion of private investment commitments have been secured since 1981. Over 1,200 new companies have been attracted to the area. There are new employment opportunities, with over 20,000 jobs created or attracted. Some 15,000 homes have been provided, along with increased housing choice and opportunity. A variety of projects have been funded to provide community support, refurbish public housing, improve education and training and assist the local voluntary sector. Over 30 miles of roads have been built, and more are under construction. The momentum of regeneration achieved by LDDC will continue, with the Government's firm support.

  Manchester UDC
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what ways Manchester has benefited from the establishment of an urban development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Central Manchester development corporation has been in existence for just over six months. This earlier period has been marked by an enormous boost in developer and investor interest, and general confidence, in central Manchester.

  Proposed grants by the corporation of about £6½ million have let to major development projects, planned or

  695
  underway, involving a total private sector investment of £34 million and giving a gearing ratio of more than 1:4. These schemes are principally residential and commercial developments which will breathe new life into the Whitworth street and Piccadilly areas, and continue the good work done over recent years at Castlefield.

  All these developments and many other proposals already in the pipeline, will revitalise the urban development area and bring investment and jobs to the city centre, to the benefit of the people of Manchester, and indeed, the north-west as a whole.

  Covent Garden Action Area
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress by Westminster council in implementing the Covent Garden action area plan.

  Mr. Chope
  This is a matter for Westminster which has received a report from its consultants who were asked to undertake a review of changes since the adoption of the Covent Garden action area plan in 1978. I am told that Westminster has published draft interim policies for consultation. The public may take this opportunity to make their views known as the policies may have some weight in development control.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those departures to the Covent Garden action area plan made by Westminster city council which have come to him on appeal since 31 March 1986.

  Mr. Chope
  No departures from the Covent Garden action area plan have been referred to the Secretary of State since 31 March 1986.

  Land Markets
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies his Department has undertaken into the workings of land markets in the United Kingdom and European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department is participating in an international study of urban land markets under the direction of the OECD. The Department's main contribution is a United Kingdom national report that was submitted in 1987 and published by HMSO last September under the title "Urban Land Markets in the United Kingdom". Other EC countries have produced national reports and a final project report with comparative analyses will be available from the OECD later this year.

  Conservation Projects
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to make good the financial loss to conservation projects as a result of the withdrawal of Manpower Services Commission support for such conservation projects.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are monitoring the position closely and will consider whether further action would be appropriate. The Training Agency has set up a working party with the Countryside Commission and representatives of voluntary bodies to consider whether more might be done to ensure that ET is used to the fullest extent possible in the countryside.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received with regard to Government consultation on toxic waste disposal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Three consultation papers on waste disposal law have been issued. Two, issued in September 1986 and November 1988, concerned changes to the duties of producers and carriers of waste and the licensing powers of waste disposal authorities. The third, issued last month, concerned the reform of waste disposal authorities themselves. A wide range of interests responded to the first two papers. Consultation on the third is in progress.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to implement the recommendations of the Audit Commission Report on "Housing the Homeless"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking following the publication of the Audit Commission report on homelessness.

  Mr. Trippier
  The report makes a number of constructive recommendations on ways in which local authorities could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their services to the homeless. We are considering its findings in our current review of the homelessness legislation.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to make any additional moneys available to allow local authorities to implement better practices outlined in the Audit Commission's report on homelessness.

  Mr. Trippier
  Nearly £50 million additional resources have already been made available in 1988–89 to hard-pressed authorities, specifically for schemes to help the homeless. The implications of the recommendations of the Audit Commission's report are being considered as part of the current review of the homelessness legislation.

  Local Authorities (Capital Spending)
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the present methods of controlling local authority capital spending.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Bill provides for a new local authority capital finance system. This would replace the present system of direct controls on capital expenditure by a framework based on control of the use of credit to finance such expenditure.

  Ombudsman's Report (Coventry Council)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make further representations to Coventry city council on the case of Mr. and Mrs. Malcolm Quin and Mrs. Hands, née Quin,
  697
  regarding the city council's refusal to implement the recommendations contained in the ombudsman's report about compensation.

  Mr. Gummer
  Following the practice agreed with the local authority associations, my Department has written to Coventry city council to ask for its reasons for not following the recommendation of the Commissioner for Local Adminstration in a case where he has found injustice caused by their maladministration. I am studying its reply.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by the three counties of Yorkshire how many miles of hedgerow have been destroyed in the last 20 years; whether surveys are carried out by air, ground or questionnaire to farmers and landowners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The sample surveys of landscape change so far completed, which used various methods, have not provided information at the level of individual counties.

  South West Water
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums South West Water received from charges for abstractions in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The income of South West Water in respect of abstraction charges in the last four years is as follows:

  South West Water Authority abstraction charges income

  Financial year

  £ thousand

  1987–88

  242

  1986–87

  230

  1985–86

  249

  1984–85

  247

  These figures exclude internal accounting within the water authority in respect of the water authority's own abstractions for water supply.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from South West Water on its liability to pay abstraction charges to the NRA when using river water to supply water treatment works; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  None.

  Sanitary Towels (Disposal)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the manufacturers of sanitary towels and tampons bear some of the cost currently incurred by the water authorities in the disposal of their products.

  Mr. Howard
  No. It is consumers who dispose of these products, and any costs incurred by the water authorities should be met through charges.

  Peak Park Planning Board
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any plans to review the way in which the Peak Park planning board is operating; and whether he will make a statement;
  698
  (2) what information he has as to how many people have been appointed by Derbyshire county council to serve on the Peak Park planning board; and how many of them live in the board's area;

  (3) how much money has been paid by his Department to the Peak Park planning board over the last six years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I am writing to the local authority associations urging them to draw the attention of the authorities concerned to the importance of taking proper account of local interests when making their appointments.

  Water (EC Directives)
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters under article 169 of the Rome treaty the British Government have received regarding the implementation of the European Economic Community directives relating to water in the last six months.

  Mr. Moynihan
  One.

  Grants
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a breakdown of UDG, URG and city grants approvals in the 57 urban programme areas and elsewhere in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The total number of UDG, URG and city grant approvals made in England to date is 345. The breakdown between authorities is shown in the table.

  Number of grants approved since 1982 by local authority

  Number of grants approved

  UDG

  URG

  City grant

  Authorities currently invited to submit inner area programmes

  Birmingham

  23

  2

  3

  Blackburn

  4

  —

  2

  Bolton

  8

  —

  2

  Bradford

  5

  —

  —

  Brent

  2

  —

  —

  Bristol

  1

  —

  1

  Burnley

  1

  —

  —

  Coventry

  7

  —

  1

  Derby

  —

  —

  1

  Dudley

  10

  2

  1

  Gateshead

  6

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  2

  —

  —

  Hackney

  7

  —

  —

  Haringey

  1

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  3

  —

  —

  Islington

  3

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  15

  1

  —

  Kirklees

  —

  —

  1

  Knowsley

  6

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  2

  —

  —

  Langbaurgh

  3

  —

  —

  Leeds

  16

  —

  —

  Leicester

  6

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  6

  —

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  1

  —

  Manchester

  8

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  5

  —

  —

  Newcastle

  7

  —

  1

  Newham

  3

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  4

  —

  1

  Nottingham

  17

  —

  5

  Oldham

  11

  —

  1

  699

  Number of grants approved

  UDG

  VRG

  City grant

  Preston

  1

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  4

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  2

  —

  —

  Salford

  3

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  8

  —

  —

  Sefton

  2

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  7

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  7

  —

  —

  Southwark

  2

  —

  —

  Stockton on Tees

  2

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  7

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  —

  —

  Walsall

  6

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  5

  —

  —

  Wigan

  5

  —

  —

  Wirral

  ' 5

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  7

  —

  —

  Wrekin

  3

  —

  —

  Other local authorities

  (including those previously invited to submit inner area programmes.)

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  1

  —

  —

  Ellesmere Port & Neston

  1

  —

  —

  Greater London Council

  3

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester MCC

  1

  —

  —

  Gravesham

  1

  —

  —

  Hyndburn

  3

  —

  —

  Merseyside MCC

  5

  —

  —

  Pendle

  1

  —

  —

  Rossendale

  1

  —

  —

  Scunthorpe

  1

  —

  —

  Trafford

  2

  —

  —

  Tyne & Wear MCC

  1

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  9

  —

  —

  West Yorkshire MCC

  1

  —

  —

  TOTALS

  307

  6

  32

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list schemes which have attracted UDG, URG and city grant which have been used for private industry and office developments since 1982; what percentage of approvals these represent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  There have been 161 projects approved under the UDG, URG and city grant schemes where the end use has been industrial or office development. These projects represent 47 per cent. of the total approvals to date, and are listed by authority. A copy of the list has been placed in the Library of the House today.

  Land
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the land holding by hectares which was owned by water authorities and electricity boards in each UDC area at designation; what the total value of this land was; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department does not have this information.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been sold by water authorities and electricity boards in each UDC area since designation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department does not have this information.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all past or present appointees to Urban Development Corporation boards who have business interests in the metropolitan area in which the Urban Development Corporation is located, or in other Urban Development Corporation areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers it desirable to appoint to Urban Development Corporation boards those with relevant experience. This means that members are likely to have connections, whether business or otherwise, in and around the area in which their Urban Development Corporation is located.

  The Department advises Urban Development Corporations how to handle potential conflicts of interest. Chairmen are required to sign undertakings which reflect their particular circumstances. If they are involved with companies that might otherwise operate in the urban development area they will normally be required to confirm that the companies will not so operate during the term of their appointment.

  Other board members must declare to the board their private interests which might give rise to a conflict. If a particular case gives rise to a possible conflict of interest, the member is required to write in advance to the chairman and it is for the other board members to decide what action to take. Unless the interest is trivial, the member would normally withdraw from the discussion and not vote on it.

  If a board member of one Urban Development Corporation has business interests in or near the area of another, no question of conflict of interest arises.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the response to his request that Urban Development Corporation's pass on examples of good practice to each other; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department's guidance to Urban Development Corporations asks them to pass on experience which may be useful to other Urban Development Corporations. They are developing their own informal networks. In addition, my Department organises regular seminars for Urban Development Corporation chief executives which provide a forum for exchanging relevant experience and information.

  Landlords
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many landlords have sought approved status from the Housing Corporation since 15 January.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have asked the Housing Corporation to reply to the hon. Member.

  Home Improvement Grants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount was spent by English local authorities on(a) mandatory home improvement grants and (b) discretionary home improvement grants in the financial years 1978–79 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:
  701

  Local authority capital expenditure on home improvement grants

  England mandatory

  £ million discretionary

  Total

  1978–79

  1..

  1..

  90

  1979–80

  1..

  1..

  120

  1980–81

  1..

  1..

  129

  1981–82

  49

  148

  197

  1982–83

  72

  353

  425

  1983–84

  99

  812

  911

  1984–85

  126

  608

  734

  1985–86

  117

  342

  459

  1986–87

  98

  297

  395

  1987–88

  81

  290

  2371

  1988–89

  97

  286

  3383

  1.. Not available.

  2Provisional.

  3 Estimated by local authorities in April 1988 for HIP2 returns.

  Housing Repair Schemes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list, on an authority by authority basis, the total expenditure on capitalised housing repair schemes in England in the current financial year; and what percentage of all local authority housing repairs expenditure is accounted for by these schemes in(a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) London as a whole, (d) the south-east and (e) England.

  Mr. Trippier
  Authority by authority information from the 1988 HIP2 return will be placed in the House of Commons Library in the next few days.

  Capitalised housing repairs account for the following estimated proportions of all local authority housing repairs expenditure both current and capital in 1988–89.

  Per cent.

  (a) Inner London

  30·6

  (b) Outer London

  31·5

  (c) All London

  30·9

  (d) South East

  27·7

  (e) England

  23·1

  Fly-tipping
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to deal with fly-tipping.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Plans to legislate for the registration of waste carriers were announced in June last year. Further proposals for legislation to make the registered keepers of vehicles used in fly-tipping liable to prosecution in certain circumstances are being considered following public consultation.

  Water Pollution
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the levels of arsenic detected by the South-West water authority in the river Tamar on a regular sampling basis in the vicinity of Gunnislake, Devon, over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Ridley
  The South West water authority has taken frequent samples from the river Tamar at Gunnislake bridge since mid-1984. All 113 samples meeet the "imperative" values for arsenic in the EC directives on the 702
  quality of surface water abstracted for drinking water (75/440/EEC). Indeed, all but one were below the limit of detection.

  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what preparations are being made for the introduction of the scheme, as provided for in the Water Bill, which will enable the new National Rivers Authority to make charges in respect of discharges into rivers.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today issued a consultation paper which sets out the basis for a new charging scheme for consents for discharges into rivers, estuaries and other controlled waters. Our proposals for the scheme have been widely accepted as marking an important extension of the principle that polluters should pay for the costs of their activities.

  In future, costs incurred by the proposed National Rivers Authority in granting discharge consents and in monitoring effluent quality and its impact on receiving waters will be met by the dischargers themselves, rather than by water consumers or taxpayers. The dischargers are for the most part water and sewerage undertakings and industrial dischargers of waste water.

  The scheme will come into effect following the establishment of the proposed National Rivers Authority later in the year under the Water Bill currently being considered in Parliament. Details will be finalised by the Department, in conjunction with the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee, and in the light of the views expressed by interested bodies in response to this consultation paper.

  The Government envisage that a substantial proportion of the NRA's total costs for water quality regulation and pollution control will be recovered through the charging scheme, with charges likely to be set according to the size and type of the discharge.

  Separate provisions already exist to ensure that the cost of cleaning up pollution incidents are recovered from those responsible for them. Similarly, discharges of trade effluents into sewers will continue to be subject to charges by water undertakings under separate provisions.

  A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library.

  Ozone Layer
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations that have been invited to the saving the ozone layer conference on 5 to 7 March 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 20 February to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, column 493.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 1010, on the identification of the hole in the ozone layer by the British Antarctic scientific expedition, he will report on progress in ending the use of chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols.

  Mr. Ridley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be hosting an international conference on 5–7 March in London in order to persuade the world to phase out the use of CFCs for all purposes as soon as practicable, taking account of the availability of safe substitutes.

  Lead-free Fuel
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is given by his Department to garages to ensure that the correct advice is given to motorists concerning the use of lead-free fuel in different types and makes of vehicles.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This Department has produced, and is currently updating, the "E" list of cars that can use unleaded petrol without adjustment. This is freely available in booklet and wall chart form.

  The Department of Transport also provides advisory information on the use of unleaded petrol in the "New Car Fuel Consumption" guide.

  We have asked SMMT and MAA to take steps to ensure that their members readily provide necessary information.

  In addition, we also welcome information provided by motoring organisations, oil companies and motor manufacturers.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to give additional assistance to owners and tenants in defective precast reinforced concrete housing.

  Mr. Trippier
  Eligible owners of designated defective properties are entitled to assistance from their local authority under the housing defects legislation. Owners or 704
  tenants could also benefit from our proposed reform of the home improvement grant system, as provided in the Local Government and Housing Bill.

  Radon
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to allow local authorities to give home improvement grants to owners of houses for the installation of remedial measures where radon levels are high.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has today written to 21 local housing authorities in Cornwall, Devon, Derbyshire and Somerset advising them in what circumstances the Secretary of State is prepared to contribute towards the expense incurred by them in making an improvement grant for radon remedial measures. I am sending a copy of the letter to my hon. Friend.

  Retired People
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider creating a standing committee of representatives of the pensioners' movement together with the Minister and senior civil servants dealing with the areas mainly affecting the retired in housing and environmental matters.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 17 February 1989, Official Report, column 404.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie
The Right Honourable Peter Lovat Fraser, QC, having been created Baron Fraser of Carmyllie, of Carmyllie in the district of Angus, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Carnegy of Lour and the Lord Cameron of Lochbroom.

Ethiopia: Human Rights
2.47 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken in regard to infringement of human rights in Ethiopia.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we take every opportunity to raise our concerns about human rights with the Ethiopian authorities. We intend to refer to the issue at the current meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Does it mean that he now accepts the evidence that the most appalling atrocities have been perpetrated by the Ethiopian Government? Does he also accept that because we and our allies in Europe give a large amount of aid to Ethiopia we are in a position to bring weight to bear upon that country? Finally, has any approach been made to Russia in respect of this issue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we have considerable concerns about the level of the observance of human rights in Ethiopia. For that reason we intend to raise the matter at the forthcoming meeting in Geneva.
As regards linking the granting of aid to the question of human rights, the noble Lord will understand that we do not believe that is necessarily a good idea. The aid that we give to Ethiopia is quite small but is specifically designed to help those in greatest need, particularly those short of food or medical supplies. I do not believe that such people would benefit if we adopted the policy suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we warmly welcome the information which the noble Lord has given about the intention of the Government at the forthcoming meeting in Geneva and hope that some good will come of it. Can he say whether other representations have been made—for example, to the President of Ethiopia—on a bilateral or Community level? I refer not only to the alleged abuse of human
648
rights but also to the fact that prisoners of conscience are held in Ethiopia—some of them since 1974. Are the Government proposing to take any other action about the dreadful atrocities in Ethiopia?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, it is the case that some people, including some members of the former royal family, have been kept in prison in Ethiopia since as long ago as 1974. We take every opportunity to represent our concerns on that matter to the Ethiopian authorities, including representations through our ambassador in Addis Ababa. We very much hope that the authorities will see their way clear to releasing those people at the earliest possible moment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether the Government are quite satisfied that the aid which we send to Ethiopia goes to the right sources?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. We go to great lengths to see that the aid which we give ends up in the hands of the right people. In fact it is aid issued not direct to the Ethiopian Government but more relevantly to the agencies on the ground in Ethiopia who we believe are best placed to see that the aid arrives at the right place.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, despite what my noble friend said, is it not a possibility that the aid which we and our EC partners give is used by the Ethiopian Government to live on, so to speak, and enables them to use their own resources to buy armaments with which to harry the people in the North?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I said, generally speaking our aid is in the form of food and similar humanitarian supplies. I suspect that if aid donors did not provide those things it would not be the case that the Ethiopian Government would provide that aid as an alternative. I am not sure that they see their priorities in the same way as we do. Therefore, if we were to stop providing aid for the purposes which we do, I am not clear that the Ethiopian Government would step in our place.
Lord McNair: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer my noble friend's supplementary question as to whether there has been any communication with the Soviet Union on this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not aware of any specific communication with the Soviet Union on this matter but I suspect that it sees the situation in very much the same light as we do.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say a little about the powers of the Commission on Human Rights to which this matter has been referred? Apart from investigation, does it have any other authority or power?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Genevan human rights body to which I referred, and where we intend to raise this matter at its forthcoming session, is of the nature, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware, of a standing body which meets on regular occasions more or less every year. It is a sub-organ of the United Nations and therefore has the authority of the United Nations. 1 believe I am right in saying that it reports back to the General Assembly on a regular basis.

The Arts: Funding
2.53 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make the sum which they were prepared to pay for the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection available for the living arts and existing galleries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the proposal for the Thyssen-Bornemisza collection was made in response to a challenging and unique opportunity. If public funds had been spent on the Thyssen collection, it would not have affected the agreed three-year arts budget; now that money will not be spent, that does not affect the budget either.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply so far as it goes, which is not very far. Does he not think it extraordinary that the Government were prepared to spend over £1 million to set up a gallery for the Thyssen collection and yet they are now not prepared to make that money, which has not been used for that purpose, available to assist the opera and obviate the need to rent Covent Garden, or to enable our galleries and museums to exhibit some of the innumerable works of art which at present they are forced to keep in their cellars and storehouses? Does he not agree that it is a scandal that that sort of offer should be made for Thyssen and yet so little is done, in what I believe is Museum Year, to enable our own native collections to be shown?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that the Government's commitment to the arts is proved by the fact that we have moved to a three-year funding arrangement the result of which will be that by 1991–92 arts spending will be 31 per cent. higher than it was in 1987–88. The Government are committed to the arts and I do not believe that better proof than those figures can be produced.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as the Government were prepared to make over £100 million available in order to acquire the Thyssen collection, will they consider giving an equivalent sum to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, where it will be put to very good use?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the National Heritage Memorial Fund was created in 1980 to protect our heritage. The total public spending to date has been
650
just over £100 million at £105 million. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be aware of the important changes which we have made in the acceptance in lieu of tax arrangements announced in July 1985, which allow access to the contingency reserve for acceptances up to an average of £10 million per annum in addition to the annual £2 million vote provision.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the bidding for this somewhat hypothetical sum. Is my noble friend aware of the project of the Royal Fine Art Commission called "Learning to See", which is intended to raise standards of visual appreciation and education in our schools, which is the only way to ensure good contemporary architecture? Since he is a generous and benevolent person himself with his own money, will he pass on those qualities to his governmental colleagues and see whether we can have some public money for an important project which is, at the moment, totally privately financed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is a great need at every level in society to encourage aesthetic awareness and I welcome the initiatives taken by my noble friend as the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission and through the Art and Architecture Education Trust. I shall bring this important matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, what is certainly clear from the Thyssen affair is that if the will is there, government money can be found for acquisitions. However, to protect the taxpayers' money, will the Government as a matter of urgency ask the Museums and Galleries Commission to look into the current extravagant valuations which lead to the loss of major masterpieces, such as the impending export of the late Lord Clarke's seascape "Folkestone" by Turner and then make recommendations?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the review committee's task is to advise on the heritage pre-eminence, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and its object is to recommend a deferral at a fair market price. In most cases that is the recent sale price. In the case of the Turner to which the noble Baroness referred, the expert adviser and the committee were satisfied that £20 million was an achievable price were the picture to be offered for sale now.
Lord Annan: My Lords, instead of trying to hijack this money for recurrent purposes, which of course goes against all Treasury practice, would it not be wiser to earmark it in our minds for such time as, in the fullness of time, certain famous collections come on to the market, as they are bound to do—collections which it is absolutely imperative that our national galleries should obtain?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I am sure that he would not expect me to speculate, but I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, will the Minister assure us that none of these funds will be devoted to buying a mediaeval map of no artistic value whatever and whose information could equally and much more cheaply be confined to an appropriate photograph?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the National Heritage Memorial Fund has put proposals to the Dean and Chapter of Hereford Cathedral. The Dean is grateful for those proposals and is considering them before making any public response.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is it not a good Conservative principle properly to look after the property one has before one acquires any more? If there is any money going, I believe that it should go to conserving, displaying and making accessible in new ways the treasures that we already have.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am of course interested in my noble friend's remarks. I take note of them.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while existing museums and galleries are grateful for the three-year funding proposal, so far as it goes, it is strictly limited? Is he further aware that the purchase grant for at least some of these museums has been frozen at a cash figure at a time when market prices of objects we might wish to acquire are rising not by the year nor by the month but by the week? We have inherited responsibility for buildings, hitherto looked after by the Property Services Agency, with large arrears of maintenance and inadequate funds to make good those depredations. If there is any jam going, will the Government consider giving it today rather than tomorrow?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, perhaps I may point out that since 1979 the Government's grant to support the Victoria and Albert Museum has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms. I believe that the increased expenditures which have taken place and which are proposed are part of the commitment we show towards the arts and the culture of this nation.

Health Authorities: Senior Appointments
3.1 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in the future chairmen and senior executives of health authorities in the National Health Service will be drawn only from the supporters of a particular political party.
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords. As now, all health authority appointments which fall to the Secretary of State will be made on the basis of the individual's personal qualities and ability to do the job. The general manager of each health authority will be appointed by the non-executive members, and the other executive members by the non-executive
652
members acting with the general manager. Their political allegiance, if any, should be irrelevant.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that if that becomes a fact many of us will be encouraged? Is he also aware that over the past nine to 10 years in many parts of the country, particularly in Wales, there has been growing disquiet at the proportion of members of the Conservative Party in the health authorities, which has increased year by year? That has resulted in a loss of balance and undoubtedly a loss of talent to the NHS.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, what I said in my original Answer. The importance of these demanding and exacting positions is that the right person for the job should be appointed, regardless—I repeat, regardless—of political affiliation.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in many parts of South Wales, at any rate, it has been impossible to get a job unless one belonged to the right party—and the right party is not the Conservative Party?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I disagree with that comment.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a serious issue behind the Question put by my noble friend? Is it not disturbing that there have been many Ministerial appointments from the Conservative Party to the National Health Service in recent times? Does the noble Earl understand the suspicion that some people have that it could be designed to assist in pushing through the extremely controversial proposals for reorganisation which we are debating later today?
The Earl of ArranMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not be surprised to hear that I cannot agree with that question. I repeat, we are looking for people with the appropriate background, experience and personal qualities needed to lead their authority in carrying out its responsibilities. They might or might not be of the Conservative Party. It is their ability, and only their ability, which is the factor in deciding who to appoint to such positions.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy to remove from health authorities the people appointed from the local authority in the area? Bearing in mind that such people are the only members of the health authorities who have to face the electorate, does not the Minister consider that such a policy is a terribly retrograde step? Will he consider the measure and perhaps withdraw it?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as explained in the White Paper, and as I explained to the House on 6th February, health authorities presently are neither truly representative nor management bodies. The removal of directly appointed local authority

653
members is one of the Government's measures aimed at creating smaller, more businesslike authorities which bring together executive and non-executive members to provide a single focus for effective decision-making.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the same principle of political and ideological impartiality applies to appointments outside the National Health Service or whether, for example, on those principles the vice-chairman of the IBA was recently appointed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will realise that that is another Question for another day.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that my personal experience indicates that there is a bias towards Conservatively-minded appointees? When I resigned as a regional chairman I was asked to recommend a successor. The Secretary of State asked me what political party my proposed successor belonged to and how many Members of Parliament in the region, South-West Thames, he knew personally. Most of them were Conservatives.
The Earl of Arran: I am naturally interested to learn of the experiences of the noble Baroness, but I very much hope that that situation does not parallel itself across the country. I cannot comment further.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I did not quite hear my noble friend's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Did he say he agreed or that he disagreed? I think that most people who recognise the situation over the past few years agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness. Which answer did my noble friend give?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness was referring to the Opposition party and therefore I agree.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, referring to the noble Earl's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and his first Answer to my Question, is he aware that if that theory was put into practice there would not be grave disquiet throughout the country about the continued excessive appointment of members of the Conservative Party to these bodies? This disquiet is so grave that I ask the noble Earl to at least convey those feelings to the Secretary of State for examination. The theory outlined by the Minister is supported by all, but the theory has nothing whatever to do with what is going on in practice and which is favouring the Conservative Party.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, if it is a fact that Conservative Party members are finding themselves appointed to some of these positions it is not because they are Conservatives but because they are the right persons for the job.

Water: Policy on EC Standard Regulations
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy about bringing drinking water up to the quality demanded by EC water standard regulations before the water industry is privatised.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, most supplies already comply with the provisions of the EC Drinking Water Directive; others will be brought into compliance before privatisation. Programmes will be agreed before privatisation for bringing the remaining supplies into compliance and the privatised water companies will be under a statutory obligation to fulfill those programmes by definite dates.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does that Answer from the Minister indicate that the cost of bringing water supplies up to EC standards will fall on consumers? Is that the reason why private water companies are now greatly increasing their prices? Has the Minister read the comments made two weeks ago by Mr. Michael Swallow, the director of the Water Companies Association? In explanation of the increase in charges before privatisation he had this to say:
"At the moment we operate under profit control, which puts the customer first. This very simple form of regulation goes back to the middle of the last century and it has been very effective"—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby:
"The Government's proposals will put the companies under price control, which puts the shareholders first".
Is that a fair comment on the policy of the Government in bringing in privatisation of the water supplies of this country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it would not be appropriate to answer one part of the question because the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has a Question down for tomorrow which concerns pricing and the statutory water authorities. That part of the question is not concerned with today's Question on the Order Paper and it would therefore be right if I answered that point tomorrow. As regards the standards that the EC and the consumer require—at a future date there may be changes in those standards—at some point the consumer is going to pay for the quality he requires. To achieve quality attracts costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the response that the Minister gave to my noble friend indicate that the Government are in full agreement with the European Commissioner for the Environment, Signor Carlo Ripa de Meana, as regards the ability or otherwise of this Government to derogate from European drinking water standards? Is the Minister confident that the Government's existing policy is in accordance with EC directives?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have been discussing several aspects of the Water Bill with the Commission, and that will come as no surprise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We have managed to allay its concerns as regards the implementation of the EC environmental directives, but with one exception. That concerns the legal provision of Clause 19(5)(b), protecting water companies from enforcement or prosecution action for breaching the EC drinking water directive so long as they have agreed an improvement programme with the department. We are discussing this aspect of the Bill with the Commission.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the department and the Department of Health are fully staffed to inspect and to provide expert advice on these problems of contamination of drinking water? Has the Minister noted that in north Cornwall there has been a recent scandal in which the Department of Health is accused of sitting on a problem of contaminated water with bad effects on local health? This situation has continued for about six months. The excuse given was that this was in some way due to advice from government departments and that there were to be no long-term effects from the contamination. Are we fully staffed with experts and inspectors to make sure that this kind of event does not happen again?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my department will establish a team of inspectors to ensure that water undertakers are complying with the standards.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that these islands of ours have produced statistically the healthiest population that this world has ever seen? It is a population that has lived on the abundant water supply that flows under the fields of our islands and which is discovered and made useful by water diviners, of whom I happen to be one. Is the Minister going to allow Europe to jump in and interfere with this wonderful and traditional supply to our islands?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am certain that the proposed Water Bill does not interfere with the activities of water diviners, but I am not sure whether the EC has any plans. I shall write to the noble Lord to confirm or deny that position.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I do not understand why the Minister could not answer the second part of my supplementary question. In his first Answer he indicated that this process will cost a great deal of money. Is it not the case that the British Government have been trying to avoid the EC regulations that should have been put into effect as regards water two years ago? Is it not now the case that either the Government introduce their present Bill which will then be declared illegal by the EC or the cost to the consumer of water is going to be very greatly increased as a result of privatisation?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is aware that for five years the British Government proceeded on a basis without
656
correction from the EC. The EC then disagreed with the method of implementation that we had continued for five years. That is the reason we are having discussions in order to proceed to the desired standards that it wishes and that we can comply with. We have acted in good faith throughout. We shall achieve a satisfactory outcome, which is a quality product going to a satisfied consumer.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it not the case that whether the consumer pays through taxes or through consumption, he will pay in the end? I do not understand what worries the noble Lord opposite.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.15 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report of the Select Committee be agreed to.
Your Lordships will recall that the Group on the Working of the House recommended an annual review of procedural difficulties that had arisen during the previous Session. This was endorsed by the Procedure Committee and the House. The present report is mainly concerned with such a review, in particular on two matters: Third Reading amendments and Ministerial Statements.
On Third Reading amendments the committee came to the conclusion that current restrictions on Third Reading are adequate if strictly interpreted. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that current guidance in the Companion is as follows:
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfill undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill.
It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage of a Bill should be reopened on Third Reading".
On Ministerial Statements the committee noted with satisfaction that the number of such Statements had declined and that whenever possible they were now being made at a natural break in business. On the other hand, the 20 minutes allotted for brief comments and questions were exceeded in most cases. The committee recommends the endorsement of the 20-minute rule for Commons-originated Statements and for Lords Statements, but wishes to emphasise most strongly once again that such Statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate; all comments and questions from both Front and Back Benches should be succinct. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report of the Select Committee be agreed to—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The report read as follows:
ORDERED TO REPORT:—
1. The Committee have considered whether there were any procedural difficulties last session which warrant report to the House as suggested by the Group on the Working of the House and endorsed in the 1st Report of the Procedure Committee last session, and concluded that the attention of the House should be called to two matters, Third Reading Amendments and Ministerial Statements.
AMENDMENTS ON THIRD READING
2. The Committee have therefore again considered the question of Third Reading Amendments, especially the adequacy of the procedural guidance governing the tabling of Third Reading Amendments, and whether it should he better enforced.
3. In Session 1987-88, a total of 576 Amendments were tabled to five bills, of which 397 were agreed to, including 18 not moved by the Government. Third Reading proceedings, including Amendments and debates on the final stage, took just over 7 per cent. of the total time taken by the House on public legislation, compared with 49 per cent. spent on the Committee stage, and 26 per cent. on Report. Of the total time of the House, Third Reading proceedings took only 4·1 per cent.
4. The Companion (pages 99-100) states:—

"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfill undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill.

It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading."

5. Existing procedure therefore is that, while the tabling of repetitious Amendments is not encouraged, only an amendment which reopens an issue previously decided by vote or by being negatived is strictly contrary to the practice of the House.
6. The Committee conclude that it would be neither practical nor desirable to widen the ambit of the rules to exclude totally the tabling of Amendments already debated at previous stages and that some flexibility must remain. They believe that the enforcement of the rule against the tabling of Amendments at Third Reading on which decisions have been taken at a previous stage, works reasonably satisfactorily.
7. The Committee have also considered whether, if enforcement of the existing rules cannot be improved, Third Reading Amendments should be abolished, with the possible exception of Government Amendments to carry out Government undertakings. They note the level of activity at Third Reading last session and the large number of Amendments agreed to, of which some Amendments moved from the Opposition front benches or the back benches were drafted by the Government. Furthermore, many Government Amendments were not directly giving effect to earlier undertakings. The Group on the Working of the House [HL 1987–88 9] (para. 38) recommended recently against any restriction that would introduce the concept of Government priority, which hitherto has been alien to the procedure of the House. The Committee conclude likewise that it would be inappropriate to curtail the rights of private members, and recommend that the House should agree that "current restrictions on Third Reading are adequate if strictly intpreted".
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
8. The Committee have also considered Ministerial Statements. The Group on the Working of the House last year drew attention to the deep dissatisfaction felt by a majority of the House over repeated Commons Statements in the Lords. The House agreed on 22nd February 1988 that discussion of a repeated Commons Statement should be limited to 20 minutes; and that Commons Statements should only be repeated when, in the opinion of the Leader of the House, after consultation through the usual channels, they were on a matter of national importance. In accordance with Standing Order 33, such Statements "should not be made the occasion for immediate debate".
9. The decision of the House last year to reduce the incidence of repeated Commons Statements has, since 22 February, been scrupulously respected by the usual channels, and in the remainder of the session only 16 were repeated. On 12 of them, discussion exceeded 20 minutes. The percentage of the time of the House spent on Statements was reduced from 3·9 per cent. in 1986 to 2·1 per cent. last session.
10. The Committee recommend the endorsement of the 20 minute rule on discussion of repeated Commons Statements, and re-emphasise the importance of there being no debate. All contributions on discussion of a Statement, whether from the Government or Opposition front benches or from the back benches, should be succinct.
Lords Statements
11. The 20 minute rule does not, at present, apply to discussion on Lords Statements where the originating Minister sits in the Lords. Last session after 22 February 1988 there were 8 Lords Statements,
658
of which 3 occasioned discussion which exceeded 20 minutes. A statement by a responsible departmental Minister in the Lords is made at the beginning of business, whereas the repetition of a Commons Statement, necessarily after 3·20 pm, inevitably interrupts the business of the House later in the day.
12. The Committee conclude that as there is now a suggested time limit in the case of repeated Commons Statements, and since no Statement of either category should be made the occasion for debate, it would be inconsistent to refrain from adopting a time limit for discussion of Lords Statements. They therefore recommend that a time limit of 20 minutes should be applied also to discussion of a Lords Statement.
PRE-EMPTION AND MARSHALLING OF AMENDMENTS
13. The Committee have considered a suggestion by Lord Airedale that the rules of marshalling amendments given in the Companion, pages 89–90, should be altered so as to prevent amendments being pre-empted. They recommend no change.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

"Working for Patients"
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to call attention to the Government White Paper Working for Patients (Cmnd. 555); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if you think of the beginning you should perhaps think of John Pater's book The Making of the NHS, particularly as he deals in great detail with the aspects of the health service that are concerned with this debate. He devoted 40 years of work in the Department of Health. No one will ever know just how great his contributions were. His book was published by the King's Fund. The chairman at the time is here and he will be speaking; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Hayter.
Chapter 7 of Mr. Pater's book is entitled "The End of the Beginning". Forty years later we are dealing with the continuation of the same. There is no sign whatever that any end is in sight. What is the background of importance and relevance to today? There were two beginnings. One was the Lloyd George Act of 1911 which launched general practitioners on the independent contractor path. The second was the experience during the war of the Emergency Medical Service. This completely demolished the traditional barriers between the voluntary hospitals and the local authority ones. It was obvious that this was a success and of benefit to both. It did not go unnoticed by Pater and his colleagues in the Department of Health.
In 1948, with the introduction of the health service, the centrepiece was the hospitals. General practitioner services and local authority medical services were unchanged to begin with. In the mid-1960s there were events of importance to this debate. One was the general practitioners' charter, which was most successful in recruiting doctors to family practice and firmly establishing this as a gateway to the health service. Another was the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, into the social services.
The Department of Health and Social Security was founded in 1968 and lasted for 20 years. One thing that happened subsequently in relation to community medicine and preventive medicine was the disappearance of the medical officer of health in 1973. Many have lamented his passing. But at about that time also the Health and Safety at Work Act was passed, setting up the Health and Safety

659
Commission, one of the most successful ventures in public health. A little later the policy was adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, when he was Secretary of State, to embark on the return of the mentally sick and handicapped to the community. Sadly, little preparation seems to have been made to receive them.
The increasing number of old people has already added to the community's burden as well as to the burden of the NHS. Much of the problem concerns accommodation and caring rather than the medical services. One acute problem is at the interface of local government. The other, and the main one, is escalating costs and doctors' freedom to prescribe what they wish. During the 1980s public health and preventive medicine have become increasingly important, particularly in the field of AIDS, hepatitis B, the inoculation of children and, need one mention, food contamination. An important point is that demand for preventive medicine has enormously increased. This includes screening for cancer in women. Incidentally, the Abortion Act 1967 has substantially added to the burden on the National Health Service hospitals for operating theatre time. Only in the past few days the Audit Commission report entitled The Prevention of Heart Disease revealed a woeful record.
I mentioned some of the background briefly because many of these points are not considered in Working for Patients. The basic thinking, io me at least, seems very similar to that of 1948 and the arguments used then, arguments concerned with the immediate diagnosis and treatment measures by general practitioners and hospitals. And these, because of the nature of the report, are the focus of the debate. It is important to get this right and to remember that the acute services in general practice and in hospitals which we shall be discussing, and the management of those services are only part of the whole picture.
In Working for Patients dentistry is not mentioned, though dentistry is facing a crisis at this time. Even more important, medical research is barely mentioned; nor is research and development in this enormous business in spite of the advice tendered by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. We had hoped for an answer to these proposals during the debate. I shall say a word about central management later, but I cannot refrain from mentioning the report of the committee which I chaired in 1972 on medical managers.
The Conservative Government of the day did nothing about managers and introduced the idea of consensus management, one of the great time-wasters. Some years ago, as the House will know, the Government changed their mind and went for management executives. Working for Patients greatly strengthens the role and authority of managers, but because of the proposals about audit, which I now believe are widely accepted within the medical profession, the whole question of the status of medical managers must be urgently addressed. Incidentally, will the Government give an assurance tonight that audit will be adequately funded? The Lothian experiment in Scotland showed that up to 10
660
per cent. of consultant time may be required to do it properly.
I have no direct knowledge of the function of family practitioner committees but I am interested to see once again that their position and connections have changed. A few years ago the Government decided to make family practitioner committees directly responsible to the Secretary of State. Now they are again to have connections with the district health authorities, with the future possibility of being united with those authorities. They will have direct connections with the regional health authorities. Suggestions are made that their membership should be altered. There is no doubt that this area needs examination and discussion with the people concerned.
One must consider the size of general practices. Very many people prefer small practices of two to four doctors because they are accustomed to a highly personal service. If change is to take place the matter will not be resolved by the doctor making contracts with hospitals at the right price. It will be resolved by the maximum number of investigations being carried out in the large practices and the proper business arrangements being made to ensure that they are less costly than hospital investigations.
During the proceedings on the Health and Medicines Bill we learnt a great deal about the cost of procedures carried out inside and outside hospitals. We learnt that a routine eye test in a hospital costs twice as much as the procedure carried out in an optician's premises by a medically qualified doctor. The White Paper on primary care and public health made considerable reference to the increased use of the professions allied to medicine. In particular, it mentioned the value of pharmacists in giving a whole range of practical advice. In the past six months I have been thinking a great deal about how one can use the professions outside the hospitals. They are highly qualified professional people who seem at times not to be fully used, and to do so may well be cheaper. If one thinks in terms of Working for Patients and about the proposals for the development of large practices, one wonders whether a much more radical look should be taken at practices.
In 1920 no less, the Interim Report of the Consultative Council on Medical and Allied Services suggested that the future of the embryo health service involved the development of what were called "secondary care centres", where a whole range of facilities intimately concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of patients and specialist support would be available to general practitioners. Could this be the new self-governing community unit?
The opportunity exists at the present time to get family practice on an evolutionary path. Therefore one wonders whether some of the first 50 or so of the large practices which the Government anticipate will be having their own budgets should be the subject of an important series of experiments which could consider not only the patients, though their welfare is of prime importance, but also something which should appeal to this Government; namely what equipment and facilities, including some of the new radiological equipment and specialised staff, should

661
be made available in a practice of 10,000, 12,000 or 20,000 patients.
Such is the nature of technology and the development of new instruments that it may be possible in a decade to have a diagnosis of cancer confirmed or refuted within a matter of hours, and not the days or weeks which sometimes elapse at the present time. The patient will really respond to such an improved service as will the allied professions. These proposals are of fundamental importance. The Royal College of General Practitioners in its studies over the past several years has laid the ground work for this kind of development.
No one is suggesting that there should be an interference with the clinical responsibility or decisions of doctors, but a whole range of new procedures do not need to be carried out by doctors in the first instance. The doctor must have the results, he must see the patient, he must consider the patient's illness and the kind of people he and his family are, and then decide on treatment. Those responsibilities cannot be delegated. But on the other hand many things, including health education, though they may be done by doctors when it is relevant, do not need to be done by doctors all the time when able people with specialist training could do them effectively. This is true also of specialised investigations. In fact, a similar position exists in hospitals where a range of procedures can and should be carried out by nurses. For example, a doctor should not be woken at night, something of which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will approve, to adjust the intravenous drip. When I was a house physician the best person to carry out those practical procedures was the ward sister.
I turn now to the proposals about hospitals. It is proposed that the NHS Hospital Trusts should be given a range of powers and freedoms which are not and will not be available to health authorities generally. Does that include the teaching centres? At paragraph 3.10 it says:
"Greater freedom will stimulate greater enterprise and commitment, which will in turn improve services for patients".
Is that true? Has it been shown to be so? Further, what authority, if any, has the district health authority in the matter?
One aspect which must be studied is what has been called the "Guy's Hospital proposals". Here one should be cautious. The London teaching hospitals have been the subject of 10 years of RAWP (the resource allocation working party) reductions in London, with much of the money saved being spent on the development of new medical centres in Nottingham, Leicester and Southampton. It is most important to consider whether a large district hospital in the periphery of a manufacturing city is likely to be run for the benefit of the patient in the same way as Guy's Hospital in London.
One brief paragraph in the White Paper, paragraph 4·30, refers to teaching and research and makes reassuring noises about SIFT, which is service increment for teaching. It tells us that an interdepartmental committee is looking at the now rather stony, grey area between health and education following the formation of the Universities Funding
662
Council. However, the Government say that they are determined to ensure,
"that other costs associated with the training and research are also met",
without putting one hospital at an unfair advantage by comparison with another. But, what does that mean? Are there to be any specialist facilities in the main teaching hospitals? Millions of pounds have been spent over the past 25 years creating teaching centres where the wards and the laboratories of the university and the hospital are intimately connected. Associated with that successful development has been the knock-for-knock principle, which is more important than SIFT. It is an agreement between two government departments not to itemise costs and that has been successfully applied to the grey areas. In fact, I believe that that agreement made it possible. However, is that all to be radically changed? If so, it could threaten successful arrangements which have been the envy of other countries.
If you enter the main teaching hospital at Stanford University in the United States, the first thing you see above the door is an enormous structure. It is the computer which divides the cost between the local authority and the university. Is that what is proposed; namely, to divide the costs between two government departments? Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. A patient is admitted to hospital and is seen by a consultant who is a university employee. The registrar is employed at the hospital but specialised investigations are done by one university research team using equipment that neither they, nor the health service, have paid for, but which was provided by the Cancer Research Fund. I ask, who pays? There is no mention in the document that the main centres for clinical research are in the teaching hospitals and medical schools. Indeed, paragraph 4·11 of working paper 2 states:
"Contract funding is likely to create pressure for"
research funds and clinical support responsibilities
"to be separately identified and funded".
I wonder what the cost of that will be if this is the true situation. We look forward to hearing the Government's reply in that regard.
The working papers raise the issue of research which was largely missing from the White Paper. The new responsibilities for National Health Service managers: the move towards self-governing hospitals; medical audit; and budgeting at all levels, all add to the existing need of the National Health Service for research and development in support of patient care and public health. It is therefore essential that a research component is built into NHS management. NHS managers will of course cooperate with the MRC, the Department of Health, the medical charities and other organisations; but they should not be dependent on any of them. The National Health Service management must be directly involved in assisting, promoting and implementing research. That of course is what the Select Committee recommended and it is something about which other noble Lords will be talking a great deal.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has issued working papers setting out the proposals for

663
discussion with interested parties. That is urgently needed before any firm views can be expressed about them. The objectives of the Government in producing their White Paper are admirable in the sense that they have the courage to recognise the necessity for getting the health service on to an evolutionary path. Moreover, they also recognise that the escalating costs must be contained so far as possible. However, the time-scale of such a development may be a good many years and unless we can get broad agreement between the principal parties involved in government, hurried changes by one party or another will damage the health service and the only sufferers will be the people of this country. The problem is a real one and the time-scale proposed by the Government in the White Paper could endanger the whole development.
I hope that the debate will be a lively one and that the Government will be receptive to suggestions and give immediate explanations to some of the more obvious anomalies to which their attention will be drawn. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.36 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for initiating the debate today and for the extremely interesting speech which he has just made. I believe that because it is very much in the interests of the National Health Service this debate has attracted many of your Lordships with considerable experience of medicine and of the health service.
First, I would emphasise to your Lordships that the proposals in the White Paper are founded on the Government's full commitment to the fundamental principles of the National Health Service. The service is, and will continue to be, open to all regardless of income. It will continue to be financed mainly out of general taxation. These principles have guided the health service for the past 40 years and they will continue to guide it into the next century.
Why then is there the need for a new White Paper? While the principles remain unchanged, the service itself has in many ways developed almost out of all recognition. For example, transplants and coronary by-pass surgery, not to mention such things as hip replacements, have become increasingly frequent and successful. Indeed, we have seen perinatal mortality almost halved over the last decade, so that many children are alive today who simply would not have survived a decade ago. That is a great achievement for the National Health Service and for those who work in it.
The growth of the service has accelerated sharply over the last decade. Total expenditure in the next financial year will increase from the £8 billion that it was 10 years ago to £26 billion—an increase of over 40 per cent. in real terms. We now have over 6,000 more hospital medical staff, 70,000 more nursing and midwifery staff and 1·5 million more hospital inpatients being treated annually than there were 10 years ago.
But with such a rapid rate of growth surely we need to build on the achievements of the service. So the
664
White Paper's proposals have a simple, underlying objective; that is, to make the National Health Service even more responsive to the needs of patients.
Some of the initiatives we are taking are focused directly on the quality of the service offered to patients. We are looking to hospitals to improve the personal service they give: fuller information; more reliable appointment systems; faster notification of test results and, perhaps of the greatest importance to families, simply making patients feel more at home.
In that context there are the White Paper's proposals for the development of medical audit in both hospital and primary care services. That may have rather a "dry" sound but, by making doctors better informed about how the results of their work compare with those of other doctors, medical audit will help to ensure that the highest possible quality of medical care is provided for patients.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, asked me a direct question, which was: will medical audit be adequately funded? The White Paper recognises that medical audit will need a significant investment of time by doctors themselves, and adequate support, to ensure that the necessary information is available. There can be little doubt that that investment will prove its worth. Pioneering work by doctors themselves—the noble Lord mentioned the Lothian region of Scotland—is showing the way. The Government therefore aim to work closely with the medical profession in building in the important foundations that doctors have already laid.
In addressing the quality of the services provided by the NHS, the main thrust of the White Paper is to try to modernise and revitalise the organisation which is charged with delivering those services. We aim to give as much responsibility as we possibly can to those who are closest to the patient. We aim also to ensure that the available funds are channeled to where patients wish to be treated.
Under the present funding arrangements, for example, successful hospitals can find themselves caught in the so-called "efficiency trap". They become more efficient and can treat more patients; general practioners naturally want to refer patients to them; but the cost of expanding their service would break their budget because under the present system the money does not come with the patient.
So the White Paper tackles that problem by introducing far greater flexibility into the funding system. Our proposals are that in future district health authorities should place contracts for services with individual hospitals. That may mean their own hospitals, those of another health authority, a new self-governing hospital or a private hospital. Districts will decide in consultation with their general practitioners which hospitals best meet their requirements for different services. Hospitals will then be funded much more directly and quickly for the volume and quality of the services that they provide. They will also have a stronger incentive to improve the quality of care even further in order to win, and retain, a district's contracts.
I emphasise that each district will be responsible for ensuring that the health care needs of everyone living within its boundaries are properly provided

665
for. The Government's proposals will clarify that responsibility by ensuring that district health authorities are funded for the population that they serve. Patients will need local access to many of the services which a district will purchase with the funds available to it. Those services—"core" services, to use the White Paper terminology—will be funded in a way which guarantees that local access.
The Government recognise that those funding arrangements are new, and that their implementation will involve careful and detailed work with all concerned. But we must not lose sight of the benefits of change in that case. Enabling money to move with patients will be a great incentive to both quality and efficiency.
The introduction of general practitioner practice budgets will act as a further spur in the same direction, giving patients through their general practitioners a far stronger voice than at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, went further and mentioned in some detail the possibility of general practitioner practices within the scheme hiring their own consultants, or at least that is how I understood it. I must confess that we have not considered such a radical step, but practice budgets will give general practitioners more scope for improving the services that their practices can offer to patients, both directly and by influencing the quality of hospital care.
I emphasise that there will be no disincentives on GPs to accept elderly or highly dependent patients, as I have seen suggested. The level of each budget will reflect the age and health needs of the practice's population. There will also be a cost ceiling for the treatment of any individual patient from the practice budget, after which the district health authority will meet the bill, a point which has not come through clearly in some of the discussions. Medical audit is yet another safeguard.
In short, the GP practice budget scheme offers an opportunity, not a constraint. The scheme will be voluntary. The key, again, is to allow money to go with the patient: for a defined range of treatments a GP's choice of hospital will be backed up by NHS funds. We are convinced that that in turn will bear further fruit by sharpening the responsiveness of hospitals to the benefit of all patients, not just those on the lists of participating practices.
Those new arrangements for trying to move money around to respond to the needs of patients will give fresh impetus to our efforts to curb excessive waiting, which is perhaps in the forefront of every layman's mind. The White Paper's proposals will make it easier for patients to be referred, if they wish, to where waiting times are shorter. What is more, acceptable waiting times will be one of the key criteria in setting and renewing contracts, so hospitals will need to have the issue always at the top of their agenda. At the same time the new tax relief proposals in the White Paper will not only assist many elderly patients who have paid for private practice and find that the costs become greater just when they may need elective surgery but will also reduce pressure on waiting times and so help many other patients.
666
Those changes are being supplemented by the creation of an additional 100 consultant posts over the next three years, to be targeted on areas with severe waiting time problems. That expansion is in addition to the 2 per cent. a year growth in consultant numbers already programmed and the additional posts already funded through the Waiting List Fund.
I hope that I have shown that the proposed changes in funding arrangements are fundamental to the White Paper's reforms and their impact on the quality of services provided for patients. But I should also like to reassure your Lordships that we have not overlooked the implications of those arrangements for two issues of particular concern to your Lordships' House mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter; namely, medical research and medical education.
The Government are firmly committed to maintaining the standard of excellence in medical research in this country. That commitment is demonstrated, for example, by the recently announced increases in funding for the Medical Research Council, from £150 million this year to £176 million in the next financial year, an increase in real terms of 12 per cent. We are now considering carefully, in the light of the White Paper, the important report of the Sub-Committee to your Lordships' Science and Technology Select Committee on priorities in medical education. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, also talked in some detail about medical education.
I recognise the complexity and special needs of medical and dental education, and we are committed to maintaining its quality. We have, as the noble Lord knows, established a Steering Group on Medical and Dental Education, with representatives of the major bodies concerned, and that group will develop its work and make recommendations in the light of the White Paper's proposals.
Modernising and revitalising the organisation of services to patients means not only new funding but further reforms in management. In particular, we are convinced that more needs to be done to put decision-making closer to the level of the individual patient.
The White Paper's proposals will delegate authority throughout the management structure. At the centre, the new Policy Board and Management Executive will ensure that policy and operational responsibilities are clearly identified and acted upon. Regional health authorities will be concentrating more on strategy and monitoring, and at district level operational responsibility will be devolved as far as possible to the individual management units, which will work within a clearer framework of responsibility and accountability than in the past.
The White Paper makes important proposals for involving hospital consultants in the management of local services. The decisions taken by consultants are critical to the way in which the money available for the National Health Service is used. We believe that they need to be given this responsibility more clearly and explicitly; to be given the information and support they need to discharge that responsibility; and to be accountable for the consequences of their decisions.

667
These matters are all set in Working Paper 7. I simply say at this stage that we are determined to try to pursue these aims with vigour. We intend also to reform the distinction awards system in order to ensure that a consultant's commitment to the management and development of the service is taken properly into account in starting off on the distinction awards.
The Government's proposals to create National Health Service hospital trusts for self-governing hospitals is, I think, a natural development of our determination to delegate as much authority as possible to those who are actually responsible for delivering services to patients. So we propose hospital trusts which will be new National Health Service bodies with freedom to employ staff, determine pay and conditions of service and manage their own resources. They will derive their revenue from the contractual funding arrangements I have described and will, we think, be best placed to respond flexibly to the needs of contracting authorities and doctors. It has been said before, but I emphasise again, that self-governing hospitals will not be opting out of the National Health Service. They will be just as much a part of it as they arc now. But self-governing status for hospitals will, we believe, stimulate both the energy and the commitment of staff to respond to the needs and wishes of their patients and will attract the support and enthusiasm of local communities.
The White Paper makes a number of other important proposals for reform and I shall listen with interest during the afternoon to your Lordships' views upon them. But perhaps I may mention only one more. I think that among the most important proposals are those designed to make primary health care services more responsive to patients and more cost-effective, building on the Government's earlier White Paper Promoting Better Health. The Government will take care to ensure that these changes are implemented in a way which is sensitive to the circumstances of general practitioners in rural areas. In particular on this point, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made clear his view that a higher basic practice allowance will be needed in scattered rural areas than in many other places.
The White Paper makes clear that much detailed discussion will be needed with National Health Service managers and professional staff about the implementation of these reforms; reforms which incidentally and very importantly apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and which are dealt with, as your Lordships will know, in chapters 10, 11 and 12 of the White Paper. But in order to pursue this consultation process, and to assist these discussions, my right honourable friend has now published a series of working papers, which I realise your Lordships will not have had very much time to consider.
I recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals put to me, that we are setting ourselves and the National Health Service a challenging timetable to achieve these changes. But we are doing it because we believe that where decisions are taken by those most directly involved in managing and in giving care to patients
668
this is the best recipe for seeing that the interests of the patients come first. I am sure that that is the right way to proceed and I am confident that the service will rise to the challenge.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, this is one of the many occasions when your Lordships' House has had good reason to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for facilitating a crucial debate at a crucial time. His decision to initiate the debate may well have accelerated the publication of the eight working papers, although they have done very little to clarify most of the fundamental questions.
The debate is taking place in an atmosphere of some confusion and uncertainty. I must say that there is deep scepticism about the Government's intentions and some anger that, as with so many issues these days, the Government are embarking upon a journey with only the haziest idea of how to get to their destination. No wonder the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, the fairest of men, was so critical of this document and of the lack of consultation and involvement. He put the National Health Service into its historic perspective, and he is one of the best people to do this.
The noble Lord used the phrase "the end of the beginning". Our fear on this side of the House is that the current proposals may signal the beginning of the end. He suggested that the proposals were evolutionary. This was one point on which I disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. I think they are not evolutionary but far more drastic than that. If carried through with all the intentions that the Secretary of State made clear on Monday, the proposals would dramatically change the face of the National Health Service as we know it.
The Leader of the House was very bland in his speech. I do not think it is wise to underplay or to play down the radical nature of the proposals under debate. The future of the National Health Service is very close to the hearts of the British people. No wonder! It has magnificent achievements to its credit with nearly half a century of service—a monument to social justice and to the Labour Government of the day when it was created. I think it may be that which hurts the Prime Minister.
What most people see in the National Health Service—an embodiment of social justice—is anathema to her philosophy. It is not that the great British public are uncritical of the service; they criticise the lengthening waiting lists. They criticise ward closures and under-funding. In fact, as your Lordships may recall, these were the issues that led the Prime Minister to establish the review although none of those vital issues is dealt with in the White Paper.
The public have tolerated a succession of Conservative reorganisations over the past 10 years and more. Frankly, those reorganisations have not achieved much in terms of an improvement of the National Health Service but I emphasise that none of them has challenged the basic principles on which the National Health Service was founded. However, throughout this period of Conservative reorganisation there has been the lurking fear that

669
one day an over-confident Conservative Government would decide to introduce its free market, profit-orientated dogma into our National Health Service. That is why there has been a suspicion that the National Health Service is not safe in the hands of the Prime Minister. I must say that today it is no longer a suspicion, it is a certainty.
I believe that the National Health Service is now threatened. It is quite clear in my view that in the three weeks since the White Paper was published the Government have failed to persuade the bulk of the electorate and a substantial part of their own party that the proposals contained in Working for Patients and its eight working papers are satisfactory or would help to improve the National Health Service. I think they see the proposals as complicated, confusing, dogmatic and ill-thought out, and they would not result in better service to the patients.
According to the Gallup poll last week, more than two-thirds of those asked saw the proposals as the thin edge of a Thatcherite privatisation wedge, including 46 per cent. of those Conservatives who answered the questions. They are quite right. I believe that this would be the beginning of the end for a service based on patients' welfare. In my view the proposals put producers before patients and profits before people. With these proposals now out in the open, it is quite clear that the National Health Service is no longer safe. I prophesy that it is this issue more than any other that will bring down the Government.
There are two debates at present proceeding on the Government's proposals. One concerns the proposals themselves and the other concerns the way in which the Government are proceeding to act to ensure that the White Paper proposals, however objectionable, unprincipled or impractical, are carried in to effect without any delay. I should apologise that I asked the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question from a seated position. I asked him why he was proceeding so quickly. I do not think he gave an answer. I hope that at some stage there will be an answer.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I did give an answer.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the answer that the noble Lord gave was that the Government were proceeding quickly in the interests of putting patients first. I agree with putting patients first, but let us get the pattern right. If proposals are going to be put before your Lordships' House let us all, and everyone involved in the National Health Service, the professionals, the patients and the community organisations, have an opportunity of seeing that if there is to be a change it will be for the better and not for the worse. It would be better to leave some time for consultation than to adopt a rushed-through procedure.
I suspect that most people involved in this debate will concentrate on the proposals themselves. Therefore, I want to begin by challenging the Government's approach to the current debate. The review itself was secret. It was carried out by politicians and civil servants, many of them with little experience of using the National Health Service.
670
There was no real consultation with doctors, nurses, the members of professions complementary to medicine, those representing the ancillary workers, the many voluntary organisations, the health service administrators, the pharmacists, the dentists, the universities—the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, mentioned the universities—let alone representatives of the consumers or the local authorities.
Working for Patients should have been a Green Paper, open for consultation. But it seems as if the proposals are graven in white marble. It was reported in the press that at his press conference on Monday the Secretary of State said that he welcomed:
"contributions, constructive criticism and alternative suggestions, so long as they are aimed at putting the White Paper proposals into practice by 1991. Most people in the health service recognise that these reforms have to happen".
That means that he is going to push the White Paper through as it is. That is no way to deal with our National Health Service.
As the Secretary of State presented the eight working papers, he was quite unrepentant that those papers leave many fundamental questions unanswered. Apparently, according to an internal Health Department document, there will he 29 project groups which will "work through the changes" that are proposed. The press article further stated:
"Civil servants will draw up project briefs—for self-governing hospitals, GP budgets, consultant posts, medical audit and others—including how much the plans require 'consultation; discussion with interested parties, or formal negotiations'. The document adds: 'The Secretary of State is anxious to minimise the latter which could seriously slow up the process of implementation'."
The words "the latter" refer to consultation. I repeat my belief that that is quite the wrong way to go about changing the National Health Service which has been in existence for more than 40 years. This approach is unacceptable. These proposals will have to be very carefully considered.
One of the few NHS staff associations. the Institute of Health Services Management, in commenting on the Government's proposals said:
"They still seem to leave fundamental questions unanswered about the impact of these proposals".
I hope that some of the fundamental questions that will be put during this debate will be answered in the wind-up. Maureen Dixon, the institute's director, said:
"None of us can yet say what the effects will be on a particular community or local population."
Let me give a clear assurance to the Government that, having looked at some of the proposals, from these Benches we shall subject every proposal to the most careful scrutiny. We shall require much more information on the proposals. We shall take maximum care to ensure that the House is not faced with attempts to push things through. During the course of the next few months we shall need to have a great deal of the uncertainty removed.
The Government must accept that so far they have very few friends among those who care about the nation's health as opposed to the profit fanatics. It is very clear that throughout the National Health Service, and most of the organisations involved in it,

671
a great deal of uncertainty exists. I draw the attention of the noble Lord the Leader of the House to a leading article in the Journal entitled Health Services of 2nd February which stated:
"In future years people are likely to look back on the halcyon days of a pre 1989 NHS, which provided straightforward services to the public, before fragmentary and diversionary market forces intruded.
You went to your GP. They either treated you or passed you on to a trusted consultant colleague for further treatment in the hospital service. The problems and anxieties of being ill were not compounded by a complicated system which was more preoccupied with making a fast buck than providing for needs comprehensively … The publication … of the government's white paper is likely to mark the turning point when the enduring simplicity of the NHS concept is abandoned in favour of a confusing diversity."
The journal's editorial concluded:
"The White Paper as it stands is largely bad news for the patients and NHS staff but very good news for the accountants".
It is not just the health service press which has been very critical of the proposals that have been presented. Doctors have been extremely critical. I noted that Dr. Paddy Ross, on behalf of the BMA consultants, condemned the plans as "Right-wing nonsense". The ethics committee chairman, Dr. Alexander Macara said:
"These proposals are made by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing".
The director of the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales
"dismissed the emphasis on patient choice as 'rhetoric' and predicted that consumers would have less choice when hospitals and GPs opted out".
The Health Visitors Association has joined in the criticism. Mr. Trevor Clay, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing said:
"Nothing in these papers removes the fear that we could be heading for a two-tier system with all new developments and the best staff sucked into the trust hospitals".
Those views represent many of the genuine fears that the proposals will drive the National Health Service towards a two-tier service. The Government should be clear that the criticisms which are made—I suspect they will be repeated by some noble Lords today—are not just the criticisms of a bunch of left-wing critics. I believe they go very widely through the people who thoroughly understand the working of the National Health Service.
Through my involvement with the College of Occupational Therapists, I have discussed the White Paper with staff at the college and with members of other professions. They too comment on the absence of proposals for the care of children, the elderly, the disabled and the mentally ill. The White Paper is all about acute treatment. The professions complementary to medicine seem to be completely ignored. However the White Paper mentions speech therapists and physiotherapists in the context of the Government's wish to see more untrained and more unqualified staff introduced into the National Health Service. In my view that is a quite retrograde step.
Among those therapists there is much cynicism about the Government's constant repetition of references to value for money when there seems to be so little concern for that vast army of patients, mainly the elderly and the handicapped, who can never offer value for money. They are always the people who have to be most protected. They are the people who
672
seem to be forgotten in the new kind of National Health Service which is proposed.
The proposals for the opting out of what originally seemed to be about 250 to 320 big acute hospitals now seem to have spread to the possibility of all hospitals opting out, and indeed to community-based services and clinics having the opportunity of opting out. Mr. Clarke said on Monday:
"Any hospital within the service is potentially capable of becoming self-governing".
If it were to be the case that over the next few years almost all the units of the National Health Service decided to opt out there would not be a national health service. There would be scatterings of small hospitals and small units. That is what we escaped from nearly 50 years ago.
I looked at the working document on the self-governing hospitals. On page 5 some of their delegated powers are listed. They include the power to negotiate the price of services; to generate income; to acquire, own and dispose of assets; to borrow; to retain operating surpluses and to build reserves; to set out their own management structures; to employ whatever, and however many, staff they consider necessary; to determine pay and conditions of service; and the freedom to employ and direct their own medical and nursing staff. There is one sentence only about providing services. That sounds like a management oriented service. I find it horrific when I think of the nature of the National Health Service as I and many of your Lordships know it. I think that the Government will have to think again.
It is sheer nonsense for the Secretary of State to say that those opt-out powers are something other than opt-out powers. He suggests, and the Leader of the House said today, that the hospitals will all operate within the National Health Service and that there will not be a break-up of the National Health Service. I say again that if units up and down the country, big and small, opt out of the supervision of health authorities—apart from certain conditional powers held by the Secretary of State, which are unlikely to be used—there will be a fragmented service.
Who will take the decision as to whether a hospital opts out? I cannot tell from the document. To whom will they be accountable? Who will appoint the new directors? What authority will they have? What relationship will they have to the people whom they serve?
Although I shall not go into the details I believe that there is the same degree of concern in relation to the proposals put forward in respect of general practitioners. What training do they have for the kind of accountancy work proposed? I believe that the proposals put forward both in terms of general practitioners and hospitals will create a massive bureaucracy. I believe that the National Health Service has managed over the years to keep the amount of money spent on management to a very small proportion, even compared with the private sector.
A noble Lord: Rubbish!
Lord Ennals: It is not rubbish. The proposals will increase the bureaucratic proportion of the costs of

673
the health service. That is the pattern in the United States. I believe that the Government have come up with ill-conceived and unproven proposals. I believe that most of them are unworkable.
In conclusion, I plead with the Government to think again about many of the proposals that have been put forward. I do not mind some experiments nor some new practices in the National Health Service. Let us try out a new plan, if it is a good one. Let us see if it is a good one. But I believe that it would be fundamentally wrong to base a massive reorganisation of the National Health Service on unproven, suspect dogma. I believe that that would be an irresponsible act on the part of the Government. It is because of the apparent intention to rush the proposals through that we condemn the White Paper as it is currently presented.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I shall begin by apologising to your Lordships for addressing the House with an appalling cold for which neither the National Health Service nor the private sector can do anything at all. I mention that fact to demonstrate that doctors are as delighted as anyone else to discuss their own ailments.
We are now in the midst of the debate for which almost all of us called at the time of the recent Statement on the National Health Service review. Particular thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for enabling us to have this debate so very soon.
We also owe special thanks to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for responding so rapidly to the demand at the time of the Statement that there should be a debate. He has clearly demonstrated that he knew that there was a need for a debate and as Leader of the House would see that it was held. We are also grateful to the noble Lord for taking part in the debate and for some of his remarks which demonstrated his commitment to the National Health Service and its fundamental principles.
Perhaps we should also thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for making special efforts—as I think he did—to ensure that in addition to the White Paper we had the eight additional papers in time to read some of them before the debate took place—although perhaps there are those of us who rather wish that we had not had them. The fact that we received them on Monday was in part due to the efforts of the noble Lord and in part to those of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, deserves not only our thanks but also our commiserations. Having left the DHSS as a Minister on Monday, he had to stand at the Dispatch Box to defend the indefensible, the Football Spectators Bill, in which your Lordships were asked to support a draft scheme which not only had we not seen but which had not yet been drafted. Now the noble Lord has been dragged back to the department which he left to answer what will be an extremely complex debate and perhaps to try to make sense of the unintelligible. I wish the noble Lord luck.
674
With 29 speakers in the debate, I think that it behooves those who are privileged to speak early to exercise some restraint so that others who will make enormously important contributions will be able to expound their views fully.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I should like to consider briefly the history of the National Health Service, and perhaps also the history of Mrs. Thatcher's National Health Service review. The present structure of the National Health Service, with all its many defects—and I acknowledge that it has many which require remedy—has evolved gradually and steadily over a period of more than 40 years. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, made clear in his speech, it emerged from a patchwork of provisions: the old Lloyd George scheme, the panel doctor, the voluntary hospitals, the municipal hospitals, the hospital Saturday fund and many other provisions.
Turning to the history of the review, we go back to a time when there was widespread public anxiety about the state of the National Health Service, the recognition by government that it was an electoral liability and that it was time something was done, and a firm decision by the Prime Minister that there should be a review of the National Health Service. I think that she believed that by establishing that review she would at once stifle criticism and perhaps allay anxiety.
Following announcement of the review, it seemed that nothing happened. It may have been that things were happening in the obscure corridors of power, but we did not hear that anything was happening. Then there was a ministerial reshuffle, with the result—which I personally welcome—that Mr. Kenneth Clarke became Secretary of State for Health.
For the first time for a very long period we had a Minister of Cabinet rank responsible for the National Health Service. That was something we had not had in the past and which I regretted. I believe that the morale of the National Health Service declined steadily after the creation of that huge conglomerate the Department of Health and Social Security that lumped pensions and social security in with the National Health Service. That is not intended as a criticism of those who were responsible for that department—the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Joseph, Mrs. Castle, the late Mr. Richard Crossman. However, I believe that the health service needed a Minister of Cabinet rank and. I welcomed the appointment of Mr. Kenneth Clarke in that capacity. I accept that Mr. Clarke as Minister is totally committed to the principles on which the National Health Service was founded and to the continuation of the National Health Service along those lines.
When he arrived at the department, what did he find in the way of a review? I do not know, I was not there. I suspect that he found a blank sheet of paper and found it necessary to write on it or to cause words to be written on it. The words that have been written on it are these—a vast amount. The documents are very cleverly written. Almost every fourth paragraph spells out that the object of the exercise is the

675
preservation and protection of the National Health Service. The three paragraphs in between spell out steps which could undermine the National Health Service.
I agree with much of what is suggested but I have very grave anxieties about the timescale of the operation. Each of the eight papers begins with a paragraph which reads:
"These papers describe in greater detail how particular proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients" will be implemented, and will form the basis of further discussion with interested parties. Many of the White Paper proposals will depend on primary legislation. The Government intends to complete discussions on any such matters by May 1989 to enable preparation of the necessary legislation".
In 14 weeks we shall be in June. By the end of this debate we shall be getting close to May. Who are the interested parties with whom discussions have to take place? There is a whole conglomerate of measures on almost every page which will have to be discussed with doctors, surgeons, nurses, physiotherapists, radiographers, pharmacists and all the different workers.
Last night, in common with other noble Lords who are present, I had the honour to be present at the annual dinner of the PSNC—the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee—at which the guest speaker was the Minister for Health, Mr. Mellor. It seemed to me that he had a pretty rough ride. If he and other Ministers honestly believe that all the Government's present problems with the pharamacists—who are an essential part of the family practitioner committee services which are dealt with substantially in these reviews; there are major changes with the introduction for the first time of cash limits to family practitioner committee services—will be solved satisfactorily and amicably by May, they will have to think again. I do not see how that can be done.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, reminded us, the time for the legislation finally to be in place is 1991. That is a little further off, but I do not see how this can be done. There will have to be discussions with doctors and nurses and calculations to cost everything. How much does a hip replacement operation cost? How much does this cost; how much does that cost? If all those discussions have to be completed by the end of May, no one will receive any medical treatment. All the doctors and nurses will be having discussions. There would be no other way in which they could achieve that. I do not believe that the proposal is feasible.
Let me make it clear that I do not wholly resist all the proposals provided that they are brought in sensibly with proper discussion and not with the kind of indecent haste suggested by these procedures. I agree with much of the review. Let us take one item. I have argued for many years that it would be necessary sooner or later to embark on cost-effective studies in relation to medical procedures. It seemed to me that all we doctors, other medical staff and patients had to accept that resources were finite and necessarily limited.
We also had to accept that other government departments required resources. Many of us accept that the health of all individuals depends not only on
676
the National Health Service but on other things. As Her Majesty's Government now know, it depends very much on food, education and housing. Other government departments require resources. When the cake has been divided and the National Health Service has its slice—which will not be as large as it wants and will never be enough to do everything that everyone believes should be done for every individual—sooner or later you must embark on cost-effective studies in relation to medical procedures. Those limited resources can then be focused as far as possible on those areas in which there is the most dramatic return on the investment in terms of the relief of human suffering and the saving of human life.
I support the idea of cost-effective studies, but let us consider the matter in some detail. How do you calculate the costs? To calculate the cost of a hernia operation, let us take the example of an elderly chap who is a manual worker and has an irreducible inguinal hernia which is not life threatening so he is down for a non-urgent operation. The urgency of an operation depends on who is to have it. If any one of your Lordships were to have such an operation, we would perhaps not think that it was so non-urgent after all.
However, if that person has to wait two years for his operation and is unable to work during that time, the state—the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security—will have to provide for his wife and children. Is that included in the sum? If it is included in the sum, how is it included? How do you work out the cost of a hip replacement operation? One patient may have post-operative difficulties and have to remain in hospital a great deal longer than another person. Another may have rehabilitation difficulties and require a prolonged period of physiotherapy.
The calculation can be made only on the basis of a vast examination of all cases and by taking average figures. It has already been done very thoroughly in relation to heart transplant operations. It has taken a long time and a great deal of resources and energy. All that must be done, but can it be done by the end of May? I do not think that that is possible, but much of it will certainly have to be done long before the legislation is introduced—we are told that primary legislation will be necessary for many of these proposals to go ahead—and carried through both Houses.
Perhaps we may look for a moment at cash limits on family practitioner committees. I do not believe that this or any other government can predict with certainty how many people will have which illnesses and at what cost in any future period of 12 months. There will inevitably be errors. The noble Lord knows that there have been errors in the past. When the family practitioner committee services had exceeded what was budgeted or expected because of special circumstances such as an epidemic—they could not exceed cash limits because there were no cash limits—the Government had to recover the money from the only source available.
That was their cash limited services—the hospital budget—and they made a 5 per cent. cut in the hospital budget. The net result was that the hospitals

677
provided fewer services so the family practitioner committee services overspent by a further amount the following year. Then you have to take another 5 per cent. from the hospital budget so you finish up with no hospital budget left from which to take 5 per cent. or any per cent. at all.
I accept that that situation could not be permitted to go on. I therefore accept that there is a need to look at cash limits in relation to family practitioner committee services. However, it could be very damaging if we were to go back to a situation, or if the public are led to believe that we are to go back to a situation, that we certainly had in the past before the new contract to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred. That was the situation in which the general practitioner who gave the worst service, kept poor records, had no secretary or receptionist and had inadequate surgery premises was the best off, whereas the general practitioner who did the best work and the most for his patients was the worst off.
It could be damaging if people are encouraged to think that under this new system the doctor will somehow be influenced not so much by what is in the best interests of an individual patient, but what is cheapest and in the best interests of his own practice's budget and perhaps, in the end, his own practice's pocket. It does not need to happen, but we need time to spell out these arrangements and to work them out. I do not think for a moment that the Government have allowed themselves the necessary time to deal with those matters.
There are other points that I wish to make. I have read all these papers, but you would think that Sir Roy Griffiths had never conducted any review. How can you review a National Health Service without catering fully and completely for community care, which is an essential part of the present Government's programme and a very necessary part? I do not complain about that in this debate because I am sure that we shall have a detailed response in due course, but the matter will have to be considered in relation to all the other papers.
How long will the proposals take to implement? Who will work out the cost of every operation? If I may be forgiven for reminiscing about my earlier days, a long time ago I worked in a municipal hospital—Hope Hospital in Salford, which was run by Salford city health committee. That committee reviewed its expenditure annually. I clearly remember being an observer at one of its budgetary meetings when Alderman Haynes, who took a great interest in health matters, queried the cost of perineal repairs. A perineal repair is a repair that a woman may require after delivery and confinement if there has been a tear or laceration which must be sutured and repaired.
Alderman Haynes said, "This item of perineal repairs crops up every year and every year it gets more and more. If we have to have all these repairs to these perineums, why can't we get some decent ones and be done with it?" I do not suggest that this exercise will be carried out by aldermen in Salford or anywhere else, but I do suggest that it will have to be carried out by someone and it will take a long time. The person responsible will not complete the exercise
678
within the time-scale that the Government have in mind.
Let me make just one more observation on the subject of the hospitals becoming self-governing. What is to be the position of the university hospitals, the medical school hospitals and teaching hospitals? I know that Sir Mark Richmond, who is not only chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals but also vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester, has made the point to Ministers that Manchester University medical school has four teaching hospitals. One wonders what the position will be if one of them decides that it will become self-governing and the others decide that they will not. How can a teaching hospital become self-governing if much of its work is to be governed by the university—and it cannot fail to be so? There is no answer to problems of that kind spelt out in those papers, but they will have to be answered.
I come to my last point. I note the inducements to elderly people to join the private sector. I believe that such inducements will be in vain because most elderly people cannot afford private medicine. In its early days the private sector medicine was extremely profitable because it catered almost exclusively for rich and healthy people. Once the private sector has to take on all the employees of a certain firm and all the members of a certain trade union, and if later it has to serve elderly people, then it will be in precisely the same situation as the National Health Service has been in since 5th July 1948. It will have a bottomless—if you like open-ended—commitment to everybody to do everything. It will not be able to do it. The small print in private sector undertakings will swell, exclusions will increase and the costs of the private sector will grow.
In conclusion, it would be ironic if a review which some people feared might spell catastrophe for the National Health Service turned out in the end to ring the death knell of the private sector.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Richardson: My Lords, in common with many of your Lordships I felt considerable gratitude toward the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, when I saw that he had tabled this Motion so quickly after the publication of the White Paper. Like the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I feel acute anxiety over the timing of discussions, having experienced the telescoping of time by successive governments in the discussion of important matters relevant to medicine and the health service.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, read out the Secretary of State's Statement to the other House, it seemed to me that the following paragraph was central:
"All of our proposals share a common purpose—to make the health service a place where patients come first and where decisions are increasingly taken at a local level by those most directly involved in delivery and managing care".—[Official Report, 31/1/89; col. 1002.]
Ever since the health service was first discussed and was just an idea—in the 1940s, and even in the 1920s when that distinguished Member of your Lordships' House the late Lord Dawson of Penn made most valuable proposals—it has been axiomatic that

679
patients come first. That is axiomatic for doctors when they are undergoing training and in practice. The place where decisions should be made was also a matter of considerable concern in the 1940s, when a very strong preference was expressed by another Member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Moran, on behalf of the Royal College of Physicians, supported by the rest of the profession, for control by the Ministry of Health rather than by local authorities. It was wished to avoid local politics interfering with the service locally, or at any rate obtruding on it.
These government proposals push that point further. I hope that they are capable of overcoming one disadvantage which resulted from that desire to limit local political influence; namely, that it limited—at least in my view—a personal sense of pride and interest in local hospitals. The hospital that used to be "our" hospital steadily became just "the" hospital. Of course there were exceptions, such as small hospitals in country districts and great and famous hospitals which had a large emotional attachment largely due to their teaching and research expertise.
The advice that will now come locally must be even stronger than it has been in the past because of the movement toward local control without local political influence. Mr. Bevan recognised very clearly the importance of upgrading the local hospitals by encouraging consultants to go there and remain in the hospitals. In answer to a letter from the three presidents of the Royal Colleges—and it was a famous letter in modern medical history—Mr. Bevan replied:
"I am confident that round a table we shall be able to make satisfactory arrangements which will encourage specialists to work within the precincts of hospitals".
That was difficult to do at that time. Depending on private practice, consultants in those days moved between several hospitals. In London their consulting rooms, and in some instances private beds, were a considerable distance from their main hospitals. That situation is less prevalent, but I hope that any organisation will take on board the virtue not only of keeping private beds in hospitals (a difficult battle that seems to have been won) but also of setting up consulting rooms and even private hospitals in close propinquity to the main hospital. The contracts of consultants will be examined and made tighter.
After 30 years of experience as a consultant in the health service and for some time before that I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of consultants not only give excellent and expert service but a great deal of their time for which they are not paid. For years and years they never realised that they were not being paid because it was part of the old voluntary system. I still believe that some of the attitudes that obtained with the voluntary system have been handed down and persist strongly among the consultants of today. I greatly hope that when the contracts are considered not only the vast responsibilities of clinical work, teaching and research—to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hunter—but the opportunity for voluntary contribution of time and energy in the clinical field as
680
well as all the administrative areas will be remembered, as also will what I think is the exciting business of audit. The noble Lord the Leader of the House seemed to think that audit would be rather dry. It may well be so for those who are not actually participating, but I believe that to have one's performances compared with those of one's peers could be exciting, if not alarming.
The merit award system has survived in spite of its eccentricity, and is under review. I see little to question about the proposals in relation to that. There is just one exception: that is, that those who get an increased merit award have to serve for three years before the benefit of that award spills over into their pensions. I have no doubt that is perfectly all right for the higher awards. Those who are outstanding people and who are still contributing—that question of still contributing is part of the new proposals—will clearly get their higher awards when they are relatively middle-aged.
However, there are cases—I speak from experience—where the "C" awards, the less certain and less obvious awards, have been made very late for inadvertent reasons or not very good reasons of a personal nature. I should like to suggest to the Government that those who get "C" awards should be able to have those awards computed with their pensions, even if they have not served for three years.
I think the proposals are difficult to envisage, and however clear the explanations it is difficult to see how they actually work. But having worked in a teaching hospital that was self-governing, I see no difficulty for a hospital, at any rate of that size, to continue to govern itself. This was so of all the teaching hospitals. They were within the National Health Service and, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has told us, they will remain so. That was the case for approximately the first 25 years or more of the National Health Service. Those of us who worked in such a hospital found no disadvantage in that system, but we found considerable disadvantage resulting from the change in organisation that took away our government.
Finally, I hope that all the emphasis on administration—I am very much disposed towards administration by doctors, having been concerned as long ago as 1967 with the cogwheel reports which started off the idea that doctors had an obligation to administer—will not blur the true professionalism of the medical profession and make its members into bearers of a more bureaucratic attitude because, when you think about it, it is the medical expertise and dedication of doctors, as doctors, that is the only absolute necessity in the health service.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I too welcome the timely initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. I also welcome the Government's commitment to the National Health Service, as clearly expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the Leader of the House.
I find much to praise in the White Paper although, like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I wish it were green. It is positive; it recognises strengths as well as weaknesses; it sets out the Government's objectives

681
for reform clearly and optimistically; and it proposes an administrative framework intended to contain them. It does not meddle with detail. I found it impossible to ignore the contrast with the muddle of the Government's earlier education papers, which gave us so much trouble in your Lordships' House last year.
Some people complain that the Government's main objective is to commercialise the health service. That comes oddly, especially from those who profess to believe in a market economy. They complain that it will introduce a two-tier system: one for the rich or insured and one for the poor and uninsured. But there are already many tiers in the health service, depending on how much you wish to pay for extra benefits. What we should expect of reform is that urgent cases will continue to be dealt with urgently; that waiting lists will be shortened; that the dedication of the employees will not be crudely exploited; that the health of the nation will be improved; and that patients and their families will be treated with compassion. If business criteria can help to bring that about—and I believe they can—all well and good; but they are not an end in themselves.
A little more detail has just been published in the working papers, although the broad-brush treatment seems to have been continued. However, I find it surprising that no attention at all seems to have been paid to comparisons with health services abroad. I hope that the Government can explain why in Britain we are so far down the list of well supported health services and I hope they have noted that the commercial practices of Canada do not seem to lead to the excesses sometimes seen in the United States.
However, I must press on to other matters that have received scant attention: namely, teaching and research. These are touched on briefly in paragraph 4.29, although paragraph 4.30 promises more when the Inter-departmental Steering Group on Medical and Dental Education has reported. Of course I welcome the clear statement of commitment to these matters made by the Leader of the House.
I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology when we reported last year on priorities in medical research. I may be the only member present today who took part. At any rate our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, has asked me to say how sorry he is that absence abroad prevents him from speaking today. He has also asked me to make a statement on his behalf and I am very happy to do that because I entirely agree with him.
We are particularly disappointed that there is so little mention in the White Paper of the important part that research within the National Health Service can play in achieving the Government's objectives. The Select Committee identified a clear need for the NHS to have an adequate research effort of its own, particularly in the fields of clinical research and health service research. As we said in our report:
"The NHS exists to promote the improvement of the nation's health; medical research has an important part to play in achieving that end; the NHS should therefore play a part in supporting medical research …There is no lack of push from medical researchers in the United Kingdom; what is missing is enough pull from the NHS".
682
It is not enough, and we said it very clearly, that the National Health Service should have to rely upon the excellent basic work of the Medical Research Council, coupled with the insignificant efforts of the Department of Health. It is the health service itself that needs the research; it is the health service itself that should be empowered to perform it or commission it.
When the Government eventually reply to the Select Committee's recommendations, we shall particularly wish to see in organisational terms how the research needs of the National Health Service are to be identified and satisfied. That cannot be done by departmental civil servants out of contact with clinical realities: it must be done by the National Health Service itself.
The appointment of a chief executive and an effective management responsible for the running of the health service, proposed in the White Paper, is of course warmly to be welcomed. I venture to suggest that this provides the opportunity to appoint a director specifically to carry out the responsibilities for research outlined in our recommendations. It is not quite the national health research authority that we sought, but it would be a significant step in that direction.
Had the White Paper been a little more explicit about research it would no doubt have referred to the growing importance of the medical charities in supporting it. In total they spend about the same amount these days as the Medical Research Council. Policy for medical research therefore has to take into account the activities of charities. That is why we recommended that the annual stocktaking of research held under the auspices of the health departments should be expanded to include the work of the medical charities. Of course, it should in future include the research that I hope will be undertaken by the National Health Service as well. It is not enough that the cosy relationship between the departments and the MRC should continue in the convenient absence of the other major players.
I should like to end with a few words about the teaching hospitals although I will not repeat the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, with which I agree. The teaching hospitals appear in the White Paper somewhat as an afterthought. Certainly they complicate the issue because medical students are taught their clinical medicine by both academic and NHS staff, and clinical research as well as patient care takes place in teaching hospitals.
The special arrangements required to deal with the overlapping activities and responsibilities for education, research and health care were carefully discussed in the report. We must take care that a more commercial approach does not militate against medical education and research in much the same way that local and immediate needs for clinical services already conflict with the national and longterm priorities of the teaching hospitals.
Let me be positive about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, explained, the special increment for teaching—SIFT—was introduced to recognise the special nature of a teaching hospital so far as teaching is concerned. In the report the Select

683
Committee proposed its extension to cover research also. Indeed, the future of SIFT is now being considered by the steering group referred to in paragraph 4.30 and by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. It is of course necessary now to re-examine the matter in the new context of the White Paper.
The SIFT mechanism could be used to ensure that appropriate priority is given to education and research if medical and dental schools were empowered to act as its purchasing agent. I suggest that the whole of SIFT should be deployed by the universities themselves. This would ensure that appropriate facilities were provided for undergraduate teaching and research, and the related additional costs that always occur in teaching hospitals would be covered.
One must also consider the governance of a teaching hospital. Paragraph 3.4 of the White Paper discusses the composition of the board of trustees of an NHS hospital trust. Regarding a board with no more than 10 directors, excluding the chairman, it says:
"for teaching hospitals the non-executive directors will need to include someone drawn from the relevant medical school".
Someone, indeed! This very singular provision would be totally inadequate for a teaching hospital trust and would certainly fail to reassure the medical and dental staff that the interests of teaching and research were even understood, let alone given adequate priority over service needs. In employment terms the position is bad enough already, with university and health service staff working side by side with quite different terms and conditions of service.
The role of research within the NHS and of the teaching hospitals in regard to both education and research is not to be treated as a mere afterthought. It requires far higher priority if the next generation of doctors, dentists and consultants as well as the future wellbeing of patients is to be protected and facilitated. In the White Paper the Government have affirmed their commitment to teaching and research. We warmly welcome that, but there is still a great deal to be done. The Croham Report identified major problems concerning the interface between the health departments and the education departments. The Merrison Report identified the same problems ten years ago. The Select Committee identified them also. They really must now be rectified, and it is a great pity that the White Paper does not say so.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for introducing the debate, which I thoroughly welcome.
I should declare an interest. All my professional life I have been a strong—indeed one might say passionate—supporter of the National Health Service and I continue so to be. I was therefore very pleased when my noble friend the Leader of the House started his introductory speech by emphasising that the White Paper underlines the significant and important principles that have underlain the National Health Service for the last 40 years—free at the point of access regardless of income, financed largely by public funds, dependent
684
on need, not on wealth, and free and open to all. This will continue; this is guaranteed. I think that this point has been underrated. It was hardly mentioned in most of the comments made since the White Paper was published at the end of January.
Without going into the history of the health service, which we have heard a number of times, casting one's mind back five years one remembers the fuss that was made when a think-tank leak was said to have occurred, in which it was thought there would be dismemberment of the welfare state, damage to the National Health Service and so on, and policy units were publishing the most radical solutions to all our social evils. In fact, when the Prime Minister's review is published, all the principles underlying the National Health Service will be reinforced and restated. As a supporter of the National Health Service I regard this as a significant victory by all those who publicly or privately have tried hard to persuade her and her colleagues of the significance and success of—I rarely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, but I do on this occasion—and the liking of the public for, the National Health Service. That is a significant victory for those who feel and work for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, called for a lot more consultation and wondered why we did not have this. He gave an enormous list, which I think he said was not exclusive. It sounded to me as though he wanted a five-year long Royal Commission.
Lord Ennals: No, just consultation.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, there have been many inquiries into the National Health Service, and there is a mass of information available. I should have thought that the review had done rather well to have got as far as this in the time that it has.
If the noble Lord will read the papers he will find that the answers to at least three of the questions that he asked are in the working papers. They say who shall decide about a self-governing hospital; they say who shall decide about the chairman of the self-governing hospital committee and so on. I know that the working papers have been out only three or four days, but the answers are indeed stated. We must not set up ninepins that do not exist, and knock them down with magnificent rhetoric. The questions are in fact largely answered.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said it was difficult to price a hernia. I will leave aside his comments about Alderman Haynes. The noble Lord in fact priced a hernia. Of course it is possible to price a hernia operation and how much it costs to have people in hospital. This has been going on for a long time. Surely the noble Lord has heard of the initiatives. Surely he knows that we are spending a great deal of time these days, as more and more information technology is pumped into the health service, to know what is happening on costs.
One of the problems has been—I know the noble Lord shares this view with me—that previously we have never been able to identify what happens to the money that is put into the National Health Service. Nobody doubts that over the last few years there has been a need for some kind of reform. What we have been debating is what kind of reform.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me—
Lord Trafford: My Lords, if I may finish this point I shall certainly give way to the noble Lord. We have needed some kind of reform and that is what we have been considering.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am entirely aware that much of the work of costing operations has been going on. Indeed I have taken part in some. But the question I asked specifically—and perhaps I could repeat it if the noble Lord did not fully understand it—was in costing an inguinal hernia, does one include in that cost the amount of public money spent in keeping the wife and family of the person who has been waiting two years for the operation? That was the point I made.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I take the point and I understood it. One of the major objectives of reducing waiting is the social cost of such operations, which is what the noble Lord is referring to. This is one of the most important elements in the National Health Service, but it is not the direct audited cost of that which happens within National Health Services premises, no.
There was no real doubt in anybody's mind about the need for some kind of reform. What was the central problem to which we should he addressing ourselves and to which the Prime Minister and her colleagues addressed themselves? It was surely that, however one tried to manage the service, resource allocation seemed to be wrong. Results did not come out. The outcome measurement was very poor indeed and, if you like, the quality control was not very good. In other words, the judgment of what we were achieving was also very poor. The information technology to which I have just referred was not there to tell us what was happening. The central defects were magnified by the fact that a hospital—which is the most expensive part of the National Health Service—is a whole series of barely related groups of people operating independently. There were nurses on one side, doctors on another and the administrators trying to pull it together and failing constantly because of various failures on the part of management. Those were the central defects that needed addressing.
As an example, taking the range of a particular costed element in a health service as 100, the range of the cost in different hospitals throughout the United Kingdom is between 54 and 135. There is an enormous range for apparently carrying out exactly the same type of service. The question that anybody would ask looking at an organisation is why is there this huge difference? Why do they spend so much less in Scarborough—I only mention Scarborough because it came out top of the list in one costing exercise—than they do in Nottingham? Why does this happen? What is the reason for the range. We are supposed to be equalising care throughout the country, so these are some of the things that desperately need to be addressed.
We have had four major management reshuffles and that has not solved the problem. So clearly taking
686
the present management and tinkering with it will not solve the problem whether one puts in areas or takes them out, which we have done; whether one puts in districts (we used to call them HMCs), takes them out and then pushes them back in again 14 years later; whether one builds up the regional activity or cuts it down; whether one puts in general managers and so on and so forth. We often give these people responsibility which they have no powers to carry out. I shall not quote the famous remark made by Lord Baldwin when Prime Minister about power without responsibility; responsibility without power is the other way round.
In my view the White Paper addresses some of these central problems. It devolves downwards so that we do not have a massive centralised bureaucracy. One of the most remarkable things on reading it is how much power the centre is prepared to surrender. It is not usual when we sit here debating various Bills for the centre to be losing power; it is usually taking powers. On this occasion it is giving them up. They can devolve downwards lo the district, to the self-governing hospital, to general practitioners and so forth. The self-governing hospital programme in the White Paper is based oil two items: first, the Griffiths Report a 1982 on the appointment of general managers and, secondly, the use of budgetary centres which have been used experimentally in various hospitals. In some they are much more developed than in others. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is not in his place because this is exactly the exercise that has been carried out for some considerable time. It allows some hospitals in this country to know almost exactly the cost of every item of expenditure, every test, every investigation and every operation.
One of the important points in the White Paper is the introduction and handling of capital charges because that shows us the true cost. Previously it has always been regarded as a free cost, but we should handle our land, our buildings, our properties and everything else in the National Health Service as a whole just as in any other organisation, but we have tended to neglect it.
These budgetary centres have made a huge difference. I shall quote one figure from one hospital. I could quote a number of others but one will give an example. A hospital was running its budget in 1984–85 into a deficit of nearly £5 million—it would have been called an overspend. Over the next three years—I shall not go through all the detailed processes—it introduced a full programme which is now run very largely by a doctor plus an administrator running a budgetary centre with a board; a board not altogether dissimilar from that upon which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, poured scorn a few moments ago. It is run very successfully and includes a research programme. Indeed it is now breaking even. It is only 3 per cent. below the maximum number of patients it has ever taken in over the last 40 years. As far as I can see or have been able to find out there has been no change in quality.
That, therefore, is one of the reasons why this type of system in operation in a number of hospitals in different places is what the White Paper chooses to

687
describe as the way forward for economic cost effectiveness combined with established quality of care.
I should have been very worried if the White Paper had stopped at "economic cost effectiveness". I would share the views of Members opposite who have been concerned about this. I am delighted to see the introduction of the Audit Commission—not just an auditor. I hope that noble Lords will read very carefully what the Audit Commission will actually be doing. Not only will it inquire into how units spend their money but it will also be inquiring carefully into how the services operate. There will be professionals, that is to say peer review, who can be instructed to go to X, Y or Z if there is some falling down on the job or the quality is unsatisfactory. I believe that is tremendously important. It is one of the most important safeguards that is written into the whole White Paper and not enough tribute is given to that.
I could go on for ever on this subject but I clearly realise that other people wish to speak so I should like to say two more things. First and foremost, "research" is a very emotive word. The Americans would say that you should never attack mothers or apple pie. But I shall make one comment about research. There is good research and bad research. There is worthwhile research and repetitive, pointless research which has all been done before over and over again. There is what is known in the profession as pot boiling and that unfortunately is what wastes a lot of time and money.
One therefore has to consider extremely carefully the type of exercise that we have been hearing about from the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the pleas for special services and special arrangements and so on. Nobody doubts the value of true, excellent research. It is fundamental. I was not surprised when the noble Lord said that medical researchers want more funds. I do not know anyone who does not want more funds for almost anything. The matter needs to be looked at just as carefully as every other aspect of expenditure in the National Health Service.
I should like to underline the most fundamental point of the exercise. This is a free choice. No district, no hospital, no general practitioner must follow the self-governing hospital. He does not need to do it. Let us assume that I work in Hospital A with this side of your Lordships' House and we decide that we do not wish to enter a self-governing exercise. We do not want to do these things: we do not have to. There is nothing in the White Paper which says that we must. Even if the Secretary of State comes to urge and persuade us, there is no way in which he can do so. All he can do is ask us to review our decision, and we may reach the same answer.
Alternatively, it may be that three hospitals wish to join together as an association—not altogether dissimilar from a present district—and operate such a service. They may do so, including community health—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Trafford: In one moment. My Lords, they may do so. Therefore I emphasise that it is a matter
688
of free choice: you can continue as you are or take a different course. The same is true of general practice.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is not the important question: who within a hospital actually decides to opt out?
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it would be impossible to decide to opt out if any of the large segments of working staff within a hospital were against doing so. I could not operate a self-governing hospital without the consent of the nurses, the staff, the doctors and the administrators. It would not work; it would have to remain more or less the same. Many may do so for the good reason that, for once, they have corrected the membership and organisation of the district health authority.
Finally, it is easy to criticise, to pick holes in things and to say that much has been left out. However, the principles of the health service have been safeguarded. Opportunity is offered for the future with a free choice on that option. The White Paper contains much which will allow the National Health Service—which has been a great human experiment and success over the past 40 years—to continue to be a success for the next 40 years, or well into the next century.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for having afforded the House the opportunity of discussing the Government's White Paper.
I feel a little sad about the occasion because, despite the soothing remarks which fell from the lips of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and other noble Lords, we are not here considering working for patients. We are really concerned with saving money and preparing for the commercialisation of the National Health Service.
By a geographical accident, when the House of Commons was destroyed and its Members sat in this House, I sat in approximately the same position on 26th July 1946 for the Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill. I sat behind my late right honourable friend Aneurin Bevan, the founder of the National Health Service—
Lord Trafford: He must have been on this side of the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: No, my Lords, he was sitting here. I remember it well. Mr. Speaker was sitting there, by the Bar. No less than 20 Members of your Lordships' House were present for the debate. There were 13 Members from this side of the House—then the Government—and seven members from the other side of the House. I am happy to say that I can see many of them present today. In their own spheres and in their own parties they have become distinguished political figures.
I remember the day well. We had had many weeks, indeed months, of going through the National Health Service Bill. I was honoured by being privy to the thoughts on the issue of my right honourable friend

689
and his colleagues. I do not wish to make an antagonistic or controversial point. It so happened, and I say this for the record, that the Opposition voted against the National Health Service Bill at Second Reading. It fought the Bill clause by clause and line by line in Committee. It voted against the Bill on Report and, uniquely, voted against it at Third Reading.
I make no particular complaint about that, except to indicate the fact that the differences of philosophy were profound. They were adequately expressed by many distinguished speakers, some of whom have since entertained your Lordships on a variety of topics. But they did not like it. They did not like the idea of a national health service because, as my noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out, it was essentially a Socialist measure.
Today, as I shall show, the word "Socialist" sticks in the gullets of a number of people to the point almost of sending them into apoplexy. After the initial settling in of the National Health Service there were further negotiations with the profession before vesting day. Despite all the predictions, it will be remembered that 97 per cent. of the population joined up within approximately seven months and the vast majority of the medical profession likewise.
The main plank upon which the Conservative Party then rested its opposition was that we Socialists were to interfere with the clinical freedom of the doctor. To them that was the biggest sin of all. The so-called principal technical ground was that there should not be the slightest hindrance in what the doctor wished to do on behalf of his patients and that he should not be denied the facilities that he thought he required in order to treat patients. I do not know whether the party really believed that but it thought the proposals abhorrent.
After the National Health Service came into operation all was well. In fact, it became accepted by the country at large. It was accepted even by the party opposite. I well remember the ringing utterance of the late Lord Butler—then Rab Butler. At the Conservative Party conference he said gleefully, "We are all Socialists now". They all rode in on the bandwaggon.
So why is there now the sudden urge to reform? Over the past 40 years the National Health Service has become admired worldwide. It has become admired as one of the most civilised institutions ever introduced in a democracy. Moreover, since we are talking about costs, and we shall again talk about them, it operates at a more economic cost than the United States, Canada or most other European countries. It takes between 5 and 6 per cent. of the GDP, whereas we all know that in other countries where the commercial principle is adopted, the cost is vastly higher than that.
Indeed, among the British people if there is one institution which is popular in the UK and commands real support and respect, it is the National Health Service. Of course there has been discontent with the health service. There have been complaints about waiting lists. Occasionally, of course, there are complaints about treatment. However, the principal item of complaint by the general population of the
690
United Kingdom as regards the health service is underfunding.
This glossy booklet Working for Patients almost might have come from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham. It might be well to bear in mind that the lack of public funds for the health service or certain aspects of it has cost human life over the past four or five years. There are numerous cases, which any medical practitioner will confirm, where a decision had to be made whether or not to treat a patient, or a choice had to be made between one patient and another because of lack of resources. The cases are numerous. There have been cases where those requiring renal dialysis have died because of the absence of kidney machines. They cost about £20,000 each and 50 machines would have prevented unnecessary deaths from renal dialysis. I am not a doctor. I do not know the techniques, but I know the results.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it so happens that the noble Lord has chosen my own speciality. If he wishes to say that people have died because of the lack of kidney machines, which do not cost £20,000, I should like to know chapter and verse to which patients he refers and the places where they have died.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should be delighted to provide the noble Lord with that information. I have voluminous cuttings which list those matters over the years. I had not thought it wise to divert your Lordships with too much quotation this afternoon, but I shall see that the noble Lord is provided with that information.
This afternoon we are discussing the health and wellbeing of people. The prime concern of any government should surely be precisely that. We are all on the face of this earth for three score years and 10, four score years and 10 or sometimes more. We are merely transient. The pursuit of money for its own sake avails us nothing because we cannot take it with us anyway. However, the health and wellbeing of people is important and should be the first priority of all governments. Possibly people of our own age realise too often how important health is, particularly in old age.
We have to make a choice as a country: either we say that expenditure on health is to be subject to cash limits or we say that it is to be demand-led. The Government are not averse to demand-led expenditure. For the past 10 years they have acquiesced in complete demand-led expenditure in the common agricultural policy and other expenditure besides. They spent £2 or £3 billion on precisely that. Nobody says, least of all we on this side of the House, that because expenditure on a health service should be demand-led, there should be waste within it. Quite clearly, very serious attention should be given to those parts of the White Paper which are concerned with the elimination of waste and the establishment of efficiency. It would be silly to do anything other than that.
However, there is another ingredient. We know quite well that expenditure on the health service will grow because of advances in medical science. We know that it will grow because of the demographic

691
structure of the older population. However, there are ways of limiting the costs of the National Health Service by not necessarily limiting the expenditure upon patients but by trying to limit the number of people who need it. That is where my right honourable friend Aneurin Bevan was so right in linking the policy with the broad general policies of government.
If there is a government committed to full employment, a government bent on the elimination of homelessness rather than increasing it, a government committed to building more houses in which people can live, a government bent on following social policies that promote the wellbeing and health of people and give them a purpose and an object in life rather than aimlessness, bearing in mind the connection between the mental health of people and their physical state, one then limits the use of the National Health Service. My old doctor used to say to me, "Always remember, the human body wants to be healthy if you will let it". There is profound truth in that.
The fact is, as the war years showed, that people with a purpose and with prospects for the future, with a settled perspective and a real meaning in life are, generally speaking, healthier than when they are left to rot and are treated badly. One Minister said last week that of course there was a shake out of labour as though labour were amorphous and not concerned with human individuals.
The noble Lord gave us an assurance that he respects the whole principle on which the National Health Service was founded: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That is an admirable socialist precept, but that is not shared by the Prime Minister. The noble Lord talked to the House this afternoon in dulcet tones and noble Lords elsewhere are quite prepared to trust the statement made in that regard. However, others do not.
In 1986 the Prime Minister, in an interview with the Financial Times, said quite clearly that she was committed to the elimination of socialism as a political force in the United Kingdom. Only three weeks ago she announced as her objective the elimination of socialism within Great Britain as a first aim. Of course; that is why the present National Health Service in its existing form, conforming to socialist principles, is a dagger pointed at Thatcherism itself. That is why, no matter what the noble Lord may say this afternoon and particularly in view of the provisions of the White Paper, if they are put into operation, there is nothing to stop the whole organisation being flogged off to private enterprise within two or three years. That is what we suspect, and that is what the population is afraid of.
We have a choice to make: whether the National Health Service should be demand-led, subject to proper safeguards, or whether the great professions of medicine, nursing, dentistry, ophthalmology, and all the ancillary jobs should operate as vocations—there is nothing dishonourable about a vocation— without the checks of accountants and such people, whose services in some respects may be necessary, and carry out their own jobs in their own way in the service of Britain.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, despite the alluring title, Working for Patients, this is, to my mind, essentially a document about the management of the service. At this point I am already worried because changes in management are always fraught with danger.
When I was chairman of the King's Fund, to which my noble friend Lord Hunter made kind reference, I found myself dismayed, year after year, at the lack of management expertise in the medical profession as a whole. I do not say that in any nasty way because it was nobody's fault. The training of a doctor is sufficiently mixed up with his clinical training, and the rest of it, that he does not have the time to be taught anything about management. In fact, he will have to learn if this paper is to make any sense in the coming years. Whether that will pay off for the patients is, of course, the crucial question; but at this stage it is a question which is largely the subject of speculation and political rhetoric. Those of us who do not want to score debating points in such terms will just have to wait and see.
Before making three points about the management implications of the White Paper I first call your Lordships' attention to what is not in the White Paper. I am not referring to the elements that have already been discussed about dentists, and so on. The basic mission, values and funding methods of the National Health Service remain unchanged. The Secretary of State has expressly reconfirmed his own and the Government's commitment to them. Despite some of the proposals floated by the right-wing think tanks during the review, the fact is that the National Health Service is to remain a collective attempt to promote the nation's health and to provide services on the basis of need.
There seems to be some doubt about that expressed by noble Lords on this side of the House. However, I point out that not only has that commitment been made by the Prime Minister: it has also been made by the Leader of the House today. If by any chance they lied in their teeth in saying that and in the end the National Health Service were privatised, what glory that would be for their opponents. So do not worry about it, their opponents are bound to win both ways.
Noble Lords: It would be too late. The service would be dead.
Lord Hayter: My Lords, I now come to the management points. The White Paper makes two proposals to make something akin to a market. Major hospitals will be permitted to become self-sufficient, self-governing. Last week the figure was 320. This week it is 2,000. I am not sure what it will be next week—one must read the papers and listen to the Government on that point.
The hospitals will have considerably more flexibility than they have at present as to how they run their internal affairs. They will expect funding on the basis of the work that they do. That applies to hospitals. As regards general practice, the larger practices will be able to opt to hold budgets to pay for a range of routine services on behalf of their patients. Indeed, it is now apparent, according to the latest

693
papers, that smaller practices can join together to do the same.
Both proposals are intended to provide incentives that do not exist at the moment for the institutions and individual practitioners. Of course, the general practitioners will need to become accustomed to budgets. I do not know whether they do so in their own homes but they will certainly need to do so in their practices. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will agree with me that a budget is telling the money where you want it to go rather than watching to see where it went. If they find themselves incapable of doing that themselves they will have to rely on accountants. Luckily, one of my sons follows the profession of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and he is therefore on to a good thing if he is needed by his local practitioners.
The second main point is that it strengthens the junction between clinical activity and management; for example, by increasing the number of hospitals that appoint doctors as budget holders and heads of clinical services and by tightening up the terms and conditions of those consultant appointments. Not only in medicine but in other professional fields—for example, consulting engineering and (dare I say it?) the law—the relationship between professional autonomy and the management of the enterprise as a whole is a thorny central question. Getting the balance right is never easy.
In essence, the proposals in the White Paper are sensible. The intention is to make the GPs and the hospital specialists more aware of the large resources that they are committing and to give them more management responsibility. That is fine, so long as they never allow professional excellence to take second place, as it sometimes does in East European systems, or allow the physicians' prime duty to individual patients to be obscured.
My third point is that the Government intend to shield the management of the National Health Service from detailed interference by the Department of Health and the regional health authorities. The new policy board chaired by the Secretary of State will determine what the Government want and the National Health Service management executive, chaired by the chief executive, will run the National Health Service within the broad guidelines given to it. We are told that the regional health authorities will be much slimmer and more streamlined than in the past so that the districts and the new self-governing hospitals can get on and manage with some confidence.
This combination of delegation with accountability sounds very necessary in such an enormous organisation as the National Health Service. It would have been more convincing if it had not been described in very similar terms in previous re-organisations, one after another, over the past 10 years or so; but let that pass, it needs to be done. Much will depend upon the Secretary of State's determination to run the National Health Service in a more sensible way than has been done in the past and on the strength of the understanding which exists between him and the chief executive. I suppose 1 would not be accused of telling an untruth if I said that the Secretary of State has a political role and that
694
the real job of civil servants is to protect the Minister and the Government. Neither of them should be getting mixed up with the National Health Service in its intimate details.
Therefore, while the intentions behind these proposals seem to be admirable, we must see how they work out in practice. However, there are real dangers in such radical changes. Here I get back to the point which has been mentioned once or twice in the debate. The National Health Service is likely to become much more expensive and the added spending may not prove to give equivalent value. Some general practitioners may try to economise to their own profit. Some hospitals may be tempted to do work that is not of high priority in terms of need simply because they will be paid for it, and so on.
As I said earlier, those of us who are not politically oriented simply cannot know in advance or pretend to know whether the White Paper proposals in practice will or will not improve the National Health Service. In that sense the White Paper's title is, to put it politely, no more than wishful thinking. But the proposals seem worth a try provided the Government are prepared to modify and adapt the rules in the light of experience. That is an essential management principle. I have known it in my business, and people who have been in business know that if one is changing management there will be problems but one must be able to back it up financially. Like so many matters of management, it is a question of common sense.
The reason why the National Health Service has been constantly re-examined and reorganised in the past 15 years—a matter raised earlier by one or two noble Lords is not that it is inefficient. Compared with most other health care services in the world it continues to offer very good value for money. But medicine develops faster than our collective willingness to pay for it. I am sorry that he is not here tonight, but a long time ago when I was in New Zealand I met the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who was a famous doctor. He told me something that has stuck in my mind ever since. He said that there is no country in the world that can afford the national health service that it wants. That goes for us as well as for anybody else. As I have said, medicine develops much faster than our collective willingness to pay for it. It is a problem that has occurred elsewhere as well. There are continuous difficulties within the National Health Service of trying to develop new services and to maintain the old ones.
The White Paper seeks to improve the ways in which this extremely complex management task is tackled without giving up the fundamental aims of what is still, for all its faults, a great British achievement for which your Lordships and I, as we grow older, will have every reason to be grateful. The principal of good management is in education. I have one question to ask the noble Lord who will be replying and that is whether he will agree with me that part of the education, particularly of those of the medical profession, will have to include some of these principles of management? It seems to be quite essential.
I hope that the message that is to be given by this House to the nation will not be about the weaknesses

695
of the White Paper—Heaven knows there are many!—but will give encouragement to use the opportunities that it offers without sacrificing what is good in the National Health Service. I hope that we shall also keep a very close eye on what actually happens so that we can judge the effects rather than the intentions.
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for initiating this debate. I greatly regret that I have a long-standing commitment to host a dinner this evening and I shall have to leave by 7 o'clock. But I shall read the rest of the debate with very great interest.
I welcome this opportunity to begin discussions of the White Paper because the issues are so crucial that it is vital for the country and for the Government to get them right. In the foreword to the White Paper, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister states that:
"The National Health Service will continue to be available to all, regardless of income, and to be financed mainly out of general taxation.".
She concludes with these words:
"The patient's needs will also be paramount.".
These commitments which were reaffirmed by my noble friend the Leader of the House this afternoon are warmly welcomed. They embody two of the principles on which the National Health Service was founded. Like my noble friend Lord Trafford, I am one who has always been an ardent supporter of the National Health Service and I am therefore very relieved to see that the Government are endorsing and reaffirming these fundamental principles. The Government have also demonstrated their real commitment to the National Health Service by the dramatic real rise in expenditure in recent years. It is true that we still spend relatively less of our GDP on health than other comparable nations and there will be a need for further increases in funding to meet increasing costs of health care to meet increasing health needs.
I also welcome the fact that the principle of accountability to the patient is being recognised in various ways: for example, by recommendations that appropriate information be given to patients in hospital and that provision should be made for channels for suggestions and/or complaints. I particularly welcome the commitment to retain community health councils. I also welcome the devolution of power and decision-making with district health authorities whose membership will be streamlined, comprising those with direct responsibility for the provision of care. So far, so very good. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, when I recollect how the Government have resisted considerable pressure from many sources to adopt a more American-style model of a health system based on private insurance, I can say on this matter wholeheartedly, "For this relief, much thanks".
However, I have some serious concerns that I hope will be addressed during the consultation period.
696
First, the White Paper seems to have lost the important concept of a seamless web of a total health service. It is overwhelmingly oriented to a medical service and it virtually ignores the need for an integrated system of community care. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, indicated, this is a very important point. If a dichotomy between hospital and community care is allowed to develop there is a danger that we may revert to the unsatisfactory fragmentation that existed prior to 1974. One serious problem of such fragmentation will be the tendency for resources to be channeled into areas of acute need and for patients with long-term and chronic problems to be relatively neglected.
Nobody wants the care of the mentally ill or handicapped, the chronic sick or the elderly to become Cinderella services once again. So I hope that it is not a disturbing portent that the White Paper concentrates so exclusively on the medical services in general and on the hospital services in particular. Secondly, there is widespread concern over the allocation of the responsibility for community care. I shall not repeat the points that I made in the recent debate on the care of the elderly in the community except to re-emphasise that many health professionals believe that the primary responsibility for the growing number of vulnerable people in the community should reside under the general aegis of health authorities and health professionals rather than local authorities and social workers.
I intend no disrespect to social workers, but they lack the clinical training and experience needed to provide adequate care for many of the mentally ill, mentally and physically handicapped and infirm-elderly living in the community. While some local authorities provide excellent standards of care others have shown themselves lamentably incapable of so doing. I suggest that we cannot afford such variation in the provision of care for people who are inherently vulnerable. I hope passionately that the Government will not accept that recommendation in the Griffiths Report on community care.
Thirdly, I hope that the Government will consider setting up an inspectorate like Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, to monitor standards of care throughout the National Health Service including residential care—even small-scale provision of up to three-bedded homes which are at present immune from any kind of inspection. Such monitoring is urgently needed. Anyone who works in the health area knows the utterly unsatisfactory situation in some homes where, for example, as soon as you enter, your eyes water with the acrid smell of urine from patients who are incontinent and inadequately cared for. These appalling conditions must be addressed as a matter of urgency if the Government are to show that they really are "Working for Patients".
Fourthly, there is widespread concern about budgeting. In a sense every patient will have a price tag. Reassurance needs to be given that this will not in any way impede their access to appropriate care. Is there no danger that budget-conscious GPs might be reluctant to take on expensive and/or long-term treatment for patients who may make heavy financial demands? Is there no danger that opted-out hospitals might be reluctant to accept low income-generating

697
patients, such as the long-stay elderly? Might there be pressure to discharge some patients into the community prematurely? Can my noble friend give reassurance on these matters which are causing many in the health professions great anxiety?
A more general point arises. I seem to recollect a third founding principle at the inception of the NHS: equality of access to health care. There is widespread concern about the possible danger that proposals might allow for the development of a new two-tier system. This fear has been expressed by my colleagues in the Royal College of Nursing. For example, might not hospitals which opt out of DHA control be better placed to raise money and take initiatives which will put them at an advantage relative to hospitals still within the district health authority? I give as an example the freedom to determine terms and conditions of service for their staff. Is there a possible danger that quality of care might in some cases be judged ultimately by the financial criteria of the bank manager rather than by ultimate consideration of the best possible care for each and every person in need?
I should like to refer to two matters specific to nursing. I warmly welcome the proposal to ease the excessive pressures on junior hospital doctors. I welcome not only the appointment of 100 more consultants but also the extension of the responsibilities of nurses. The increase in the responsibilities of nurses will be cost effective in that it will make good use of trained professional staff and increase job satisfaction. These were points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. It will also relieve the excessive workload of junior doctors and enable them to offer better patient care.
However, this extension of the role of the nurse raises a question about nurse education. The Government are to be applauded for their agreement in principle to the reform of nurse education through Project 2000. Student nurses will have more time to study, to learn the why behind the how and to be relieved of much of the stress of trying to combine academic work with long periods of demanding clinical practice. 1 welcome also the expected announcement of a number of demonstration projects.
The profession is anxiously awaiting the go-ahead for full scale implementation of Project 2000. I wonder whether my noble friend can give any reassurance for until this is forthcoming the profession is left in a state of limbo which hampers necessary adjustment and is detrimental to nurse education at a time when nursing faces real problems in trying to attract and retain students. The National Health Service will need all the nurses it can get if it is to be effectively "working for patients".
I conclude by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to highlight some issues which must be considered carefully during the consultation period. I hope that all who are actually working for and with patients will also make their views known, based on their experience and their commitment to the highest possible standards of care. I hope too that the Government will listen and learn from them. I hope that they will heed their advice so that as a nation we
698
may continue to develop a National Health Service which, as I have said and as I will continue to say, is one of the most humanitarian institutions the world has ever known.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Winstanley, I am astonished that a review of this kind excludes any reference to community care. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has also referred to this point. I am not only surprised; I am genuinely alarmed. It seems to indicate that the Government, as shown also by their long delay in reacting to the Griffiths Report, are simply not aware of the seriousness of the problems involved in community care. It seems that once again the Government and the department are unaware of what is going on elsewhere. The decisions being taken in regard to housing benefit are increasing the difficulties of people trying to cope with the elderly and the infirm.
As a result of the Government's policy of getting people out of institutions and back into the community, a policy which if it were properly implemented we would support, great difficulties are being caused. The Government do not seem to be aware of the horrors building up in the face of what is needed to deal with the old, the infirm and people coming out of mental hospitals and other hospitals to be looked after, as it is euphemistically said, in the community.
Have the Government taken on board what those who run hostels for people with special needs are saying about decisions being made under the Housing Act? It has been pointed out to them often enough. Those running the hostels are saying seriously—not hysterically, but as a result of sober calculation—that they will not be able to keep the hostels open. What does this mean? It means that as people come out of hospital requiring special housing of some kind it will be increasingly difficult for them to get it. In the past few months I have heard this repeatedly from associations with which I am connected. It means that the whole question raised by Griffiths is of the highest importance.
I wonder whether the Government have really taken on board what is involved in looking after people in the community. Unless much better provision is made on a community basis, the families of these people will have to attempt to cope somehow or other. We are told on the best calculations that some 6 million people look after the aged and the infirm in their own households, most of them doing so single-handed. Illness, infirmity and old age do not distinguish between class and party.
There can be few noble Lords who have not had in their own families some experience of what is involved. Anyone who has attempted for any time to look after people in this condition will know what is involved. They have to get out of bed night after night, three, four or five times. This makes life impossible, and it cannot be continued unless adequate help is given. Yet that is what the accumulation of bringing people out of institutions, cutting back on provision in hostels and at the same time not providing the services that are required in

699
the community means. This is not a short-term measure. It is a matter of great urgency.
The Griffiths Report was published more than 18 months ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, who is to reply tonight, has said twice recently that we shall have a response very soon. I live in the hope that perhaps tonight will be the night when he will tell us; but I gravely doubt whether that will be the case. It cannot be left any longer or there will be a real disaster. If the families cannot cope—I assure the House that after a period they cannot cope—where will these people be? The hostels cannot take them, the families cannot cope and they are out of the institutions. Where will they live? In cardboard boxes? That is really what we are saying when we refuse to follow through the recommendations of the Griffiths Report and all the other policies.
I do not believe for a moment that the Government want this to happen. I beg them to treat it as a matter of the greatest urgency. Up to a point I agree with, support and amplify what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. However, I do not agree with her on where the responsibility should lie. I do not agree mainly because this must not be seen solely as a health matter, although it should be treated in the context of the recommendations. It is partly a health matter but one must look at the needs of the whole caring unit—the family.
Very often a single person on his or her own is looking after an elderly person. These people need a whole variety of services which are not health services as such; they are ancillary and extra services, but they are very important. In my view such services are best co-ordinated, as Griffiths recommended, through the social services department, handled by social workers working closely with the health services. That is why such provision should be a very prominent feature of the review and not something which is totally excluded.
6 p.m.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that at this hour mine is the twelfth only of 29 scheduled speeches. That gives great force to the old Latin tag, bis dat qui cito dat—he who gives quickly gives twice. Therefore I intend to concentrate solely on one major issue. The title of the White Paper Working for Patients expresses an extremely laudable sentiment about those patients who the Government claim are their main motivation in proposing changes to the National Health Service. What is certain is that the proposed changes will be judged by the extent to which they are perceived by those who receive them as improving the care of patients.
There are two kinds of patients to be considered—those being treated now, and those who will be treated in the years to come. In both cases the quality of treatment received will be crucially dependent upon the standard of the long undergraduate and postgraduate training of the doctors who diagnose the disease and prescribe the remedies.
Hospitals in which undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and research are carried
700
out—in some, it is both—are very special places. It is there that the needs of the present confront those of the future. Today's patients must be cared for. However, to ensure that the care of future patients is satisfactory, today's students—who will be tomorrow's registrars, consultants or general practitioners—must be educated in the best possible way. Their teachers range from, at one end of the spectrum, whole-time academics on the staff of the university medical school whose offices and laboratories are physically embedded in the hospital and who, as honorary consultants or registrars, have care of patients to, at the other end, NHS staff who hold honorary academic posts by virtue of their contributions to teaching.
Striking the right balance between the demands of the present and those of the future has never been easy, as I know from my experience nearly a quarter of a century ago when starting the first new medical school to be established in this country since 1893; then from my time at the University Grants Committee; and finally-here, I have to declare an interest—as chairman of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School.
Under the existing National Health Service structure, the composition of the kind of district health authority which has hospitals with teaching responsibilities in its care has never adequately reflected the importance of the teaching and clinical research roles of those hospitals. Nor does the White Paper, as the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, mentioned, really pay due regard to that point.
However, the White Paper shows that the Government are not afraid to think radically. Might they even consider, as I hope they will in their further considerations, that at least some teaching hospitals have a unified system of government and administration in which those two elements of patient care now, and teaching and research for the future, are brought more closely together? The opportunity to think afresh on this important matter will not, I suggest, recur for many years; therefore, it should not be missed.
At the same time it is important that the principles of resource allocation should be subject to critical scrutiny. Here, I should like to make just two points. First, it seems clear from the White Paper that the income of a hospital will bear some direct relationship to its "output"; that is to say, the amount of work done. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, confirmed this in his remarks. That seems to me quite reasonable as a principle. But, if the work done in teaching hospitals is measured solely by patients treated, it would create very great pressure on all those clinicians, who also have teaching and research responsibilities, to diminish the time and energy they give to their teaching and research. Some means must be found to avoid that situation; otherwise, the quality of care given by the whole profession is bound to undergo a steady decline.
Secondly, it is all too often forgotten in allocating resources—although it has been mentioned todayߞthat the SIFT formula (the service increment for teaching) does not recognise research per se. Moreover, if income is related to patient throughput, as we have been told that it will, then it must never be

701
forgotten that research inevitably reduces that throughput quite significantly because patients undergo more prolonged investigation. More laboratory tests are required and more consultations with doctors are necessary. Further, more research seminars, and all the aspects which go with good research, will erode the time available for treating other patients.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships, and the Government, that much more thought needs to be given to education and research in the National Health Service than appears to be the case in the publication of the White Paper. Further, I hope that Mr. France's inter-departmental working party, which is referred to in the paper, will do just that and not be afraid, as I said earlier, to be quite radical.
Perhaps I may add that the matter seems to me to be so important that I consider it essential that the new National Health Policy Board, which has not been mentioned today but which stands right at the top of the Department of Health, should keep the matter constantly under review. To do that effectively, it appears to me to be essential that it should include in its membership someone who is very knowledgeable and experienced in this particular field. Otherwise, I feel that the issue, and the consequences of it, will go by default.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for giving me the opportunity first—although I did not expect it—to listen to the recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, going back some 40 years, and, secondly as the oldest surviving Minister of Health in the country, to offer my congratulations to the youngest Minister who has just taken over the post and who has produced this large library of documents through which we have been looking.
I do not wish at this hour to waste much time. However, I should like to make two points. First, in looking at this problem—which concerns all of us—of how to get the necessary resources into the health ministry, one has to realise that all the countries in Western Europe normally base the cost of their health services on compulsory insurance; whereas we rely on the general exchequer. The effect of that reliance is that the countries of Western Europe, except ourselves, Denmark and Ireland, all spend roughly 8 per cent. of the GDP on health services. This country, Denmark and Ireland spend only about 5·5 per cent. to 6 per cent. There is a clear division. It shows the degree to which central control has, over the past 40 years, diminished the availability of cash resources for the National Health Service.
I welcome the Government's new way of dealing with those matters by the formation of self-governing hospital trusts. That may be a way of putting more money into the NHS. There are some problems with that which have not been entirely covered even in Working Paper 1. If someone in Yorkshire has a place in a hospital trust in London, he will require accommodation not just in the acute section of the
702
hospital but in the community section if he needs a long stay or is convalescing. How will that work? If it is not covered, such a patient will not be able to take up that place.
What is equally worrying is how the general practitioner will be dealt with. Those who qualify for the general practice budget are all right provided that they are trained as accountants. That will be necessary in future. Will those whose numbers are below 11,000 lose by being unable to qualify for the practice budget system? I hope that the Minister will deal with that point either in his reply or by correspondence.
It is a bold plan. It is necessary. There has been some complaint because the working paper deals mostly with acute hospitals. From what the BMA tells me, the review originated when the Central Committee for Medical Services complained about the alarming and serious shortage of cash in acute hospitals. For that reason, the review concentrated on the acute side. To be complete, the community side must be dealt with and I feel sure that it will be. This is a good beginning for our new Minister for Health. I wish him all good luck.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other speakers, I wish to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for putting down the Motion and giving us the chance to discuss this important subject. We were told to expect fundamental review and have received a complex presentation of the White Paper and eight working papers. The review poses more questions than it answers.
I heard the "Jimmy Young Show" a few days ago on the car radio. The Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Clarke, was answering questions on the show about the review. I believe that we would all agree that a chat show on Radio 2 is the one place where one might expect a simple explanation. I am interested in the subject and must admit that I was thoroughly confused by Mr. Clarke's answers.
The Government have responded to a real crisis in the NHS—a crisis created largely by under-funding. Their response may be a massive political misjudgment. As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, it may also turn out to be a fatal electoral misjudgment.
The working papers were produced in something of a rush. There was not even time to leak them. From reading the White Paper and the working papers, one gains the overwhelming impression of a trade in patients conducted in an administrative and accounting maze.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to the problems of accounting. I have had over 30 years experience of management accounting. Whatever industry one is in, management accounts depend upon pretty arbitrary assumptions and conventions: the allocation of overhead costs and fixed costs, and the social costs mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. Doctors should be wary of the spurious authenticity of all-singing, all-dancing computer programmes which purport to discover the cost of medical treatment. The answer will depend entirely

703
upon the assumptions which are built into the programmes in the first place.
To make sense of the complexities of the documents, I tried to relate them to three health service matters with which I am familiar and involved. The first is the case of an elderly relative who was recently admitted to hospital after a stroke. How will the review affect people in her condition? The second relates to a family with two handicapped children, and the third is the impending reorganisation of a local hospital service.
I shall take the geriatric service first. As your Lordships will be aware, considerable worry about the White Paper has been expressed by a number of organisations connected with the care of the elderly. Age Concern is unhappy about it. The British Geriatrics Society, which represents 1,500 geriatricians with a special interest in the management of illness and old age, says that the review and the White Paper offer no prospects of improving services for the elderly. In fact, it condemns the review as naive and piecemeal. It claims that opted-out hospitals will be likely to disassociate themselves from geriatric and psychiatric services; and because of the problems related to travelling long distances, frail elderly people will be unable to benefit from the internal market.
My elderly relative and others in her condition will not find much comfort in that opinion. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to that view which has been expressed by other speakers.
I shall now take the case of the family with two handicapped children. The son, now a young man, is chronically ill, and requires a number of visits to the hospital. Working Paper 3 at paragraph 3·4 sets out the position extremely well:
"In many cases, when the GP refers a patient to hospital, he will be confident of diagnosis, the likely subsequent treatment, and whether this is likely to be a call upon his practice budget. Treatments which are a charge to the budget will generally be 'elective' and GPs will indicate to the hospital their requirement concerning the timing of treatment. The cost per patient will normally be fixed in advance and will reflect the hospital's assessment of the likelihood of complications in some cases and their cost, in relation to any particular treatment. The hospital bears the cost (or reaps the benefit) if the outcome differs from this assessment".
That is all very smooth and efficient and gives the firm impression of a seamless bureaucratic robe. What happens to that young man in practice? Let us take a typical phase in his illness, not an emergency. He is referred by the GP to the district hospital. He spends a few days there. He is then moved to the regional hospital for specialised treatment. He is then discharged into the care of the GP again. His parents take him to Great Ormond Street for a second opinion. He returns again to the GP and has a succession of visits as an out-patient and an inpatient to the district hospital, the regional hospital and two hospitals in London for different conditions. That is a true example. How is all that to be accounted for? It could well be a case where £5,000 annual costs to the GP budget, which was mentioned in a working paper, will be exceeded, but it all has to be accounted for to discover whether the treatment has cost more than £5,000 or not.
704
A third example, in attempting to relate the White Paper to reality, concerns the fundamental reorganisation of a local hospital service. It happens to be going on in the town in Wiltshire where I live, but there must be many other towns in the same situation. This is a point which I have not yet heard raised in the debate or in any other discussions on the White Paper. The strategy of the district health authority is set out in a very good consultative document. The document says that the strategy is based on the needs of each community matched against the resources likely to be available over the next 10 years. Costs of rebuilding and refurbishment have to be met largely from the authority's own land sales. Similarly revenue costs of substantial improvements in community care can only come from reductions in local hospital expenditure.
In practice, the proposal is to reduce the number of local hospital beds from 106 to 41; to end surgery under anaesthetic in the local hospital; to build a new community hospital of 41 beds, using the proceeds of the sale of the sites of two existing hospitals—a cottage hospital and a long stay geriatric hospital; and to close the local pathology lab. That lab was able to identify within two days the salmonella poisoning from which I suffered last May whereas I am told that the district path lab would have taken a week.
The hospital with 41 beds which I mentioned will have to cope with the requirements of general practitioners and short stay geriatric treatment as well as operations under local anaesthetics. There is intended to be much greater reliance on the district hospital. This is much harder to get to. It is impossible to park when one gets there and because of the lack of rural transport it is often impossible to get to a clinic and back in the same day if one does not have a car.
There has of course been very great local concern about this. Some very hard work has gone on in the local community into a response which has been prepared. It concludes:
"The Steering Group has not been able to assess the potential impact upon the Consultation Document, of the recent Government paper entitled Working for Patients, nor the impact of such reports as the Griffiths Report. On the face of things however there are clear implications"
in both the paper and the report for the consultation document.
What happens now if the district hospital decides to become self-governing? Can the Minister tell the House what happens to those reorganisation plans which are being considered now? Decisions are to be taken, I understand, by the district health authority within the next two months. As a result of the White Paper should not these plans all now be put on ice until the district hospital has decided on its status in the future? The relationship between the district hospital and the local community hospitals in its area is a crucially important part of the plans for reorganisation.
There could be another reason for postponing decisions on these plans. Working Paper 1 sets it out well: All hospitals are potentially eligible for self-governing status. There will be no rigid definition of what a hospital should be for the purposes of

705
self-government. Neighbouring hospitals with complementary services may want to combine into a single management unit where this is consistent with maximising the choice for patients and GPs. The Government will therefore encourage as many hospitals as are willing and able to do so to seek self-governing status.
Supposing the local hospital which is facing reorganisation now decides that it wants to team up with other community hospitals in the surrounding area, to share services and to combine in a single management unit, and to contract with the district hospital or other district hospitals and regional hospitals for the specialised services it needs.
Can the Minister tell the House how that sort of decision is affected by the White Paper? Decisions on the reorganisation plans are to be taken in the next few months. Surely all these plans should now be put on ice, as I said, until we know how the district and local hospitals wish to react to the White Paper.
I have given just three examples to illustrate the confusion that I think exists as a result of this review. I could quote many more if time allowed. The Government must now give time for proper consideration of the White Paper. That is a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, when he opened the debate and by many other noble Lords. The examples I have given show that more time is required in which to work out the practical, on-the-ground implications of the White Paper.
I think that the Government may have missed a great opportunity. Both the Government and users of the health service, as well as those who work in it, now face a period of confusion and uncertainty which can do nothing to improve the health of the nation. Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that they may end up by creating an irresistible demand for more resources for the health service.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, at this stage of the debate most of the points which I planned to make have already been made so I shall be brief. Personally, I have no particularly close knowledge of the NHS so I propose to make my remarks from the point of view of the personal social services about which I know a little.
I welcome the managerial approach of the White Paper. It is very important and by no means new to the personal social services—we have gone quite a long way in that regard. However, what worries me is that in reading the White Paper I can find no reference whatever to the personal social services or to any other of the services, apart from the National Health Service. That applies also to the eight working papers. I admit that I have not read right through all of them but I cannot find any reference in them to the personal social services.
We are about to receive a report on the Griffiths Report; some commentary has been promised within about a month from now. I hope that the report will not be later than that but it should have come out a long time before the White Paper. These matters
706
cannot be separated. If the comment had come before the White Paper we should be talking a lot more sense tonight. It is obviously important to restate the absolute interpendence of the two services in that neither can function effectively without the other. I wish to confine my comments to two main issues: first, the elderly who have already been mentioned by many noble Lords and, secondly, community care. In this regard I re-echo a great deal that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said which I thought was very useful indeed. It is well known, for instance, that the proportion of elderly people in the population is increasing rapidly and that something like 50 per cent. of all the visits made by doctors are home visits. As the proportion increases, the capitation fee will need to be regularly recalculated if the elderly are not to be looked upon as a financial burden and in consequence given less attention than they require.
There does not appear to be anything in the proposals for GP budgets to cater for the rising demand to move the elderly to hospital for their community care, psychiatric care, nursing provision and all the various other requirements of the elderly users. I suppose that we must wait for a further paper on how community care for the mentally ill and the mentally and physically handicapped is to be managed and on whose budget it will depend. In this field the social and health services are absolutely indivisible. What I am really getting at is that by looking at the services piecemeal we may find ourselves with only partial solutions, leaving unsolved the question of where primary responsibility and accountability lie.
Finally, I wish to say something about general practice. I note that to start with the new budgeting scheme will only be available to practices with 11,000 patients, which I take to mean with about five general practitioners. I am a great believer that where possible all practices should be of that size or greater and should include the services of adequate secretarial staff which will be needed very much more now that we are to have budgets; and at least one health visitor.
It is absolutely essential to have a social worker, the regular attendance of a chiropodist and also a dispensary. All those seem to be necessary for an effective general practice service. The link with the social work services is essential. Placing a social worker in the general practice centre will mean that many of the blocks caused by principles of confidentiality will disappear and, as I said at the beginning, a far more complete service can be provided to the user. If I had time I could provide examples from the report that we produced 20 years ago which show how absolutely essential those services are and how many doctors said they had patients who needed social care but who were never reported as needing that care.
More thought must be given to the composition of the lay membership of RHAs, DHAs and FPCs. There must be someone from the social services on all those committees. That is absolutely essential if we are to have an effective service for everyone. I conclude by saying that while I welcome parts of the White Paper, I hope that the relationship with the

707
personal social services will be given a great deal more thought.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am pleased that this debate has suddenly speeded up a little as I am speaking at a dinner and I must unfortunately leave within a certain time. I had thought the debate was going so slowly that I would not have the opportunity to say anything. After 30 years in the National Health Service I would have been very disappointed if that had happened.
Although I have spent 30 years in the National Health Service, it is only in the past 10 years that I have occupied a position as a non-executive director on boards of various businesses. That has shown me that there is a need for people who handle budgets or who are responsible for quite high expenditure to have a bit of an understanding of how business principles work. The White Paper brings in a very healthy aspect—it makes people appreciate the concept of value for money. I look on those words as being good words. I heard them used in a less flattering way earlier in this debate. But I think it is good to get value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who was such a help in introducing this debate, made the point that there was nothing about dentistry in the White Paper. That is true. However, one aspect of dentistry that is relevant to this debate is that it has excellent quality control. Quality control will be an important element in these new proposals for the health service as regards obtaining value for money. It will be important to have someone monitoring the proposals to see how satisfactory the results are. I have been involved in many reorganisations in the health service. Each time we were told things would be better, but each time they were worse.
I have great hopes for this reorganisation. Any woman who reaches her fortieth birthday considers herself middle-aged and looks for an uplift. The health service, being 40 years old, is also in need of an uplift. The proposals before us now may produce that. In 1974 area health authorities were created. Since that date I have had the privilege of serving on the board of what was a retained board of governors at the Brompton national heart hospital. A special health authority has recently been created there. Hospitals were all lumped together into area health authorities and then later into district health authorities. But that hospital has carried on in the old way. I served on an area health authority for many years before that system was abolished and the system of district health authorities was set up.
I think that individual hospitals work the most efficiently. They are the closest thing to what the new system will try to set up. People controlling such a hospital can take a direct and personal interest in what is going on within the hospital. In the case of the particular hospital I mentioned, a marvellous new building is being built. That must be of benefit to patients-not only to patients from all over this country, but to patients from Europe. We believe it will be the best heart hospital in the whole of Europe.
708
We have talked about the interlinking of the National Health Service and private medicine as if it were something new. But the hospital I mentioned has for years been working with the Cromwell—that is a well known private hospital—in terms of training nurses in specialist care and intensive care. Various training schemes have taken place which neither of those two hospitals could have provided individually. The hospitals worked together to provide training schemes for nurses. That system worked very well.
To label the private sector as all bad is not the right answer. Concern has been expressed about private health insurance. I encourage people to take out private health insurance because I believe that anyone who removes a financial burden from the state helps to make more of the state's money available for others. That is the opposite side of the argument that was mentioned earlier. However, my concern with private insurance is that private insurance schemes may only be willing to accept people when they are healthy and will dump them when they are not. It is totally unacceptable that private health schemes should be able to dump unhealthy people back on to the National Health Service.
The Government must look at what they can do to ensure that people who are in a private health scheme are not suddenly thrown back on to the National Health Service. However, I am a great believer in the theory that people should be entitled to spend their money where they wish and it is up to them whether they spend their money on health care or on holidays.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that the White Paper's proposals put producers before patients. If I thought that I would not support it. But I believe that the basis on which the proposals have been developed is that of the patient being the foremost interest. Working in the health service for so many years has made me aware that we are all a bit like farmers; nothing is ever quite right. Everyone in the health service believes there is something wrong and that improvements could be made. Farmers would even like to see the weather fixed for them. Similarly people involved in the health service want to see everything perfect. We all have an idea of how we would like to see the health service run. The health service as it exists at present is not right; we would be deluding ourselves if we thought it was. There are now great gaps in the health service. There is also great dissatisfaction with the service. An opportunity must be available to look at ways of improving it. I am very hopeful that the White Paper will provide the means to improve it.
A Labour government brought in the RAWP scheme. That chopped back money for London in particular. I thought the terms of that scheme were terribly hard for London. But as time has gone on the formula has changed slightly. In some areas there has been greater population growth than in others. So one cannot dismiss the terms of the scheme completely.
The situation in pharmacy has not been mentioned. Nevertheless that is an important service. I disagree with only one issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—the issue of dispensaries. I am

709
all for the kind of general practice that he suggested, but I am not convinced that such practices need a dispensary. Perhaps in a rural area there may be a need for a dispensary but in cities where there are plenty of pharmacies, to have a dispensary in a practice would be duplicating costs.
As regards the size of practices, the practices that I have seen in London, and which are set up on a larger scale, provide first-class medical treatment. I mention in particular the Lisson Grove health centre. There are two practices there which are associated with St. Mary's Hospital. They provide a marvellous service. However, in the Knightsbridge and South Kensington area, it is extremely difficult to get on to any general practitioner's list. Those practitioners are only national health practitioners in name. If a patient gives them an address which sounds as if it is in an expensive area, they do not want to accept him as a national health patient. They only want to accept such a patient as a private patient. However, if a patient can convince them that he is working for someone who lives at the address given, he might be accepted as a national health patient.
There is a real problem in London now where National Health Service practices exist in name only. They are not really available to National Health Service patients. Something must be done to ensure that that situation does not continue. I was pleased to hear the statement made that patients would take the money with them. That statement has not been spelt out, but I think that idea is a very good thing. I have always been involved in hospitals where patients have come in from all parts of the country. The money has come out of our pocket and there has been no way of claiming back a penny from the area which has referred that patient. I take a system in which the patient will take the money with him to mean that everywhere one goes the treatment to which one will be entitled goes too.
I hope that that principle will be extended a stage further to the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred. I hope that the money will go with one whether one has treatment in hospital or in the community. For as long as I can remember successive governments have thrown more and more responsibility on to local government without giving them the money to match that responsibility. If the money is allocated for the patient a premium might apply for elderly patients, who would need more of the doctor's time, so that doctors would be more willing to accept them. In hospital they would be able to receive treatment, and in the community they would be able to receive treatment. I think that that would work very well. I hope that a system of that kind will be taken into account.
The General Dental Council recently produced a leaflet which was intended to be of help to elderly patients and to those caring for them. As dentists, we prepared in conjuction with other experts a leaflet which we thought would appeal to elderly people and he extremely useful. We set up clinical trials to find out what people thought of it. We were stunned when the answer came back that it was absolutely useless and strongly disliked. That demonstrated to us the need to assess schemes that one intends to set up for
710
patients which, on paper, appear to be marvellous. One needs to discover the patients' reaction and to find out whether the system works as one thought it would.
I strongly support the idea of change in the health service. I believe that there is a need for change and that this is the time for change. I believe that there are many issues which must be thought through and this debate has brought out many points of great relevance. It will all be on record in Hansard and can be carefully considered by the department. In principle, I support the proposals.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, as the evening is progressing I too shall attempt to cut short my speech. I shall follow a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and deal principally with the aspects of the White Paper relating to junior hospital doctors and some of the problems which may arise.
New NHS hospital trusts are proposed. The White Paper says that they will be free to do what they like in respect of conditions of employment for junior hospital doctors, subject to certain approvals by the Royal Colleges. On the one hand the trusts are expected to follow Government policy but they are also free to determine their own conditions of service. I can foresee that situation giving rise to problems for junior hospital doctors who are looking to the next step in their training. It is fine if they are going on to a specific two-year training course. However, not all of them want to do that; they want to shop around, to cover particular specialties, to work with a particular team and so on.
That is not very difficult now because they know that standard NHS terms will apply with rotas of one-in-three, one-in-four or one-in-two, with other bits and pieces. Will they have to go to the computer to find out what specific terms of service, conditions of employment or peculiar rotas apply at the various NHS hospital trusts? Think of the problem facing the Royal Colleges if they have to go round 300, or 2,000, different hospitals to vet the training they have set up for their junior hospital doctors and approve those posts. That is a problem. I do not say that it is an insoluble problem, but it is one which has to be recognised and looked at in the discussion.
The White Paper also comments on training and research. I think that the issue was neatly ducked, because the White Paper includes a little about SIFT, apparently in the hope that we should not probe too deeply. However, the working papers make it clear that at the moment SIFT applies only to teaching hospitals. These are undergraduate teaching hospitals. But all hospitals are teaching hospitals because all junior hospital doctor posts are training posts. The funding of that level of training and the allowance for proper training and teaching is a vital matter.
It is essential to make sure that doctors have an opportunity to study in addition to the training they receive in the course of their medical treatment of patients. They may be seeking membership of one of the colleges, or taking diplomas in gynaecology or

711
obstetrics, and so on. They may be working a one-in-three rota and barely have time to study during their normal free time. They need study leave. In many cases they can be allowed study leave only by changing the rota from one-in-three to one-in-two.
There is also the problem that certain hospitals which are considering the new trust status are not even considering such study leave. I know one hospital not very far from here where there are 12 junior hospital doctors who are in disagreement—I shall not say in dispute—with the consultants managing the team because they are allowed only 30 days' study leave a year between the 12 doctors. The normal allowance should be 360 days. Therefore the team should be 13 and not 12. That is a reflection of budgets and efforts to control costs. I think that it needs to be written into the status of the national hospital trusts that they must allow effective time for study as well as training. After all, some of those junior doctors will be consultants, others will be GPs. They all need the right sort of experience.
While on the subject of GPs, I should like to say that I am surprised that the working paper on the larger GP practices makes no mention of trainees in those practices. Such practices are the obvious ones to have one or two trainees. I believe that that is an important point which may need consideration.
Research is currently a requirement for promotion to the consultant grade. Again, and probably for perfectly good reasons because the White Paper mentions the reply to other reports, I do not believe that that question has been sufficiently considered. In the old days registrars often had time to carry out research in conjunction with their clinical work. Now the pressure resulting from the number of patients, the turnover of patients and the size of clinics restricts their time for research. They need to have time off for research. I believe that that point needs to be considered within the hospital budgetary plan. One needs to see how that can be fitted into the whole concept of the training of doctors.
Consultants need to supervise research. Consultants need to supervise training. They need to attend conferences themselves. Very often consultants' contracts make no allowance for such absences and consultants are then criticised for not doing their full whack or contracted sessions. There may be a need to appoint more consultants. Management by consultants will require their training in some management techniques and an understanding of the budgetary controls and management information that they are to receive. Will that be allowed for? Will they be allowed time off? Will appropriate courses be given?
Again on the subject of consultants, it must be realised that in the old days clinics and ward rounds provided a significant element of teaching. Nowadays the lists for clinics are scheduled on such a tight basis that they overrun grossly if a consultant spends more than the absolute minimum of time showing his junior doctor a critical point and asking that doctor to carry out examinations on patients and find the information out for himself. I do not think that enough time is allowed in that respect. That
712
point does not appear to receive a mention in the reference to the need for more consultants in the White Paper and it is a point that certainly needs to be reviewed.
I welcome the idea that consultants' contracts will be clarified. I think that there are frightful problems at the moment. One talks broadly about appointing 100 new consultants. Does that refer to effective consultant weeks; that is, involving the appropriate number of 10 sessions? Will there be 1,000 or 100,000 new consultant sessions or will there be 100 bodies who may not work more than eight sessions? That point needs clarifying.
Consultants are not just senior doctors; they are trainers. They will now be managers. They need to keep themselves up to date. They need encouragement as well as criticism and they will become an important part of the final matter that is crucial to this White Paper—medical audit. In many cases, consultants will have to chair those medical audits. They will have to be good man managers to ensure that criticism which will inevitably arise is not hurtful but constructive. In some cases they will probably need training themselves in how to carry out those medical audits. Medical audits can be thought of very much as cost-saving exercises. They will show where some treatments have cost more than others, but they will also point up where better training, which may mean more costs, could have produced more effective treatment.
I believe that the White Paper is a good basis for the future discussions. I am sure that they will prove fruitful and I hope that the results will mean that we have a better service after the consideration has taken place.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for giving us the opportunity to debate the White Paper today and for such an interesting opening speech. I sympathise a little with his regrets about the research situation and particularly with the burden of his report from the Select Committee in which he took part that my noble friend says he is now considering. It is a fact that our research capacity has shrunk in recent years.
I thought that the article in The Times last week which gave an analytical comparison between health services in our country, the United States and Canada threw some light on this matter of our diminishing research resources. Our health service came out about half way between the United States and Canada. Canada was the most satisfactory and America the least satisfactory. As we spend a good deal less than either of them, we might take some consolation from that.
However, an important point not shown in that survey—this is the point that I want to draw to your Lordships' attention—is the increased annual rate of spending on the health service in the past 10 years. The survey covered a period of 26 years and was obviously an authoritative survey done by Americans. It showed that the annual rate of expenditure had been increasing here over the last 26

713
years at a rate of only 2 per cent. compared with Canada and America where the rate was about 3 per cent. That was a rather depressing observation indicating that we were falling further behind and that we would be less able still to keep up with our research work.
In addition, the survey did not show that over the past 10 years, expenditure on the health service has gone up from £8 billion in 1979 to £26 billion, as my noble friend Lord Belstead told us this afternoon; that is a 40 per cent. increase in real terms, so the average increase in the rate is now up to 4 per cent. per annum and therefore the figure exceeds that of both the United States and Canada. We therefore have some prospect of catching up. This is an encouraging perspective and, if I may say so to my noble friend the Leader of the House, it is a credit to the Government that it has been achieved by the stronger economy of the country.
I should like to turn now to the White Paper and join with other noble Lords who have welcomed its exposition of the Government's plans for decentralising control of this huge national service employing about 1 million people. My noble friend Lord Trafford made a good point: it is rare that the centre decentralises control to the periphery and it is to be welcomed. As I see it, the general theme is to relate the provision of cash more nearly to the patient's needs, both at GP and hospital level, and at the same time to make the service more sensitively responsive to the needs of each individual patient so that each will receive as good treatment as the best.
The White Paper sets out a number of good new ideas and many noble Lords have welcomed them. They are worthy of consideration by all who are interested in the development of the health service. It is therefore regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, leading for the Opposition, Members of another place and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, have chosen to rubbish the White Paper and discredit it nationally by the charge of preparation for privatisation which it quite obviously is not. I am sorry that neither of the noble Lords are here, but I hope that other noble Lords will pass on to them the message that I have for them. I commend to their attention the March number of Marxism Today, the journal of the Communist Party. I see a smile on the face of my noble friend. The article states:
"To those on the Left, a discriminating response is appropriate. Outright rejection of the White Paper would be both wrong and a missed opportunity".
I emphasise the last point—"a missed opportunity". This is a great opportunity. We might not agree with all of the White Paper, but it is a missed opportunity if we simply rubbish it. I hope that this good advice will be accepted so that everyone can contribute constructively to the discussion.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, as I followed the reasoning of my noble friend Lord Ennals, his concluding advice to the House was that presented by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, that one should proceed to test the hypothesis before we apply the plan nationally.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, it will need a great deal of effort to explain that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, was to proceed in that manner. I hope that the discussions on the eight consultation papers will be proceeded with constructively.
I should like to comment on the self-governing hospitals. Incidentally, I observe from the consultation papers that each hospital will contract with its respective district health authority for the core services, including the whole range of local services that may be required, settling the fees on a three-year rolling basis. I welcome the confirmation of my noble friend Lord Belstead that there is no intention of opting out. That is a complete invention to discredit the scheme. I think that any danger of neglect of local needs is covered by the contract for core services that I have just mentioned.
As everybody knows, the quality of the hospital service and efficiency of management vary widely throughout the NHS. There are many different reasons. One of the principal causes has been referred to; namely, the inevitable financial anomalies that arise from the system of allocation of finance from the centre which does not always fit. What happens is that the most progressive and active hospitals which are increasing their activity and the number of cases which they handle tend to run out of their budgetary money by the end of 12 months and may close down beds in order to keep within their budget, whereas other hospitals which have not been so enterprising have surpluses that they find hard to use up. Nothing could be more inefficient than that. I do not doubt that when we turn to the new system the direct responsibility that will come to the independent self-governing hospital will give a real prospect of full use of resources and good value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Brain, who spoke before me referred in particular to the importance of the Medical Audit Commission. This is absolutely vital in the management of these hospitals and the quality of service that they produce.
To my noble friend Lord Belstead I say that the preparation for the development of a self-governing hospital will be a major task for each hospital. At present few hospitals have the information technology that is essential for efficient self-government, nor do they possess the co-ordinated computer systems that are necessary for full physical and financial control. All that can and should be made available in order to give those hospitals sound prospects of successful self-government. But it will take time, and the two years suggested by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State seem to me to be a very optimistic estimate. I suggest that a way forward might be for my right honourable friend to choose a small number of major hospitals which are known to welcome self-government and help them as quickly as possible to develop the necessary administrative structure so that they can act as prototypes to guide the generality of large hospitals which are contemplating self-government.
In passing, I should like to commend the constitution which is set out in the consultation paper; namely, the appointment of local people for their qualities of public service and their interest and

715
knowledge of the health service and hospitals generally. I hope that local government will not feel offended; when their members have those qualities of course they will be considered for appointment.
I also welcome the plan to bring into this picture part-time consultants through the hospital. They might be able to serve on the boards of hospitals or indeed, I suppose, on district health authorities. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that such men and women are the leaders of the industry. They are high powered, talented people. When they apply their minds to administrative and financial problems they have a great contribution to make.
I conclude with a brief reference to the proposals for the GP service and GP practice budgets. The BMA has sent me a copy of its "broadside" attacking practice budgets, and I thank them for it. My feeling is somewhat to sympathise with them, because from what I have heard this proposal is not all that popular. The fact is that GPs have no experience of living in this kind of financial discipline. What is more, the incentive of a practice budget to efficiency and profit for the practice is not of much interest to them. They have to set that against the financial responsibilities that they will have to undertake. To my mind the BMA's criticism is at least partially justified.
However, the point I want to make is that everybody knows that there is a problem. In many practices there is extravagance, especially in the use of drugs, and there are variations in quality of the service to patients between the best and the least good practices. Therefore there is a problem that needs to be addressed. To my mind it is simply not enough for the BMA to say that the existing monitoring procedure will do. It will not do. It has to be made better. It is in the interests of both patients and taxpayers that the Secretary of State clearly has an obligation to tackle this problem. This White Paper is his suggestion. If it is not found to fit, I hope that the BMA and the profession as a whole will bring their great knowledge and strength to the consultation process to try to find a better way of getting practices generally to operate as well as the best of them.
I give my good wishes to the White Paper and hope that the Secretary of State will make a great success of it.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, like other noble Lords before me I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for giving us an opportunity to debate this very important subject. There is nothing like the preparatory work for a debate to force one to get down to the nitty-gritty of reading one's papers, a task which otherwise one might shirk.
During the past 55 years I have committed myself to some eight voluntary tasks, all of them lying in the grey area between the application of science to medicine on the one hand and the administration of public bodies on the other. I am still in play with the last of the series at the moment. During the course of
716
those tasks, I have made many friends with members of the medical profession; some of them are former colleagues, and sometimes I am an ex-patient. What follows is, as it were, a little investigative parliamentarianism. I like talking to the man on the shop floor and though, in the course of my contacts, some of the jargon may have rubbed off on me, nevertheless I must not allow your Lordships to think that I have any medical qualifications whatsoever.
Nothing can run on unattended for 40 years without a major overhaul from time to time. The enemies are always the same: complacency and indifference—complacency with respect to one's own performance and indifference in respect to that of others. That is why a major overhaul is necessary. A radical reform always leaves rough edges, and to leave rough edges in health and safety care implies that we are in a sensitive area where we should tread delicately. In this respect perhaps I may draw the attention of the Government to the fact that whenever one re-organises anything at all there is a temporary sag in morale. It is up to the Government to anticipate that situation by producing such morale boosters as they can to coincide with their radical reform.
I welcome unequivocally three aspects of the White Paper. I welcome the delegation of authority down to the level of contact between doctor and patient, cutting out as much of the bureaucracy as we are encumbered with at present. Secondly, I welcome the increased authority of consultants to specify how hospitals should be run with the managers as their servants rather than their masters and in the interests of their patients and the exercise of doctors' professional skills. Thirdly, I welcome the stick and carrot application of further conditions to the "C" merit awards. I might even accuse the Government of plagiarism since I coined that phrase during the Second Reading debate of the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I shall not push the indictment too far. I expect it is just a question of minds thinking alike.
I have been going the rounds of various practices represented by friends. To one I said, "Tell me, what is the single biggest headache in your practice and to what will the White Paper contribute?" His answer was interesting. He said, "London traffic, and in particular the abolition of my right to park, provided I do not do it dangerously, outside a house on a domiciliary visit, and then move on to the next one". He said, "I have actually been towed away while displaying a BMA sticker on my car; so there I was, bereft of transport for my next domiciliary visit, together with a easeful of instruments and unable to practise my profession."
Another comment made to me was this: "Time wasted in fruitless 'phone calls to overloaded hospital switchboards." There again, my Lords, we need authority at working level to enlarge those switchboards so as not to waste the time of GPs in making endless calls. A third comment was that GPs could do quite a lot of minor surgery in their own consulting rooms if they got paid for it. As it is, it is time consuming and it prevents them taking on other paid work. As it is perfectly in order to refer the patient to a hospital, they do so. There again more

717
attention needs to be given to the working conditions of single general practitioners.
Let us go to group practice. The fact that it is a group practice does not, of itself, tell you whether it is a good or a bad practice. Of course one only hears of the bad ones from patients. This is one complaint that has been made to me: it is that emergency and accidents apart, you could only see the partners by appointment, which may be anything up to three or four days ahead; there is no constancy in the GP who is going to look after you; and there is a poor reference system to medical records, so that you may be attended by somebody who really does not know anything about you whatsoever. That is a badly-run group practice.
Let me come to a well-run group practice of four. Here there are four doctors with 7,300 patients registered, operating within a ten-mile radius in a rural area. In their view, 11,000 registrations would require about six doctors, and the difficulty of getting six compatible temperaments working together in stressful conditions goes up very much with the number. In fact, if N is the number of persons engaged in a practice, the number of personal relationships between them is one-half of N-times (N-minus-one)—which in the case of four doctors means six and in the case of six doctors means 15. Therefore the number of personal relationships you have to manage between the partners goes up by a factor of two and a half. That is just a little bit of elementary arithmetic.
However, they always seem to manage to see all their patients the same day as they are called, by appointment. Each partner is on call round the clock one week in four. Their facilities consist of an electrocardiograph, a steriliser, computerised records worked by the secretary and a dispensary. For this they employ a staff of a secretary, a receptionist, a state registered nurse and a pharmacist.
What are their complaints? First, that their contract is poorly defined and they are continually being asked to do more and more for less and less. They are dismayed at the growth of the nonprofessional administrators in the National Health Service, as a proportion of the whole, and they thoroughly agree with the White Paper that much more discipline is required in the dispensation of drugs, because they themselves dispense their own.
I come next to the idea of purchase of facilities by GPs. In the London region a very liberal attitude is taken and general practitioners requisition what they want from the most convenient general hospital: X-rays, haemotology, bacteriology and so on. The GP takes a sample, the sample goes by post to the path lab and the report comes back. In other regions there is a less liberal attitude, and the GP can only get what he wants by going through, and referral to, a consultant. What is the point of making GPs pay over the entire National Health Service for services many of them can get by requisition as of today? What we need is a more liberal attitude all round to GPs requisitioning services such as X-rays—I will not go through the list again—without having to go via a consultant.
I come now to my last two points. The first concerns the White Paper as a piece of literary
718
composition. I am sorry to say that I regard it as managerially illiterate, semantically undisciplined and lacking an organisational chart which would give one a synoptic view of the organisation as it now is and as it is proposed to be. There is no glossary of acronyms and no index; so one searches blindly through nine volumes to try to locate the original reference to some acronym that is puzzling one in volume 9.
Chapter 2 is a shambles of misuse of the words "authority" and "responsibility" in the context of delegation. You can delegate authority; you cannot delegate responsibility. I cannot make another man answer for what I am answerable for: I can only do it myself. If you write the words "delegated responsibility" into an Act, the courts interpret it as meaning delegated power, because there can be no answerability for something you have no authority to do, and the moment you acquire that authority you must be responsible to the source from which you received it. Therefore wherever the word "responsibility" occurs, it should be made quite clear regarding responsibility for what and responsibility to whom. I have given the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government a note of these points. I hope I shall have an assurance from him that when the Bill eventually appears before us these semantic indisciplines will be put right.
Lastly, what is to become of the review bodies? We are told that the hospital authorities can appoint people with their own ideas of salaries. What happens to the review bodies? They are vaguely referred to from time to time in the White Paper, but there is no idea given of how they are going to work in the future.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the White Paper, which must be welcomed in principle, is more conceptual than detailed. I think there is much anxiety among many GPs as to what it means. Inevitably they do not like change, as is the case with most people. The discussion papers do not appear to have allayed that concern to any great extent yet.
I should like to tell your Lordships of some of the representations made to me. For 30 years GPs have been persuaded to undertake much testing and investigatory work for which they have been paid. It is now perceived that they will only be paid on the basis of bodies on the register. There will be little incentive to carry out investigatory work if they are not to receive any more fees for doing so. Therefore it will discourage GPs spending time on their patients.
As to drugs, obviously cost-consciousness is essential. In some areas already, because of the pressure of that consciousness, there are many low prescribers: in other areas a general practitioners list can contain many elderly people or people with a great incidence of problems. It is very difficult to compare the costs of one GP against another taking into account these sorts of factors. Even if one could compare one practice with another, no two years are alike. In one year there may be a great incidence of a

719
particular problem which necessitates much higher cost of prescriptions.
Too much cost-consciousness may also cause stress. I have been given the example of a case of a skin problem where two drugs may be prescribed. One of them is very messy and comparatively cheap; the other is clean and rather dear. Which one will the general practitioner prescribe in future? Will this not lead to cutting corners and giving patients something which, for the sake of cost, will do the job but is not nearly so attractive?
General practitioners are to be weighted according to the types of patient on their lists; for example, whether there are many people who are old, who need drugs and so on. How is this to be administered? With several thousand patients on their lists, are general practitioners to make a note of every man's age, what his problems are and what he may be expected to have? Even to think of it is a nightmare. General practitioners cannot understand how this will be operated in order to work out the potential of their lists.
There is concern about the implication that general practitioners who send most patients to consultants are less good doctors. I shall give an example of how that may be wrong. One general practitioner at home is a part-time clinical assistant in dermatology. Since she started that job, she has sent more referrals, having recognised the complexity of the problems that she has come across. High or low referrals do not necessarily mean that the doctor is good or bad.
Then there is the question of patients' choice. This sounds very good at face value and probably is in the big cities. There are many doctors to choose from. But there is concern that the patient's perception of a doctor who is good may not be right. For example, a patient may be influenced by a very flash entrance or by a doctor who prescribes a lot of pills. There may be less choice for the patient in practice although more choice for the general practitioner with referrals. However, even that may be doubtful because it is stated that the health authority may advise one hospital or another. That means that the important link between general practitioner and consultant whereby the general practitioner knows each consultant and can send patients to the consultant whom he regards as the most suitable will tend to be broken. In any case, general practitioners can already send patients to the hospital of their choice and obtain the surgeon of their choice to suit the patient.
Capitation is also good in the big towns; but in the country areas there is a limited number of patients for doctors to attract. Therefore, the point is rather lost. General practitioners may have to reduce the number of people in their practice. If they cannot find more patients but wish to increase their capitation, all they can do is reduce the number of doctors in the practice.
There will be winners and losers. The White Paper seems slanted towards the acute problems. It is expected that the losers may be the chronic patients in the spheres of rheumatology, geriatrics and perhaps community care. A particular worry exists among small practices in country towns and areas.
720
In the drive for efficiency there must not be a devolving to the cheapest hospital. The White Paper states that the hospital must be charged out not only on its costs but also on its capital assets. It therefore seems possible that an efficient hospital in a high capital area will have to charge far more than an inefficient hospital in a cheap area. Thus the efficiency of the hospital will be hidden by the capital asset of the hospital.
If hospitals are competing on price—this, again, in principle is right, but it produces problems—for a particular operation, they will inevitably be under pressure to release all their patients as early as possible in order to carry out the operations within quoted prices. If there is a relapse because the patient goes out too early as a result of cost cutting, general practitioners want to know who picks up the tab: does it go against the hospital or does it come back against the general practitioner?
There is no prediction of the increase in administrative costs. With cross-boundary charges there will be considerable extra accounting for relatively small charges. It is estimated that the administration on accounting will double. If the administration charge goes up, there will be less money to spend on the patients. I think that flexible organisation for wages and salaries is an excellent idea. It will help to fill some of the posts where this is difficult by virtue of area and by virtue of discipline and where problems exist in attracting nurses.
While wages may be varied in order to fill different disciplines, it is very important that this should not increase the North-South divide. In the north of England we have very good doctors and good hospitals; and we have nothing to complain about. If the affluent areas were able to offer big sums to attract away all the best doctors, it could lead effectively to a North-South divide, which would be wholly unacceptable.
The concerns of general practitioners need to be pointed out. I hope that they will be taken into account. The White Paper sets a new style for the National Health Service. The fears must be allayed and the details spelt out. Even those who have these fears appear to believe that the White Paper is fundamentally on the right lines and that something needs to be done. It deserves a good welcome and will help to bring the health service into the 1990s.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, for voicing the doubts and difficulties of a number of general practitioners at the sharp end. I have heard many of these worries myself, and can echo them from my own experience.
Like many noble Lords, I frequently receive promotional material through the letterbox—probably more than most because I am also a general practitioner. I usually find that the glossier the cover and the more persuasive the language the more expensive and less relevant to my real needs is the product on offer. I rather feel that the White Paper can be described in those terms, but in fact it

721
is not all bad. Some useful and important parts of the policy described in Working for Patients are as follows:
Some doctors—the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is one of them—and all health economists, have been pressing for years for more accountability so that those who make clinical decisions can be made aware of the costs that they incur. The White Paper certainly does that, with a vengeance—to such an extent that the costs of treatment are given such emphasis that the benefits to patients seem almost to have been forgotten, despite the title of the White Paper.
Many responsible doctors will also welcome the emphasis on medical audit. I very much welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, on the way in which this should be administered. Working Paper 6 seems on the whole to be a useful document. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, mentioned that it should be adequately financed and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, reassured him on that, and I was glad to hear it.
I like the proposal to ask the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, otherwise known as SMAC, to consider medical audit and indicators of clinical outcome. However, at this stage I should like to ask why no mention is made of last year's report by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on medical research and its part in helping the health service. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has already commented on that in some detail. I very much support his remarks.
The problems involved in introducing the changes proposed in the White Paper will be enormous. In fact a major criticism, as many other noble Lords have pointed out, is that the steps and solutions which it proposes are far too simple; perhaps they could be described as simplistic. They cannot be introduced in the timescale proposed. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, expressed that very strongly.
Surely there must first be careful evaluation of some pilot projects. This must be the way to go before laying down a timetable for sweeping nationwide changes, many of which I suspect will be found to be unworkable.
A national health research authority, such as was proposed by the Select Committee, would be the ideal body to commission research into the feasibility and economic desirability of the measures proposed with enormous enthusiasm in this document but I feel that without adequate studies some of the proposals will fall flat on their face.
I should like to say a little about how the proposals appear to a GP in practice, because I am working in one of those practices which will become entitled to a budget. However, before doing so, I should like to mention some worries I have about the major administrative proposals in the White Paper. If hospitals are to compete or to opt out I want to know what will happen to the less efficient hospitals. Are they to close; even if they are the traditional, convenient neighbourhood hospitals for sizeable populations? The Royal College of Nursing is
722
worried about that. I should like to quote from its comments on the White Paper:
"These proposals have the potential to create a split health service resembling the pre 1948 elite voluntary hospitals and the local authority infirmaries".
I should have thought that the need was more to upgrade hospitals which are not doing well rather than to stimulate those which are attracting patients from outside their own health authorities.
If there is a net flow of patients from one health authority to facilities in another, that can be recognised under existing arrangements and the transfer of funds could be speeded up to make it possible for one health authority to pay another. There is no real difficulty in that except that administrative arrangements are rather clumsy at present. There is no need for the vast changes which are proposed in the White Paper. It might perhaps be economic to let a hospital die, but in that case it would be working against patients instead of for patients if services become less available conveniently in their own districts.
Secondly, I echo several noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, in asking where community care is mentioned in the White Paper? It seems quite extraordinary that a major reform of the health service has been proposed without looking at community care as part of the whole picture.
Thirdly, as regards membership of family practitioner committees and membership of the health authorities, to remove local authority members from such bodies is surely going against the spirit of the White Paper which is to delegate the responsibility for managing hospitals to those who are nearest to where the services are provided. Surely the people who are to receive those services deserve to be consulted through their elected representatives.
Turning to general practice, I am worried about the bureaucracy involved in holding a budget. At present I can freely ask for almost any investigation I wish; refer my patients to a number of different consultants, hospitals and clinics; arrange for district nurses to visit my patients at home; and obtain (admittedly not enough) considerable help from social services departments and other agencies. All this occurs without any money changing hands, no billing documents and no bureaucracy. It is a free service and that is what we have been used to. Compared with almost any other country this allows doctors greater clinical freedom and a considerable degree of choice also for patients. I accept that this freedom needs to be tempered with accountability. There has been too little so far.
Despite that our costs have been very low using any international comparative yardstick. But a series of measures to increase accountability are already in operation. For example, since last year a scheme called PACT—prescribing analysis and costs—has been sending reports to all general practitioners in the country giving details of their prescribing patterns and costs. It is a major innovation which has only recently started and has not yet begun to bear fruit. I think that it will do so quite soon and it should put a downward pressure—using the words of the White Paper—on costs. This effect has been demonstrated

723
by Dr. Conrad Harris and his colleagues of the Department of General Practice at St. Mary's Hospital, who looked at the prescribing habits of a group of doctors and later discussed with them their exact prescribing details.
The General Medical Services Council of the BMA is at present negotiating with the Department of Health the implementation of the White Paper on primary care, which itself will increase accountability. It does not seem to me that the profession has been dragging its feet in these negotiations, as has been suggested by the Minister. I have seen the GMSC's statement describing the negotiations. Of 33 items under discussion, agreement has been reached on nearly all of them. There are only one or two sticking points.
It seems that now the department has moved the goal posts with the introduction of the White Paper. The most retrograde move relevant to the negotiations that the GMSC is having is to decrease the basic practice allowance and increase the capitation element of general practitioners' remuneration. The argument is that this will encourage practices to take on more patients. The better the practice the more patients will be attracted. But that flies in the face of the trends of the past two decades, in which the number of patients per doctor has gradually decreased thereby allowing a little more time for consultations, for listening to patients' problems; and for making fuller and more accurate diagnoses. In other words, a higher standard of medicine leading to a wiser use of hospitals. The profession would be right to stick to its opposition and I shall support it in every way. It would be the beginning of the return of general practice to its impoverished and second rate status as existed before 1966 when the general practitioners' charter was introduced.
I should like to raise many more points but I have already spoken for 12 minutes. However, I should like to refer to a paragraph in the White Paper dealing with the employment of new consultants. It is proposed to create 100 additional consultants over three years; that is 33 per annum. It is claimed that that will help reduce the working hours of junior doctors. In fact, the number of consultants is increasing by approximately 300 per annum; that is, by about 2 per cent. In order to have a significant impact on the working hours of junior doctors it has been calculated that there must be an increase of approximately 600 consultants per annum; that is 4 per cent. Therefore, an increase of 33 per annum over three years is only a small contribution to the problem.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brain, for raising the difficulties which may be introduced for junior doctors because the hospital trusts may have different working contracts for their junior doctors.
In conclusion, I suggest that the policies contained in the document will not be "Working for Patients". They will not even be working for health. Preventive medicine and the care of chronic illness are scarcely mentioned. I suspect that the document will not even he working for the Treasury because the necessary
724
additional accounting and billing will more than offset any savings. As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, it will be working for accountants and will provide a boost for the computer industry. I fear that many square miles of forest will be consumed in generating rolls and rolls of computer print-out.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington for initiating this debate on the White Paper. As these are very early days, with the working papers just having come out, I am sure that this debate on the National Health Service reorganisation is one of many which your Lordships will undertake in the period of consultation.
With the great interest and experience in health matters which exists in your Lordships' House, it is a great pity that there is no Minister from the Health Department to answer our many questions and queries. We are of course honoured to have taking part in the debate the hard-working Leader of your Lordships' House.
I have been in your Lordships' House since 1970 and never has communication with the Health Department been as poor as it is at the present time. For several weeks I have been waiting for an answer to a very important letter. The amusing aspect is that today I received an acknowledgement stating that inquiries are taking longer than expected.
Tomorrow is the by-election in the constituency of Richmond, North Yorkshire, near my home. Last weekend I met three keen young men who had travelled from London to help with the canvassing. I asked them what were the main issues of concern expressed by the people they visited. One might think that it would be farming, water or even eggs. No, my Lords, it was health care. The young men were amazed by the number of elderly people living alone in isolated houses, some of them about 40 miles from the nearest hospital.
The White Paper and the working papers are well laid out and attractively presented. The country must evaluate whether the radical changes will really work in the interests of patients. Will the new structure for regional and district health authorities make an improvement? Will the chairman's job become almost impossible? It is proposed to reduce the membership from 17 to five non-executive members. Who will chair the various committees such as the ethical committees, the hospital chaplains' committees and the regional health authorities' drug advisory committees? Are those committees to be disbanded? Are they not a means of bringing people together and of monitoring performance across the regions? Districts which perform well can stimulate others to do better. Will the knowledge which crosses districts be lost?
The National Health Service has many complex areas. There are many good general managers and paid officers but some are better than others. Where there is too much power self interest can creep in and an autocratic attitude can prevail. That is not good for working relationships within units and authorities. The non-executive members are not paid.

725
Their interest and time is given for the benefit of the National Health Service.
When discussing the reduction in membership the chairman of a district authority said to me, "I just could not ask my members to do more than they do now". Both the regional health authority lay members and district members help to make health authorities closer to the people. They support the chairmen. They help to smooth difficult situations which may arise with the press and the public. They undertake numerous duties such as chairing appointments committees and hearing appeals.
For example, in the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority there are 17 health districts spread from the rural areas of the North Yorkshire dales to the deep industrial areas of Bradford and Huddersfield with a high ethnic population. Will only five lay members be able to do justice for a region so diverse in its composition? I hope that somehow the Government will realise that it is not only money which raises morale in the health service; it is an interest in what people are doing and achieving. It is also a commitment and service which many people throughout the country give freely and willingly.
I should like to ask the Government a few questions and I implore the Leader of the House to try his hardest to arrange for our questions to be answered. First, how will regions and districts be able to cover all the needs of patients if hospitals which now cater for specialised needs become independent and decide that specialised services are not in their interests? On the other hand, what will happen if they increase special services and cannot cover the needs of the general population? What will happen if a large hospital goes bankrupt?
For example, there is in Leeds the biggest hospital in Europe, the St. James' University Hospital, which specialises in renal and liver conditions and has one of the country's leading children's leukaemia wards. When I was there a short time ago the hospital was full. The doctor in charge was trying hard to find 10 beds needed for the night's emergency admissions. Some hospitals are already bursting at the seams. They are already working at 100 per cent. If more services are bought in from the private sector there will be a problem: many private hospitals are inadequate and often cannot cope with the seriously ill patients. They often lack junior medical cover, especially at night. Will the Government safeguard supra-regional specialties? There are some very worried patients. If the Government have any kindness in their heart, they will make a statement that these specialised services will be safeguarded. For example, the Phipps Ward, which is part of St. Thomas' Hospital, is the only unit in the country serving high respiratory patients. It is their lifeline. Will the spinal injury units which look after patients who are paralysed from breaking their back and neck still be funded by central government? What happens at a busy general hospital like Stoke Mandeville if it chooses to go independent and does not want to administer the spinal unit? Will the regional renal units be safeguarded?
The big vacuum in the White Paper is the lack, already mentioned, of community care. At the
726
bottom of page 15 of the White Paper, when it mentions therapists, there is no mention of occupational therapists. Those therapists are a very important link with the community when patients are to be discharged. There is a shortage of occupational therapists and the absence of mention about training of therapists is causing concern.
There is also concern that no mention has been made of the wheelchair service which will start incorporation into the health authorities in 1991. It is important that that transfer is thoroughly thought through and implemented smoothly and effectively with no loss of continuity of service.
Many people will welcome the statement in the White Paper which makes the health service more responsible to the needs of patients. As much power and responsibility as possible will be delegated to local level.
The proposal to give people individual appointment times for outpatient attendance is also welcomed. In particular, many disabled people find long waiting periods distressing. However, in order to make this proposal a reality the problem of transport to and from clinics needs to be addressed. It is important that all the needs of disabled people are incorporated in the restructuring of the health service.
Disabled people need reassurance that they will be accepted onto the general practitioners' lists. With so much emphasis on the budget of GPs, some disabled people already feel insecure. Such disabilities as head injuries, epilepsy, kidney disease, diabetes, spinal injuries, sickle cell anaemia, rheumatoid arthritis and many other chronic conditions will never be cost effective to the general practitioners. One GP said to me once, "The good patients are the ones we do not see". The good GPs will always want to do their best in the patient's interest. There should be good trust between the GP and the patient. The encouragement in the White Paper to increase the lists of patients cannot mean a better service for patients. Many GPs already do not seem to have much time for patients. Illness is a complex procedure. The Government will have to do something about protecting high cost patients.
It is impossible always to be correct in the time that a patient will stay in hospital. Each patient responds differently. They are not like tins of peas passing along a conveyor belt. They respond differently to stress and their immune systems work in different ways. They are human beings with feelings.
Doctors become doctors to treat patients. Many of them do not have the skills of an accountant. Everyone should try their best to be cost effective—there is no doubt about that. However, the question we should ask is: will budgeting become a burden to the general practitioner and take his mind away from his patients? The patient needs a quality approach. Will the businessman's approach give that? If the patient is to have a good relationship with his GP, he should be able to help make the choice when he goes to hospital. If he feels that he has been sent to the cheapest option and problems arise such as an operation going wrong, what will happen? Who will he sue?

727
One of the vital links in a complicated network is for the Government to find ways of unblocking the acute orthopaedic and general beds where elderly patients are residing because they have no suitable place to go in the community. The missing link is the lack of community support. Should not some pilot schemes be tried out before too much is changed too quickly, before safeguards are drawn up?
7.55 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I hope that she will forgive me if I touch only once or twice on what she said.
I should like to start by congratulating not only the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, but also the Cross-Benchers for allowing this day to be devoted to the present debate so early in the life of the White Paper. I should also like to congratulate the Government on making proposals which, in general, are sensible and stand a good chance of providing improved health care for patients.
As a one-time quango manager, I welcome the improvement in management methods; for example, the increased delegation towards the working level, the smaller health authorities, the self-government for hospitals, the reduction of red tape governing the financial interchange within the NHS and the family practitioner committees becoming accountable to RHAs alongside DHAs. That should all lead to improved service to the customer as well as better value for money.
One hopes that in time there will be greater decentralisation for pay and conditions in the service. In a labour intensive activity like the NHS, truly effective decentralisation of management can only be achieved by similar decentralisation of control over pay and conditions. The proposed arrangements for hospital self-government are a splendid move in that direction and one from which in due course the customer will surely benefit.
However, although I greatly welcome the proposals in the White Paper in general—and there are many other examples which could be mentioned with acclaim—there are three areas in which I take a special interest where the implementation of the proposals could have adverse consequences. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, encouraged the Government to go delicately in those areas. I too say that they should be treated with care. Those areas are the Isle of Wight, the handling of mentally ill patients and optometry.
In a general paper like the one now under debate, it is natural that a small county like the Isle of Wight should not receive special mention. However, it is of particular note that it houses the only district health authority in the country which is cut off from the mainland by sea. Thus it is of importance that the arrangements for the funding of hospital services described in Chapter 4 are implemented with a clear understanding of the special difficulties there may be for the islanders and their GPs to shop around for hospital services. That is merely one example. There
728
are many other potential difficulties due to the Isle of Wight's unique position and I hope that the Government will give particular care to that point.
On the plus side, the Isle of Wight has the immense benefit of identical geographical boundaries for its DHA and its county council. This makes liaison between the health authority and the social services vastly better than on the mainland. Many noble Lords have commented on the lack of coverage by the White Paper of community care or even social services. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, finished her speech on that point. The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Seebohm, mentioned it. My noble friend Lady Cox spoke about a seamless robe incorporating community care. Whether or not covered by the White Paper, I tentatively venture to say that in regard to those aspects liaison and coverage are better handled in the Isle of Wight than in most other parts of the country.
On more than one occasion I recommended to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, when he was responsible for health, that one of the changes that could usefully be included in the White Paper is to rearrange the regional and district boundaries to coincide with those of the counties in order to achieve the very situation I have described. I very much commend to my noble friend who is to reply that he pass on my suggestion to his right honourable friend as it could be carried out even though it is not mentioned in the White Paper. The co-ordination of those activities would be vastly improved if my proposal were to be implemented.
Turning now to the mentally ill, my main concern is that I find very little mention of such patients, or care for them, in the White Paper or in its eight supplements. For example, one in 100 of the population suffer from schizophrenia at some time in their lives which, in a relatively small community like the Isle of Wight, is 1,200 people. Therefore it seems to me that they provide a special problem of great importance which justifies special measures in research, in care within hospitals and in supervision outside hospitals.
I should have liked to see mention of the more common mental illnesses in the annexe to Working Paper No. 3. I suppose those who look at it will not think it entirely appropriate. One can say that, after all, psychiatric services are included in the core services in paragraph 4.15 of the main paper. One would have thought it likely that there might be a waiting list for such services in view of the known demand for them. Perhaps there is not a waiting list for psychiatric patients in hospitals. I suggest that that is not because the cases are not there but because the psychiatrists will not handle them, for one reason or another. We need to make quite certain that in the implementation of this White Paper proper attention is given to the problem of this important illness, which has not received nearly enough interest in the Department of Health, the NHS or in the general world of research, about which others have spoken.
Turning now to optometry, it is clear from the Health and Medicines Act that the value of this most useful supporting service is neither understood nor appreciated by Ministers. While I welcome as good managerial practice the small size of the health

729
authorities and the family practitioner committees, it will in fact be the first time since the formation of the NHS, some 40 years ago, that there has not been an optometrist on each of the family practitioner committees.
Though FPCs are to consult local representative committees, we need to be sure that they pay more than lip service to such consultation. After all, NHS-subsidised eye examinations are still available to 40 per cent. of the population so there will be at least 5 million patient contracts a year under GOS. In addition, presumably FPCs will still be required to enforce terms of reference for optometrists under the NHS and to administer complaints procedures in regard to eye tests. It is difficult to see how they can do that effectively with the optometrists only acting in a consultative role. I hope that my noble friend will take note of that to pass on as an aspect that needs proper address when the White Papr is implemented.
To conclude, there is much that is fundamentally good about this White Paper and its eight supplements, but we need to watch carefully to see that important specific health matters are not overlooked in the implementation of the proposals.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hunter for giving us the opportunity to debate the White Paper so soon after its publication.
I welcome the White Paper not least because for the whole of my career since the health service began I have been trying to make a good case for more funding. I have been told repeatedly by people who know better than I that the service is a bottomless pit. It seems to me that the examination that lies behind this White Paper is a necessary planning feature before there is much prospect of more money finding its way to this important service that I love so much.
I recognise that the central problem—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my noble friend Lord Seebohm—is that there is an enormous amount of work to do to make sure that the money can follow the patients. One aspect about which we are all concerned is the age of the patients. My elderly mama died not long ago and I was reminded that people over the age of 85 cost the health service about 22 times more than people in middle life. That is a devastating figure.
I also welcome the delegation of responsibility but I am conscious that it will bring together new people. I hope that we are able to ensure that close and happy collaboration can develop between them.
I am very much in favour of audit. For a long time I have been chairman of a committee concerned with merit awards. I hope the fact that people are to be reassessed at three-year intervals does not introduce tensions and resentments between the profession and those concerned with the two procedures. It has been said that they should be kindly procedures and I certainly agree.
Like my noble friend Lord Seebohm, I too greatly regret the absence of more integration in the
730
presentation. It seems to me that medical practice in the hospitals as well as in the community will depend very much on smooth relations between the social services and the health side. I was much involved with that long ago when I was at Guy's Hospital and we were trying to devise an integrated plan for the new town of Thamesmead. Rather as with the White Paper, we had the enormous advantage that Thamesmead had not been built so there were no patients and our plans could be idealistic about how far people would walk to see the doctor in rainy weather, and so on. However, the central purpose of that development was to bring all the people together to work collaboratively. I believe that should be the aim on this occasion.
I should now like to take up three specific points from the White Paper and the working papers. I refer to the start of paragraph 30 in chapter 4 on page 38 of the White Paper. It states:
"The Government is firmly committed to maintaining the quality of medical education and research".
First, perhaps I may make a few remarks about education. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Dainton was correct when he indicated how valuable it would be if somebody with a feel for education and research could be found a place on the policy board and on the management executive. It seems that at the end of the day the quality of the service depends on the education of the doctors, the nurses and the professions. Yet repeatedly, as we have been trying to improve the NHS since the 1970s, I have felt that the educational side has received a cold wind. I believe that the time has come for that to change.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brain was right about post-graduate training. It will have to be extended to include management skills. That will put a heavy onus on those who are responsible for post graduate training in all our hospitals. I confess that I was disappointed with Working Paper No. 2, paragraph 4.11 at page 20 where it deals with research. It refers to your Lordships' Select Committee on Medical Research for the NHS. I believe that it was a very weak statement because it left out what seems to be a really central theme that the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, and his colleagues had unravelled; namely, the terrible paucity of operational research in this vast 1 million-strong personnel enterprise. I feel very strongly about that because I have no doubt that operational research will be a very important factor in whatever developments emerge from the White Paper.
I also have a personal reason for being concerned about operational research in the NHS. As I get older and greyer I have become more and more concerned with the preservation of health, health education and promotion. I have no doubt that it will require the best techniques of operational research to do the kind of survey work that some of my young colleagues have been undertaking. I hold up this report although I realise it will be visible only to the television cameras. It is a report concerning a study of 9,000 folk taken at random up and down the country. It looks into their health knowledge and behaviour. Some of the results are most distressing. There is undoubtedly an enormous amount of health ignorance abroad in the country.

731
It is my belief that if that kind of information could fit in with the activities of the districts and regions it would provide a wonderful assessment of the quality of health. Once we have a base line for that in any district we can repeat it after five years and begin to get an idea of where the health service is failing to preserve health. That is something that the patients are very interested in. It links very closely with one of the early points made in the White Paper. It states that one of the matters that district health authorities can start to concentrate on is ensuring that the health needs of the population for which they are responsible are met; also, that there are effective services for prevention and control of diseases and the promotion of health. That is why I regret that the Government have not yet grappled with the question of operational research in the review of the health services.
I am taking a very small book from my pocket because I believe that there should be yet another publication which would be called "Working With Patients Towards Achieving Better Health". I rely on my little book for a quotation from Hippocrates that I frequently use with my students. They all know the great aphorism:
"Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult".
That is to be found in almost every medical textbook. But in the same aphorism the great Hippocratic school went on to say:
"The physician must be ready not only to do his duty to medicine himself but also to secure the co-operation of the patient and his family".
8.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has the House very much in his obligation for this very important debate, especially as it has enticed here a number of noble Lords with great experience of all parts of the National Health Service in research and medicine of all kinds. At this time of the evening and being not the llth batsman but the 25th—if one had a cricket team of that size—it is necessary to cut down one's speech.
After 41 years of a National Health Service it is quite clear that some kind of reorganisation will be necessary. There has been no shortage of reorganisations of the National Health Service, sometimes in the form of Royal Commissions chaired by very distinguished persons in the health service and elsewhere. I believe that whatever shortcomings these proposals have they put the National Health Service on a more realistic basis than it is now. Market forces always have shortcomings. I believe that this will be clear as the implications of the White Paper go forth.
On the other hand, it is becoming more and more vital that those experienced in the field of medicine should have more opportunities than those who are in what I call theoretical marketing. I join other noble Lords who are disappointed at the scant amount of discussion on medical research. Last week I was at a diplomatic reception and I met a very distinguished gentleman who was one of the head men in the Imperial Cancer Research organisation. I talked to
732
him about this particular debate and he said, "Please mention one point if you can, that is, the vital importance of medical research and the lack of funding therein".
I accept that medical research, like any other kind of research, can have its fallibilities. It may well be that research into some subjects has been duplicated. It is surely absolutely vital that we combat some of the more menacing diseases, particularly in children, and Alzheimer's disease in elderly people. Those or your Lordships who watched last Monday's "Panorama" programme will have seen the very distressing implications of that particular illness. There are also the childhood leukemias. Medical research has much to its credit for having at least given remission to many of these conditions. Unless we have more financial assistance for medical research we shall never completely cure these conditions. I join with other noble Lords in imploring the Government to look at that matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In connection with medical research, will he confirm that a graduate microbiologist engaged in research on Alzheimer's disease is paid less than a corporal in the British Army?
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord's greater knowledge. I am not professionally involved in the matter but it is an important point that people working in many aspects of medicine receive rewards which certainly do not compare well with those available in the defence forces and elsewhere. That is one of the quirks of life. It is not a state of affairs peculiar to this country but I hope that the Government will take on board the noble Lord's point.
The setting up of hospital trusts is a good idea but it needs to be explored carefully. Out of the 11 people to be appointed to the boards the White Paper says that only two will represent local people. It is suggested that one will be drawn from the hospital's League of Friends. I declare an interest as the president of the friends of our local district hospital. More local involvement in these trusts is vital. I am a trustee of a school. In order to make the trusts work it is essential that trustees should have local knowledge. Between now and 1991, when all the facets of the White Paper will come into force, I hope that this matter will be looked at. It is a good thing that the requirements of the White Paper are being phased as some aspects need very much closer consideration than even two years can give.
The Royal College of Nursing is rightly concerned about the facilities nurses will have for negotiating pay rates and conditions of service in hospitals that opt out. This is an important point because there may be a suspicion, perhaps unfounded, that hospitals which do not conform to the White Paper will not receive the same favourable consideration, particularly in regard to staffing and negotiating pay rates, as those which do.
Time is moving on. This has been a long debate but I would urge the Government to make haste slowly in these matters. The White Paper has some excellent

733
facets but it also contains a number of matters which need closer consideration than two years can give. Many Members of Your Lordships' House and indeed many members of the medical profession who after all will have to work these proposals think along those lines.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and his colleagues on the Cross Benches for initiating this debate and for allowing us an opportunity to discuss the Government's proposals for the future of the National Health Service. At this stage in the debate it is difficult to avoid repetition but I shall do my best. I have cut down my remarks to what 1 consider to be two major points which have not been fully dealt with.
I certainly do not have the medical expertise of most noble Lords who have spoken. My background has been mainly in public health and community health. I was chairman of various health committees, a member of the LCC divisional health committee, a chairman of interviewing panels for senior and junior hospital staff, and a member of my own area health authority until it disappeared. I have been closely involved, and still am, with voluntary organisations dealing with community health, the elderly and mental health.
I served on those committees in my capacity as a member of a local authority; first of all, of the old St. Pancras Borough Council and then on the newly formed Camden Council until I left. In addition, I attended umpteen seminars, training courses, conferences and working parties, all organised by hospitals and health authorities, in my capacity as a member of a local authority. I was privileged to be involved in some of the early joint appointments which aimed to bring together hospitals and the local community in the development of services. I was involved in the planning and provision of health centres and health clinics and I took part in encouraging, where possible and practicable, the setting up of group practices.
I do not say this to boast or to make a personal point out of it. I believe that I am representative of thousands of men and women of all political parties and trade unions who served in that way. They gave up leisure time and made personal sacrifices willingly, voluntarily and without being paid because they believed they were providing a necessary ingredient in the task of developing services for the community. They were bringing an important voice into consideration of these services at all levels. Many of those people went on to become Members of another place and even of your Lordships' House. Many of them have made major contributions in ministerial positions.
All that is about to be changed. Paragraph 8.6 on page 65 of the White Paper says:
"Local authorities will no longer have a right to appoint members to DHAs".
In that one sentence the Government destroy what has been built up carefully over many years by thousands of people; and for no apparent good
734
reason. On the contrary, there is every good reason to involve more and more people with local knowledge and local interests. There is no apparent good reason for that destruction. But we are all aware of the new atmosphere of hostility between central and local government these days. While I certainly would not defend all the activities of local government in recent years—indeed, far from it—I would equally not defend the Government's destructive, negative and dangerous response to the current problems. In my view to shut out this whole body of opinion may create a gap which will be filled with something much worse.
The contents of paragraph 8.7 follow on from that. It reads:
"The interests of the local community will continue to be represented by Community Health Councils, which act as a channel for consumer views to health authorities".
I turn now to the community health councils' remit. It seems that they are to take on sole responsibility for representing all the interests which I have briefly outlined—and there are many more. However, to add all that on to their remit is almost unthinkable at present. It does not really make sense. Many practical questions arise the minute one considers whether one should increase the remit.
Will the very small and modest Bill which I had the privilege of steering through the House last year—namely; the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act—now be extended, or repealed, or will a new set of proposals be put forward for the new CHCs? Even now those CHCs are understaffed and underfunded. Therefore to take on this new major role of being the sole representative would, of necessity, mean much more realistic staffing, equipping and financing. I do not believe that those resources will be forthcoming; that is not the nature of the Government's proposals.
Therefore I think that the proposals as they stand represent an insult to the thousands of people who I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks and I hope that they will be withdrawn before any legislation is proposed.
My second point is tax relief for retired people on their private medical insurance premiums. That is probably one of the most important proposals and one which will have a much bigger effect on the future of the National Health Service than is generally conceived. Mention of it is contained in paragraph 1.18. It reads:
"The Government expects to see further increases in the number of people wishing to make private provision for healt1 care"—
that is an important passage—
"but at the moment many people who do so during their working life find the cost of higher premium difficult to meet in retirement. The Government therefore proposes to make it easier for people in retirement by allowing income tax relief on their private medical insurance premiums, whether paid by them or, for example, by their families on their behalf".
That proposal is being promoted by the Government as being of benefit to older people. I agree with Age Concern who warn us that,
"It is important 'not to raise' false expectations…about the extent to which this will benefit elderly people".
I think it is worth looking a little closer at the proposal. The truth is that not many individuals pay

735
for their private health care out of their own incomes. Indeed, most payments are made by companies on behalf of their employees through a variety of schemes. Moreover, those payments usually cease when a person leaves work.
While it can be argued that private health insurance offers an entry to acute medical care, insurance does not in general cover certain types of health care to which elderly people have most recourse; for example, long-term chronic conditions such as arthritis, loss of mobility, dementia and many others. In the main the major insurance schemes give a wide range of cover for accommodation and treatment in hospital and for some care outside hospital. However, such schemes almost invariably exclude new subscribers over the age of 64. Longstanding subscribers may be allowed to continue subscribing at the age of 65 but premiums increase sharply at that age, beyond the reach of many pensioners.
The schemes which are open to the over 65s do not provide cover for pre-existing complaints, so the older a new applicant is the more likely he is to have had some previous symptoms or history which would disqualify him from cover. Care in a nursing home or other long-stay settlement; a stay in a convalescent home; or care at home, which is not related to a hospital stay and which has not been recommended by a specialist; care under a GP; regular renal dialysis and dental or optical care would not qualify for cover under most schemes.
Again, I am most grateful to Age Concern for providing me with some figures of the increases so as to illustrate the degree to which premiums for private health insurance increase at age 65. The figures were compiled over 12 months ago and therefore will have quite dramatically increased, along with all other costs, since then. However, they show that for BUPA Care, a single man aged from 60 to 64 in London would by paying £578; at age 65 years and over for a renewal policy only he would have to pay £935. That is a massive increase the minute he reaches the age of over 65. If he is married, and aged between 50 and 64, the premium is £1,068; for 65 years and over, and for renewal only, the premium is £1,869. Similarly, for the PPP Family Health Plan the figures increase from £448 at the lower age to £738 for age of 65 and over; and for a married couple the figures increase from £847 to £1,390.
Therefore we are bound to ask: how many pensioners or old people are likely to have the money to pay such huge premiums? In addition, how many of them will be paying enough income tax to qualify for a reduction on the premium? Those are obvious questions. However, I think we all know the answer. It is, of course, not many. In order to benefit from the proposals you would have to retire both healthy and wealthy.
However, I do not think that the Government are too worried about those numbers. I think that they are more concerned about establishing a principle, because when we read the last sentence again, they say:
"Whether paid by them or, for example, by their families on their behalf".
736
Then we get a clue. The proposal will be promoted as being "fair". They will say, "It is only fair and just, isn't it?" "Why shouldn't sons and daughters be allowed to pay their parents' health costs and be able to offset such costs against tax?" Indeed, why not? But, what happens then? If it is all right to receive tax relief on your parents' health costs, is it not just as right to receive tax relief on your own health costs? Of course it is. Indeed, that would follow.
Given the Government's enthusiasm for more and more people to go private—they mention that in the same paragraph—I believe that this concession would soon be extended to cover personal premiums as well and so push more and more people, they hope, into the private sector and therefore very soon create the two-tier system on the way to total privatisation. That is not a fantasy; it is a perfectly logical assumption to take from that paragraph and from those proposals, because we know that the Government are almost obsessed with privatisation of everything in sight.
There are many more points which should be raised following the publication of the working party documents. I, for one, have not had a chance to study them yet. Indeed, we really need a separate debate on each paper. For instance, I should have thought that a debate would be most useful on the powers of the new boards, or the boards of directors of self-governing hospitals. I think that we could debate those powers alone in one afternoon.
However, I am convinced that if the Government really listen to the public debate which has started, which will continue and get fiercer as the facts become more available, then they will drop any attempt to force through legislation based on this White Paper and they will restore to the National Health Service the principles upon which it was conceived.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, it is late in the evening and we have finally arrived at the last few speeches. Like other noble Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for introducing the debate and for starting it with a history of the National Health Service. I also have been involved with the National Health Service for a large part of its history.
It is interesting to contemplate that from 1948 to 1973–74 no changes were introduced into the service; and then, rightly, in 1974 community services and hospital services were brought together. The decision taken at that time with regard to the administrative structure of the health service was wrong and therefore I agreed with the 1982 reorganisation, when we did away with the area health authorities. That meant that within eight years the National Health Service went through two major reconstructions. They caused problems for the staff. It was only shortly after that that the new management structure was introduced which again had a destructive influence on the service.
Here we are in 1989 proposing yet another new system for running the health service. I am pleased that we are debating the White Paper and that the

737
working papers were in our hands shortly before the debate. It is impossible for any speaker in your Lordships' House to absorb all the material in the working papers. I therefore agree that it would be useful to have a debate on specific aspects of the working papers.
Before proceeding with the few points that I wish to make, I should like first to support the request of my noble friend Lady Seear that the community services be considered in conjunction with the White Paper. We hope that the Government's response to the Griffiths Report will soon be available and will be published before decisions are taken on the White Paper. I should also like to endorse the concern expressed as to whether preventive medicine comes into the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the White Paper's aim was to make the National Health Service more responsive to the needs of patients and to ensure that the money follows the patient. I am sure that we all subscribe to those aims.
There was a great deal of speculation in the press before the White Paper was published. Many people are worried about what will happen to the core services. I was therefore reassured by the statement in the White Paper that they would be protected and that emergency services would be immediately available. That is an assurance that the nation needs when it considers the reorganisation of the service.
I am somewhat disturbed, because I find it difficult to see how that would be achieved under the new financial framework for NHS trust hospitals. A new charging system for capital in the NHS will be introduced. Charges will be made up of two parts—depreciation (calculated on ordinary commercial accounting principles) and interest (calculated on the current value of the capital assets used by authorities). That is new. It is good accounting practice. Perhaps I may have the temerity to suggest that Her Majesty's Treasury produces its accounts in capital and revenue terms.
If that happens—it is bound to happen according to the working papers—those National Health Service hospitals which opt to become trusts will have an enormous amount of freedom to raise capital. They will be able to borrow; and they will be able to build up reserves if their operations are profitable. They will have three types of contract with district health authorities. They can have block contracts; cost and volume contracts (baseline and cost per case) or merely cost per case. In other words, each hospital could have a multiplicity of contracts with various district health authorities.
If the hospital has a block contract with a DHA and a cost-per-case service contract, and can make operating surpluses to build up reserves to improve their services, what guarantee is there, and what are the probabilities, that such reserves will be invested in the core services which, by their very nature, are likely to be less profitable than cost-per-case activities? Is there not a danger that those reserves will be invested in high-tech medicine, where the chances of further income generation are greatest, to the detriment of the core services? Does not that, in a way, make it almost certain that the hospitals which
738
do not elect to become hospital trusts and which are financed directly by the DHAs will be the hospitals that will have to run all the less profitable services? That is not a fair division. It will not make for certainty that the core services will be looked after.
We have battled for years to ensure that the core services are given the right financial support. I should hate to see them once more relegated to the Cinderella position which they once surely occupied. That would be a retrograde step. I also have worries about general practitioners' budgets. Will not running a budget for a group practice of, say, six doctors increase the cost of that group practice? I do not believe that many doctors have the financial know-how to run the finances of their practices. It will inevitably mean that they will have to employ some kind of financial manager. That will add to the cost of the practice.
There will be another change for general practitioners. They will no longer have free tests and diagnoses in the hospitals. They have been used to them. I agree that some general practitioners have not done all that they could for themselves. At the first opportunity they have sent their patients to hospital for tests which may be unnecessary. Is there not now a danger that because it will save some money for their budgets they may not send their patients for tests when it is necessary?
All these are matters which should be discussed deeply. I am very doubtful whether the time allowed for discussion and the time necessary for slowly implementing any changes in adequate. That is not to say that we believe there is nothing good in the proposals. There are many good suggestions in the White Paper but they must be implemented very slowly if we are to make the best use of the opportunity presented to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Richardson, mentioned that hospitals used to be self-governing in the past and that teaching hospitals in particular had their own boards of governors, which worked beautifully. There was wonderful co-operation between the hospital secretary, the head of the medical committee and the matron. It worked marvellously and proved that hospitals can be self-governing. I agree, it does. However, I was a member of a board of governors before 1974 and I wish to remind the noble Lord that in those days the finances available from the Department of Health and Social Security, particularly for teaching hospitals, were such that if we overspent, the budget was automatically topped up by the department. We did not have to suffer the kind of financial control that will be necessary.
I am not saying that it was right that we had no financial control; it was wrong. But I think that a self-governing hospital will have much greater problems than we have ever encountered before. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the subject and I hope that the Government will give adequate time for thought and implementation.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in expressing my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for having

739
given us this early opportunity of discussing an extremely important and, in my view, complex White Paper. It is not an easy paper to understand, let alone to see how it will be implemented. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for describing the historical setting for the White Paper. One might form the view from reading the paper that the National Health Service started in 1978. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, drew our attention to the historical background which goes back much earlier. I am also grateful to him for the sound steering which he gave to the debate.
Perhaps I may also express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington for reminding the House of the philosophical ground upon which the NHS was constructed. I detected in his message the powerful voice of the South Wales valleys. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for his contribution.
Of course some of the proposals are sensible. We favour individual appointment times in the hospitals. It is quite outrageous that people should be hanging around for two or three hours in waiting rooms before they are seen by the consultants or the senior registrars. We favour the cutting down of waiting time for an appointment. We favour a more sensitive complaints procedure. We very much welcome the appointment of 100 additional consultant posts and we favour a medical audit. We favour money following the patient if it is in the interests of the patient that he should cross administrative boundaries for treatment which he requires. We are not in favour of putting up boundaries to protect people from the services which they require.
However the debate has mainly concentrated on the controversial proposals contained in the document. In my view it is the most radical White Paper to have been published on the NHS since that bright morning 42 years ago. There is deep unease about the role of the GP under the new regime and the right of the larger hospitals to become self-governing institutions. While it is the Government's case that these changes merely reflect a change of pace, we believe that they herald a change of direction which, unless modified, could undermine the trust which should exist between doctor and patient.
The proposed system will exert very strong pressures on the GP who is a practice budget holder and the NHS manager to ensure that financial considerations come to the forefront in reaching a decision as to the treatment the patient is to receive and where he is to receive it. Let us consider the GP who is a practice budget holder. Here I am pursuing a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Having to live within his budget, is there not a risk that the GP will prescribe fewer or cheaper drugs? On the other hand, if he tends to opt for the more expensive drugs to meet the special conditions of his patients, how will they be paid for? What will be the position of the patient who wants to receive his treatment at hospital A if his GP recommends hospital B with which he has negotiated a price? In that situation, if the GP practice budget holder is the sole judge of which hospital the patient is to attend,
740
what does "patient choice" mean? We shall come to that, if it is not so.
If the GP is not a practice budget holder, it will be the health authority manager who will decide where the hospital treatment is to be given. Of course, the manager will be in a position to compare the prices which have been quoted by the various hospitals. But will this manager be in a position to assess the standard of treatment? If the manager has contracted for the treatment to be given at hospital B at X price, must the patient follow the contract or, at the patient's discretion, can the money follow the patient?
I am asking for those answers. I should be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister will confirm specifically that in those two situations which I have just mentioned the patient will go to the hospital of his choice and will not follow the contract. I have done my best to study the White Paper, and the attendant working papers and relative paragraphs. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I have not seen it specifically and unconditionally confirmed that that will be the position. I may have missed the paragraph and I should be grateful if the Minister would refer the House to that paragraph in the White Paper or the attendant working papers which gives an unconditional and specific answer to the question.
Of course the House will be interested in the Minister's reply to the three specific questions raised by my noble friend Lord Carter. We shall be interested in his comments on the thoughtful observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington.
It is stated in the working document that the general practitioner and the health authority manager will seek out the hospital best buy in terms of price and standard. But if I may take up a point which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, I believe that notwithstanding the Korner information referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, there are still problems to be overcome by the majority of hospitals in accurately apportioning the total costs of the hospital down to the level of the individual specialty and the individual treatment. My evidence for that is to be found in paragraph 2.16 of Working Paper No. 2.
As financial considerations come to dominate the scene, is there not a danger that some hospitals with an eye on the profit and loss account will cut corners in order to reduce costs? Could that lead to reduced quality? If a hospital decides to concentrate on those treatments which involve a short duration of stay or a high throughput, or on any other treatment which is profitable and which has a glamour appeal, to take up the point so powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who will plan for and meet the comprehensive needs of a community now served by a district general hospital and the community health services associated with it? Perhaps when the Minister winds up, he will deal with that vital concern. A comprehensive and integrated system has been the objective of the National Health Service for at least 30 years.

741
I now come to the self-governing hospitals which will provide such core services—that is a new term which has yet to be defined—as are agreed. They will determine staff salaries. If a particular hospital pays top salaries, who will eventually pay the bill? Will it he passed on to the general practitioner and be paid out of his budget? If a particular hospital pays top salaries, is there not a danger that that will affect recruitment for the other hospitals in the neighbourhood? Is that in turn not likely to lead to a two-tier hospital structure in that particular area which could depress morale in the lower tier? If that happens, what then will have been achieved for the patients of that hospital?
It is claimed by the Government that the self-governing hospitals will remain a part of the NHS. That statement has been endorsed by the noble Lord the Leader of the House this afternoon. That may be the position—I put it no higher than that—to some extent at the outset. But we are planning for the future, not just for today. Do the Government not see that, having created self-governing hospitals, they will have created within the system incessant pressures for self-governing hospitals to extend their powers until one day they become totally independent of the NHS?
Does the department not see that it will be driven to concede effective independence to the self-governing hospitals, perhaps in five or 10 years' time? Does it not see that that would endanger the cohesion of the National Health Service? Given their history of independence, I can see why the noble Lord, Lord Richardson, finds the status of a self-governing hospital to be attractive to some teaching hospitals. But I endorse the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. Teaching hospitals may well rue the day they go down that path.
Given the Government's well-known approach to research funding, it is perhaps not surprising that research has been summarily dispatched in two paragraphs, paragraphs 69 and 43, I believe. Moreover there has been no promise of a working document on medical research. Certainly we had an encouraging message earlier this afternoon from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but I shall want to study his words before I comment further on his message to your Lordships' House.
In the longer run the health service is ultimately dependent on the quality of medical research and on teaching in the medical schools. Indeed we know that some radical developments are possible which will bring untold benefit to the people of this country within a decade, if adequate research funding is available. I wish to endorse the emphasis of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, on the central importance of operational research. The White Paper is silent on the special needs of medical schools. However, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—who was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord Brain, Lord Butterfield and Lord Hunter—for drawing attention to the special situation and needs of the medical schools. I am glad that the medical schools have friends in this particular court.
I was very conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, spoke with the authority of a former
742
chairman of the University Grants Committee. He is, of course, the president of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School. I wish to be associated with the views of the four or five noble Lords who have drawn attention to the problems of medical schools. They have delivered a very convincing message to the Government. One can certainly see very clearly the need for a very carefully drafted financial memorandum between the Universities Funding Council, the university medical schools and the health authorities, and the need to establish clear procedures in order to determine accountability in that very complex situation. What assurances can the Minister give to the medical schools this evening? If he can give no assurances we shall have to return to the subject in the foreseeable future.
I shall now return to the White Paper and its radical and controversial proposals. It seems to me that the radical changes proposed in this paper differ from the reforms of the past 40 years at least in one crucial and major respect which has not been referred to. Unlike the reforms of the past these controversial reforms, unless they are modified, can disturb, undermine and change the relationship of trust which has existed between patient and doctor.
Some noble Lords, and in particular the medical Peers, will recall that it was the view of the late Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, a distinguished President of the General Medical Council, that the essence of the health transaction was to be found in the relationship between doctor and patient. That relationship was one of trust. That trust should not be undermined. That was his message. It seems to me that the structure offered in the White Paper, unless it is modified, could reject precisely what is most valuable in our health service heritage. Patients will begin to question whether the doctor is prescribing the best treatment to meet their condition or only the best treatment which the doctor's budget can afford.
If the Government are determined to go down the road signposted in the White Paper we urge them to pause and to allow more time for consultation. We urge them to see whether they have underestimated the problems, to see whether their solutions are feasible and to see whether unwittingly they may cause untold damage to that essential trust between doctor and patient. We say that the reforms should be based on full and careful examination of the proposals in the light of consultation. 'We also urge the Government to test the hypothesis in the paper in two or three areas of the country before they proceed to apply it and steamroller it through the country generally.
So, my Lords, I return to the point made at the beginning of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and my noble friend Lord Ennals.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the first debate to which I replied in your Lordships' House was a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Not surprisingly it concerned the National Health Service. I remember that on that day there were many eminent noble Lords in your Lordships' House and I

743
hoped that a little black hole might open up as I stood up to speak. It did not. I thought that this time I might feel rather differently, but I feel much the same. One thing I am sure of is that tomorrow's Hansard will make a substantial contribution to the process of consultation which is under way.
In his opening speech my noble friend Lord Belstead spoke of the need to achieve the highest possible quality of care for patients and to increase the responsiveness of the National Health Service to their needs. He also spoke about the improvements in management necessary to achieve those goals. Those twin themes have been central to our discussion today and are at the heart of the Government's proposals in the White Paper. I therefore make no apology for returning to them in my closing remarks.
The standards we expect from the National Health Service are high. Provision of care which is timely, appropriate and effective in an environment which is friendly, caring and efficient is easy to establish as a goal, but difficult to achieve in practice—as experience from many countries shows. The review of the National Health Service quite rightly looked at overseas experience in the delivery of health care but did not find, perhaps not surprisingly, any panacea. The standards which we are aiming for are not therefore derived from any external model. They are instead based on the best which the National Health Service already provides. I spoke of the challenge of providing high standards of service. That is a challenge to which many centres in the National Health Service rise munificently. Our aim in the White Paper is to identify the lessons of those successes and to make their excellence more widespread.
It would be invidious to single out any individual hospitals or doctors. I am sure that we can all think of excellent examples from our own experience, but perhaps I might highlight some areas of progress. First, the medical profession has made important steps in the development of medical audit systems to make doctors more aware of the results of their work. These developments have been pioneered by the individual Royal Colleges and have borne fruit in a number of innovative local schemes. Secondly, a number of health authorities have made determined efforts to improve the quality of personal service delivered to patients. Thirdly, many managers and clinicians have responded flexibly and imaginatively to the challenge of reducing waiting times.
Three factors link these examples. The first is that they are not "pie in the sky". They are all solid achievements, delivering real benefits now to National Health Service patients. The second is that the White Paper contains detailed proposals for action to make further progress on all of them. I want, however, to dwell on the third link, which is that progress on all of them depends on managers and doctors locally having the necessary authority, freedom and initiative to take action.
Delegation of authority is a central theme of the White Paper. Ministers can indicate the overall direction of policy in the NHS, but they cannot and
744
should not seek to define in detail how the implementation of these policies is managed locally. Instead, our aim is the creation of a climate of initiative in which individual managers and doctors can take the necessary decisions at the right level. That is the best way to make sure that the benefits of management action reach the individual patient quickly and lead to real improvement where it matters most. This is starting to happen now and the White Paper aims to build on success by delegating authority further—in particular to individual hospitals and to individual doctors.
We should be clear what delegation of authority does not mean. First, it does not mean shirking of accountability by Ministers. Ministers remain fully answerable to Parliament for the spending of the large sums of taxpayers' money which are devoted to the National Health Service. But it makes no sense at all for detailed decisions about the running of individual hospitals and authorities to be sucked up to the centre. Such centralisaion means slower decision-making and that results in a poorer, less responsive service for patients.
Secondly, delegation of authority is certainly not a prelude to dismantling the National Health Service. All our reforms aim to strengthen the NHS within the current framework. We are seeking to remove those elements of the system that inhibit flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of patients. That process can only serve to strengthen the NHS overall.
This approach underlies the creation of the NHS hospital trusts and the self-governing hospitals that they will manage. The trusts will stand close to their local communities. They will have community membership, issue annual reports and hold annual meetings to report on their progress. They will be well placed to tap local pride and identification with the hospital. Their managers will also have greater freedom to respond to the needs of patients in the most appropriate way; indeed, they will have to do that if they are to win contracts. They will also have greater freedom to respond to the local labour market and to reward individual achievement and effort. This is a prescription for enterprise, initiative and enthusiasm within the National Health Service, not for its break-up. Nor is this a Government who are bent on centralising power.
We are also delegating power, responsibility and opportunity to individual general practitioners. GPs are closest to the individual patient, usually their main point of contact with the NHS. They are therefore best placed to identify patients' needs and respond to their wishes. The new, voluntary practice budget scheme will give GPs real opportunities to develop their own practice and to get the best deal for patients in their care. Of course, the details of the scheme will need careful discussion—the recently published working paper provides the basis for that—and participating practices will need support, for example, in the development of information systems. But the key to success will lie with the doctors who take part.
We firmly believe that giving doctors and managers more information about the costs of their work puts them in a better position to achieve maximum benefit from it. That explains the

745
important proposals in the White Paper for tackling the wide variations in prescribing costs among general practitioners. It is remarkable that prescribing costs in some areas run at twice the level per head of population as in other areas. That cannot be helping the NHS as a whole to achieve the maximum benefit from the resources available. We shall therefore introduce a system of firm, realistic budgets for drug costs for each regional health authority and family practitioner committee. That will enable indicative budgets to he set for GP practices, so encouraging prudent prescribing by individual doctors. At each stage the budget set will reflect sensible and realistic assumptions about patients' needs, prescribing patterns and the introduction of new drugs. We have again published a working paper that sets out fuller details of how the scheme will operate and also explains how savings can be reinvested in other areas of primary health care.
Let me make one point perfectly clear. The drug budget scheme will not in any circumstances mean that patients will fail to get the treatment that they need. The budgets will be realistic and individual patients will continue to receive all the treatment that they need for as long as they need it. The scheme will have sufficient flexibility to cope with unforeseen circumstances—such as, say, a flu epidemic—as they arise, and good management of the scheme by the family practitioner committees should ensure that any difficulties are identified and addressed quickly. This is the right formula for the effective use of medicines in the National Health Service in the future.
Several of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunter, Lord Winstanley, Lord Nugent and Lord Rea, to name but a few, felt that the timescale was too compressed. My noble friend the Leader of the House acknowledged that the Government are setting themselves and the service a challenging timetable but we believe the timetable to be entirely realistic. Many of the reforms do not begin to take effect until April 1991. Some of the most important, such as self-governing hospitals and GP practice budgets, will grow and develop over a period of years. In the meantime it is most important to maintain the momentum of change and not to allow reform in the interests of patients to be bogged down by unnecessary delay—which is why we need dates.
Perhaps I may give an example. Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to today's date, and today's debate and the arrival of the working papers in a way that shows why it is important to have dates.
Noble Lords opposite, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to an accountant's dream and had a not particularly happy view about the influence or interference of management. To refer to the Government's proposals as bringing a bonanza for accountants is not quite true. I agree with my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lord Trafford and Lord Mottistone that the application of business principles to a service which will be spending £26 billion next year is not something for which one should apologise. The National Health Service needs investment in modern management. The
746
Government will ensure that that investment takes place. One has only to think that an improvement or saving of 1 per cent. on that budget is the equivalent of another £260 million available to the health service. That is why we need good management in the NHS.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunter, Lord Dainton, Lord Richardson, Lord Flowers, Lord Butterfield and Lord Auckland, discussed medical research and education. In fact I think that more noble Lords spoke on this topic than on any other subject. I have taken note of the points raised by a number of noble Lords concerning medical research and education. I can assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to maintaining the highest standards in connection with both.
My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State, in a letter of 16th February to the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, said that the Government were carefully considering the import of the White Paper proposals on the response they wished to make to the report on priorities in medical research published by the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
As was said in that letter we hope to be able to set a firm date for publication in the next few weeks. With regard to medical education, the steering group on medical and dental education, which contains representatives of the major bodies with interest in undergraduate, medical and dental education, is currently considering how to improve the present arrangements for such education and will make its recommendations in the light of the White Paper proposals. I do not believe that it would be right for me to pre-empt this expert body.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Flowers and Lord Dainton, for their helpful suggestions. I can assure them that they will be fully considered.
The noble Lords, Lord Hayter and Lord Brain, both mentioned management training for doctors. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayter, that the education of doctors will need to cover the principles of management, given their substantial responsibilities for resources. This must make sense. I understand that the profession is already making progress in this field. We shall encourage this trend and ensure that the necessary facilities are available. GPs and other doctors will need support if they are to use resources to the best effect; the Government recognise that too.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Stallard, suggested that we are in the business of breaking up the National Health Service. Perhaps I may underline the point made so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Trafford that no hospital will be forced to become self-governing. No GP will be forced to hold a budget for buying hospital and other services. These schemes are totally voluntary and all these hospitals and GPs will remain within the National Health Service.
I come now to the subject which I think I am correct in saying was the second most frequently mentioned after medical education: that is, the matter of

747
community care. It was brought to your Lordships' attention by the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Robson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. The review of the National Health Service has focused closely on the funding and management of health services, hospitals and family doctors in particular. The Government fully recognise that the interaction of health and social care in the field of community care, including the relationship between health and personal social services, needs further study. That work is well in hand and Sir Roy Griffiths' report and the debate it has stimulated are central to that duty. I cannot give your Lordships a precise indication of when the work will be complete but it will not be unduly delayed. I can assure the House that the Government's policy objectives for what used to be called the "Cinderella" services remain unchanged.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, drew your Lordships' attention to an article in Marxism Today, a journal not often quoted in support of the Government's intentions. In that article, under the headline:
"Kenneth Clarke: Far-reaching and imaginative proposals",
we see this:
"The programme seeks to preserve the basic principles on which the National Health Service was founded and to tackle its weaknesses through a series of incremental and imaginative reforms."
Even they do not support the contention which is held by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Ennals, opposite—
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, has the noble Lord become converted to Marxism or something?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but the road to Damascus has not yet been crossed by me. I was interested that Marxism Today appears to support the government intention—
A noble Lord: So what?
A noble Lord: You are Marxist!
Lord Hesketh:—and that intention is the preservation of the National Health Service and the improvement of that service.
I was very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, for sending me some notes on the White Paper's use of the word "responsibility". Without necessarily accepting that the White Paper is, as the noble Earl suggests, managerially illiterate, I can assure him that his points will be taken into account in the implementation of the White Paper's proposals, including the preparation of legislation. I hope that his remarks will instil some scholarship into the department.
My noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Mottistone both drew to your Lordships' attention how the White Paper affects rural areas and the Isle of Wight. Clearly there are differences and different problems, to which we must address ourselves. I shall certainly transmit the points they have made to the department.
748
The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Brain, drew your Lordships' attention to the proposed increase in the number of consultants. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that the total increase should be more and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, inquired whether the figures represented sessions or people. I can assure your Lordships that they are consultant doctors, whole and complete.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, drew our attention to self-governing hospitals. The scope available to enable hospitals to become self governing, I can assure your Lordships, leaves unaffected every health authority's responsibility to ensure that a comprehensive range of services is available to people living within its boundaries. If a patient needs treatment at more than one hospital, he or she will receive it just as now.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the patient's choice of hospital. Your Lordships will understand that contractual funding arrangements are necessary if money is to follow the patient and hospitals are to have a reasonably secure basis on which to budget. GP practices with their own budgets, and district health authorities for patients and services outside the practice budget scheme, will both be expected to keep funds in reserve to pay for referals to hospitals which are not covered by a contract. Paragraphs 4.24 and 6.12 of the White Paper make that clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked about the protection of core services. I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that the Government's proposals for self-governing hospitals will not jeopardise core services. They will remain dependent primarily on district health authorities for the bulk of their income. If more or better core services are what districts wish to purchase, hospital trusts will have to respond if they are not to find that that income is going elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made a number of important specific points, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised some points of detail. With your Lordships' agreement I shall write to the noble Lords about the points raised, at the same time very much taking on board the point of the noble Baroness in regard to the letter that unfortunately she received only today. I shall ensure that any other specific questions that I may have missed are dealt with in the correspondence and that the contributions of all noble Lords to the debate are taken fully into account in our further work.
The Government are convinced that this framework of increased legislation and incentives at the local level is the right prescription for the future of the NHS. At its best the NHS has already displayed its ability to deliver high quality care through high quality management, so we are not borrowing ill-fitted solutions from other countries or even from the private sector. Our aim is to bring the whole of the NHS up to the high standards of the NHS at its best. This is an aim in which we can all share. I believe that the Government's proposals for reform put us on the road to achieving it.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, the House would wish me to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for opening the debate in the persuasive way that he did and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, for the vigorous statement that he has made. In many ways I think that the House is reassured by what we have been told.
Inevitably, as one would expect, people will be watching the Government with the greatest attention in the coming weeks. One hopes that it may be
possible to have a further debate in government time if that appears necessary.
I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  HUMAN RIGHTS: APPLICATIONS TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION
  HUMAN RIGHTS: APPLICATIONS TO EUROPEAN COMMISSION
  RADON REMEDIAL MEASURES: FUNDING
  RADON REMEDIAL MEASURES: FUNDING